The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

You are correct in saying nothing suprises God. He not only forsees all events, but permits only those to occur, good and bad, that further His plan.

You don't see a paradox there? He only permits actions which further His plan, yet these actions may be good or be sins. Why the blanket directive against sin then? Also the above renders free-will an illusion, since any action we choose (good or sin) which goes against the plan is not permitted.

Flamed Diving

AtomicHorror wrote: »

You don't see a paradox there? He only permits actions which further His plan, yet these actions may be good or be sins. Why the blanket directive against sin then? Also the above renders free-will an illusion, since any action we choose (good or sin) which goes against the plan is not permitted.

I'm looking forward to the laughably vague response to this.

AtomicHorror

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Why does a god need emotions anyway?

That's a question for His creator I guess...

AtomicHorror

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I'm looking forward to the laughably vague response to this.

Wolfsbane's and J_Cs views on determinism and free will seem to differ.

AtomicHorror

Flamed Diving wrote: »

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/

Tee hee!

Nice link- the website could really do with a face lift though. The design and layout is horrible.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

The Bible says so but we haven't been able to support what the Bible says with a scientific basis yet would be being honest

Scientifically we know that many species can fertilize others - naturally or artifically. That is an indication of kind.

"Sparrow", "spider" and "shark" are human classifications for biological organisms (and quite inexact ones at that)

But really different, whether man classifies them or not.

Nature has no obligation to divide itself up into the classifications biologists would find convenient.

Indeed. But real divisions exist, recognised or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
It is all just a human method of classification, not something that actually exists in biology.
Yes

Amazing! Your grip on the real world gets more tenuous by the day: apart from human classification, spiders are no different from sharks! All I can say is, avoid the tropical beaches.:D

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
No, there are real divisions in lifeforms. The human efforts to distinguish are not perfect, but they are meant to convey real differences.
Of course there are real differences.

A breakthrough of light?

You are completely missing the point. It is how we group the differences that determines species. It is a human decision. And it only makes sense when one factors in evolution.

No, alas, no light. We may call something a spider or a shark, but no matter what we call it, it is really what it is. If we classify a spider as part of the shark species, if doesn't become so related. All we have done is make a fool of ourselves. Man's efforts at classification lie in attempting to identify the real divisions, not just stick labels on things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The division is marked by the inability to reproduce.
That is nonsense because you have already admitted that species within a kind can be unable to reproduce.

Considering the vast vast majority of species cannot mate with each other (even the ones that can the vast majority of them produce offspring that cannot reproduce), such a classification is meaningless.

You classification is like saying you can identify a Ford car because they are blue, except for the ones that aren't blue.
Again how is this being "honest"?

Let's say that Ford only make blue cars. Can I honestly say the Ford car has as a necessary distinctive the colour blue? I think so. Does that man other manufacturors do not make blue cars? No, it just means every Ford car is blue - one cannot find a red car and claim it is a Ford.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Other factors also produce an inablity to reproduce, but kind is characterised by this: if two creatures can reproduce, they are of the same kind. We see lots of kinds: horse and zebras and donkeys all of one kind. Lions and tigers of one kind, etc.
That is two "kinds" Wolfsbane, and apparently each kind has only two species in it

That shows the nonsense of your claim at classification.

They were given as examples, Wickie, not an exhaustive list. Here's a further expansion:
Lijagulep
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lijagulep

For example, a house cat (Felis catus) cannot genetically mate with the lion (Panthera leo), though I imagine you would say they are the same "kind", the cat kind (which has been mentioned before).

So how do you classify them as the same kind?

I'm not sure I would. There may well have been a big cat and a small cat kind, or even further divisions. It is the same as assuming I hold that all birds are of the same kind. But Noah had a dove and a raven on the Ark. We know ravens and crows can interbreed, as do doves and pidgeons - but not ravens and doves.

