GCM Home | Your Posts | Rules | DONATE | Bookstore | RSS | Facebook | Twitter | FAQs

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10
51
Philosophy / Re: Can a Christian support evolution?
« Last post by Jd34 on Yesterday at 04:21:19 PM »
Dear S.M.

The use of the term "spontaneously create" is a reference to the omnipotence of the Creator. Either we accept that He made this creation - or we go with the scientists and their crazy "big bang" idea.  If the latter then we need to embrace the concept that physical matter can create itself somehow.  This would negate the basic principle of all belief in His omnipotence, that sentience can create insentience but not the other way around. 

For example - your deeper skin layers and your blood carry the sentient force of life in them.  If there is damage to any part with which they come in contact then they can create a repair or a new part.  This power to repair comes from sentience.

On the other hand your finger nails and any hair on your body, although they are created by the sentient life force in the body, they are not in themselves sentient (i.e. they do not carry a sentient life force) or in common language 'they are dead matter' even though they are still an essential part of your body.  Nails and hair cannot repair themselves if damaged, neither can they repair any other part with which they come into contact.  This is an imperfect analogy -  which is an attempt to explain the principle that sentience can create insentience but not the other way around. 

Hence the 'big bang' idea is flawed because it involves only insentient matter which could never become alive in the way we see all living things.  Dead matter cannot create living creatures. And since we see that there are living creatures - then we must come back to rely on the omnipotent Creator.

So if we accept that the Creator is the principle and omnipotent (all powerful) sentient force in the universe, then He has no limits to what He can do.  He has delegated this mundane function to Mother Nature - so that He can sit back 'as it were' and keep a watchful eye over all that goes on while She gets busy with all the detailed running of things.  Hence She must carry that omnipotence as an inheritance from Him.  So She can create from air, fire, water and earth any form which she wishes spontaneously. There is no doubt about it.  Creatures do not have to change from one form into another.  If we go down the route of doubt about this we end up with the unsolvable "which came first the chicken or the egg".  i.e. was it a microbe or amoeba which came as the first living creature.

In Genesis 11 & 12 it says - And God (the Creator) said (Willed) let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself; and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind. And God saw that it was good.

This is a statement of a basic principle. That first life forms are spontaneously created (by Him or Him in the form of His secret agent), after that they reproduce with their seed (or sperm or whatever).  It does not say that He created the seeds and planted them. So the answer to the question, "which came first the chicken or the egg?" is that the Creator came first with the knowledge of how to create a chicken  (i.e. not an egg).

We should not fall in to the limiting idea that the Creator has created all this and retired from it all.  He still has the power to do anything He wishes at any time.  He was not made less by bringing this creation into being.  He is here and now with us.  (The Kingdom of God is at hand) i.e. is right here now.

We must accept the authority of the scripture.  Because it has originated from the perfect minds of those great and holy human beings who have seen with their own intellect the things which they have attempted to describe for us.  Any human language will show up deficiencies when it tries to explain the unexplainable - so we must allow for that when we read scripture.  And remember all we ever read in English has been through the mill many times with translation and language change, word meaning change etc. So the original power in some scripture has been a bit lost.

Sorry its a bit of a drawn out answer - but your query was a very important one and very relevant . I have tried my best to explain.

Best wishes

Science tell us that something can come from nothing..

I don't have a problem with a Big Bang when God spoke the world in to existence. Let there be light - and POW!! 
52
History Forum / Re: Why???
« Last post by Jd34 on Yesterday at 04:16:46 PM »
In the past groups of people have been isolated from other groups of people. Separated by oceans.. So no intermingling had taken place..

What happens is that you have a certain gene pool that breeds with itself over time and certain phenotypic traits begin to emerge and dominate. Also culture changes along with language over time.

Just Good O'l solid science.

There is nothing static about Gods creations..we all live in a dynamic world that is always changing....even us ( I have wrinkles now!  ::frown::)

53
Philosophy