On the other hand proper biology groups them in the family Felidae, containing two genus Felis and Panthera. Lions and house cats are separated by approx 10 million years of evolution.

Or separated by Divine fiat into different kinds, some 6000 years ago.:)

The proper biology make sense. It explains why they share some features and not others.

You can't even say that "kinds" don't make sense in classification because you can't actually classify a house cat or a lion as either the same kind or different kind.

I could at least establish if they definitely were of one kind, by fertilisation.

You, however, cannot even say they differ from a shark if someone has not classified them. You would face a problem if you found a creature never before seen: there you are, in the Amazon jungle and don't know whether this foot-long, hairy, fanged quadraped is cousin to the spider, shark or lion.:D

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Never have I asserted infinite diversity within a kind. They have a finite diversity - the sort that produces lions and tigers, for example, but not lions and humans.
Lions and tigers and all the millions of other species, alive today or in the fossil record, from 8,000 original animals. That seems pretty much infinite diversity to me.

8000 original kinds on the Ark - not all the biosphere was on the Ark, or listed as pairs. The insects, for instance.

In fact how do you even say that humans and lions are not the same kind? Describe the classification process that allowed you to come to that conclusion?

Thankfully, I have the Bible to assure me of my separateness from the lion. I also have the vast difference of physical appearance, and the inability to breed on my side.

You of course believe we are related, it just being a matter of how far back. Again, for that you have NO evidence, only story-telling.

Its all nonsense, nonsense, nonsense. Its just a group of religious extremists sitting around guessing at biology. Guessing in such an abstract and undefined way that you can't even test any of their claims, like your claim that humans and lions are not the same kind.

How is any of this "honest" Wolfsbane?

It is at least as honest as your attempts to prove otherwise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
No, I think the Bible is the source for this insight into biology. Without it one could speculate about the origins of all the species: all from an original self-replicating cell; from several/many self-replicating cells; from original kinds put here by some intelligence.
So is that an admission that you don't have any science here, you just have your particular religions particular holy book.

No, we have both the Book and Science. The latter is limited in what it can tell about origins, but it can give some indicators that support the theory - for example, the ability to breed indicates the same kind.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

You don't see a paradox there? He only permits actions which further His plan, yet these actions may be good or be sins. Why the blanket directive against sin then? Also the above renders free-will an illusion, since any action we choose (good or sin) which goes against the plan is not permitted.

No paradox. The directive against sin is right because sin is evil. That does not mean God must not allow sinners to act sinfully. It only means He must punish them if they do.

Yes, that definition of free-will is an illusion. The Biblical definition is that man is free to make the moral choices he wishes. It does not mean he is free to carry them out.

wolfsbane

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Why does a god need emotions anyway?

I suppose because He is a person, not a thing.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Firstly "holy" means divine. We have been over this, you haven't given a reason why anyone should automatically accept that a divine being would hate sin.

Secondly, sin is simply us disobeying a commandment from God. Why would a perfect omniscient being hate or get angry when we disobey him?

* the "when" is interesting. God exists outside time. The idea that he isn't angry with you up to the point that you commit a sin, then he gets angry with you is nonsensical. So is he constantly in a state of anger towards you. Again that makes no sense.

God would have got over being angry with you millions of years before you where born.

Yes, we have been over this. Unfortunately, you did not listen: holy does not mean divine. It means separate from sin, something of course exemplified by the Divinity.

Your second point is answered by the above - God hates sin because He is infinitely holy.

God may exist outside of time - but He relates to us in time. He can handle the complexities of that. He can at the same time be angry with my sin and love me absolutely. Even in my pre-conversion state, when I was a child of wrath like all unbelievers, He loved me. In fact, before the universe was made He loved me and predestined me to be like His Son Jesus.

As for those who live and die unrepentant, He always was and always will be angry with them.

Ephesians 2:1 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, 2 in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, 3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.
4 But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

John 3:36 He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

iUseVi

wolfsbane wrote: »

As for those who live and die unrepentant, He always was and always will be angry with them.

Unless you are God, this is a brave assumption. You presume to know the mind of God? I know you think you know the minds of every person on earth, but the mind of God? That's a stretch.

wolfsbane

rockbeer wrote: »

If we had been perfect we would have been incapable of sin. We were designed with the flaw - the imperfection - that made this sin of which you speak possible.

We can't have been both perfect and imperfect. You can't (edit: or rather, it would be illogical to) say sin changed us - we were obviously capable of the sin before the sin happened otherwise it wouldn't have happened at all.

So god designed us to be capable of sin and now punishes us for expressing the nature he designed us with.

And you call that merciful, kind and righteous

No, perfect does not mean being without the ability to choose evil. God defined perfection to include this ability in Adam' and Eve's case, so that's my definition.

But Adam choose to express his nature not by obedience but by sin. He did not have to, he choose to. He could have chosen to live forever in obedience to God, but he didn't.

That's why he was punished for sin. We have inherited adam's sinful nature and live it out - that's why we are punished for sin.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
It is all just a human method of classification, not something that actually exists in biology.

Wicknight
Yes

Wolfsbane
Amazing! Your grip on the real world gets more tenuous by the day: apart from human classification, spiders are no different from sharks! All I can say is, avoid the tropical beaches

.......and never take a bath again.......that spider in the plug-hole........might actually be a SHARK!!!!!:eek::pac::):D

wolfsbane

iUseVi said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
As for those who live and die unrepentant, He always was and always will be angry with them.
Unless you are God, this is a brave assumption. You presume to know the mind of God? I know you think you know the minds of every person on earth, but the mind of God? That's a stretch.

You must have missed my Scripture proofs. Here they are again, with my emphasis added:
Ephesians 2:1 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, 2 in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, 3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.
4 But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

John 3:36 He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

And more:
Romans 2:But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who “will render to each one according to his deeds”: 7 eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; 8 but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath, 9 tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek;

iUseVi

wolfsbane wrote: »

iUseVi said:

You must have missed my Scripture proofs. Here they are again, with my emphasis added:
Ephesians 2:1 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, 2 in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, 3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.
4 But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

John 3:36 He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

And more:
Romans 2:But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who “will render to each one according to his deeds”: 7 eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; 8 but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath, 9 tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek;

What? How does that explain how you know the mind of God? Try again.

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Wolfsbane's and J_Cs views on determinism and free will seem to differ.

.....yes, when it comes to determinism and free will, Wolfsbane and I are at different points on the continuum between Calvanism and Armenianism but we are both born-again saved brothers in Jesus Christ.....and that is all that ultimately matters!!!!:)


Neither myself nor Wolfsbane are at the extremes of the continuum i.e. Wolfsbane isn't an ultra-Calvanist nor am I an ultra-Armenian.

God is a God of moderation……..and NEITHER ‘Ultra-Calvinism’ nor ‘Ultra-Armenianism’ are correct.

The risk that ‘Ultra-Calvinism’ runs is Dualism and Fatalism…….because an omniscient God exercising total omnipotent predestination would effectively remove the free will of His subjects and He would therefore be responsible for ALL of the evil as well as the good in the World.
Preaching the Word of God would be pointless in such a scenario, because God would save whomsoever He wished anyhow.
This would be in direct contravention of the Great Commission of Jesus Christ to “go forth and teach all nations".
Equally, in a situation where God exercised total omniscient and predetermined control, no meaningful loving relationship would be possible between God and Man because we would be mere Automatons slavishly “dancing to God’s predestined tune”.


The risk that ‘Ultra-Armenianism’ runs is Deism and Isolationism…….because a God who remains aloof from His subjects, leaving them totally to their own devices to exercise their free will unhindered, wouldn’t a personal God at all.
Praying to such a disinterested God would be pointless, because a Deist God wouldn’t / couldn't answer prayers.
This would be in direct contravention of God’s many direct interventions in the World, including His most dramatic entry as God Incarnate, Jesus Christ and His promise to be with His Church until the end of time.
Equally, in a situation where God was totally aloof from His Creation, no meaningful loving relationship would be possible between God and Man because of our isolation from Him.

The true position is obviously somewhere in-between ‘Ultra-Calvinism’ and ‘Ultra-Armenianism’…….with a continuous interaction between God’s voluntarily restrained sovereign omnipotence and Mankind’s voluntarily restrained free will.

Wolfsbane has previously described this situation as follows:-
“God has appointed the ends - the salvation of the elect. He has also appointed the means - the preaching of the gospel to all mankind. We are not allowed to dismiss the means and still look for the ends.”

The import of this situation is that God doesn’t always get His way…..as the Fall and the presence of sin and evil in the World testifies.

Indeed, God has voluntarily determined that His omnipotence can only be fully exercised in tandem with Humans voluntarily exercising their free will in accordance with His expressed wishes.

The reverse also holds true….that true Human freedom can only be achieved by people voluntarily living in accordance with God’s Word…..both in this World and in the next.

God is neither a ‘control freak’ using His sovereign omnipotence to oppress His Creation ……nor is He a ‘cold fish’ standing aloof from Mankind.
He is a loving God who is deeply interested in the welfare and eternal destiny of EVERY Human Being.

Jesus eloquently described God's abiding interest in our welfare thus in Mt 10:29-31 Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.
But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.
Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows.

He lays life and death as the choice before us...... and all He asks is that we use our free will to freely choose life…..and to love Him and believe on Him.

Jesus came, not to condemn sinners……but to save us……without infringing our free will to choose to be saved.........or not to be saved.....as we may determine.

God knows everyone who is going to be saved……..because He knows everyone who is going to use their free will to believe on Jesus Christ…….and thus to be saved!!!!
…..BUT God does not cause (or predestine) each person to be saved.

……our salvation is the point where God’s omnipotence and Man’s free will MEET…………and both parties VOLUNTARILY exercise their powers ......to save and to believe respectively !!!!

………it is what God has always wanted from His relationship with Mankind……..that we FREELY love Him and believe on Him.

PS Even though God has VOLUNTARILY restrained His omnipotence, He still retains the discretion to act omnipotently any time that He so wishes.......and He therefore can (and does) perform miracles, answers prayers and moves in righteous judgement, whenever He chooses to do so in accordance with His sovereign will.

wolfsbane

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Give me some examples of how someone deserves to be killed?

Someone trying to kill you or me and we have to kill him to stop him. A righteous killing, based on necessary force used in self-defence.

Moving from individuals like us, to the State, I believe it righteous to execute murderers. Circumstances may justify execution as a sanction for enslavement, kidnapping, child-rape, or treason.

Moving further, God is righteous in killing any sinner.

wolfsbane

J C wrote: »

.....yes, when it comes to determinism and free will, Wolfsbane and I are at different points on the continuum between Calvanism and Armenianism but we are both born-again saved brothers in Jesus Christ.....and that is all that ultimately matters!!!!:)

Amen!

wolfsbane

iUseVi wrote: »

What? How does that explain how you know the mind of God? Try again.

That was God speaking. The Bible is His word, revealing His mind to us. Whatever it asserts, is His truth.

iUseVi

wolfsbane wrote: »

That was God speaking. The Bible is His word, revealing His mind to us. Whatever it asserts, is His truth.

Can't find any section saying that God would never never ever ever forgive. Care to highlight it for me?

robindch

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Nice link- the website could really do with a face lift though. The design and layout is horrible.

It's been around almost as long as the Bearded Buffoon has been. If memory serves, it's run by a retired Aussie engineer, so cut the guy some slack. He doesn't have millions of dollars to pump into Silverlit Flash

wolfsbane

iUseVi wrote: »

Can't find any section saying that God would never never ever ever forgive. Care to highlight it for me?

Sure:
Matthew 25:46And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

2 Thessalonians 1:7And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,

8In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

9Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

Revelation 14:9 Then a third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand, 10 he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.”

Revelation 20:13And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

14And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

15And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

No release from that prison.

J C

iUseVi wrote: »

Surely, God could have caused birds to fly with their bones made of solid gold, with their veins full of quicksilver, with their flesh heavier than lead, and with their wings exceedingly small. He did not, and that ought to show something. It is only in order to shield your ignorance that you put the Lord at every turn to the refuge of a miracle. - Galileo Galilei

......yes, it shows the consistency of God .........who Created an ORDERED Universe based on FIXED PREDICTABLE LAWS of Physics and Chemistry .......the alternative would have been chaotic......and very destructive!!!!!:D

The above quote is entirely consistent with Creation Science......which is what you would expect from a great Creation Scientist like Galileo!!!!

Miracles can and do happen......when God personally intervenes in the affairs of men.......but they are the exception.......rather than the rule......and, as Galileo has said, it is incorrect to attribute to "the Lord at every turn to the refuge of a miracle.":D

The once-off Creation of the Universe and all life is an entirely different matter......which DID require a Divine miracle......as none of the current Laws of Matter could spontaneously produce everything from nothing.....or life from inanimate matter.

Galileo's quote ALSO has implications for some Theistic Evolutionists, who attribute, the otherwise impossible, Evolution of 'goo to you via the zoo' to multiple miraculous interventions by God at each putative critical stage along the supposed 'Evolutionary continuum'!!!!!!:eek::)
Some Theistic Evolutionists therefore DO attribute to "the Lord at every (Evolutionary) turn the refuge of a miracle."........without either scientific or theological support for such a conclusion:D

Great to see an Evolutionist adopting Creation Science logic as his signature.........
......the only thing more important, is that you now believe on Jesus Christ to save you!!!

iUseVi

wolfsbane wrote: »

Sure:
Matthew 25:46And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

2 Thessalonians 1:7And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,

8In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

9Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

Revelation 14:9 Then a third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand, 10 he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.”

Revelation 20:13And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

14And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

15And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

No release from that prison.

Nice. Thanks for highlighting.

Galvasean

So God created us, knowing exactly how we would turn out. Then he gets annoyed with us for being the way we are, the way he created us?
This guy has issues.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

The above quote is entirely consistent with Creation Science......which is what you would expect from a great Creation Scientist like Galileo!!!!

Please stop claiming people for a movement which came into being centuries after their deaths. Had Galileo read the works of Newton, Einstein and Darwin and then been asked to weigh in on modern creationism, he might well have rejected it outright. Or not. Either way- he's not a supporter of your world view because he predates it and is dead.

iUseVi

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Please stop claiming people for a movement which came into being centuries after their deaths. Had Galileo read the works of Newton, Einstein and Darwin and then been asked to weigh in on modern creationism, he might well have rejected it outright. Or not. Either way- he's not a supporter of your world view because he predates it and is dead.

JC been causing trouble again? Hmm, still not gonna take him off my ignore list.

MrPudding

iUseVi wrote: »

JC been causing trouble again? Hmm, still not gonna take him off my ignore list.

It's great isn't it?

MrP

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

.....yes, when it comes to determinism and free will, Wolfsbane and I are at different points on the continuum between Calvanism and Armenianism but we are both born-again saved brothers in Jesus Christ.....and that is all that ultimately matters!!!!:)

Then it's kinda funny how you'll jump on any disagreement between "evolutionists" as evidence that the theory is wholly incorrect.

iUseVi

MrP: Sure is slightly more peaceful.

AtomicHorror

Galvasean wrote: »

So God created us, knowing exactly how we would turn out. Then he gets annoyed with us for being the way we are, the way he created us?
This guy has issues.

Which, given that He created us in His image, explains a whole lot.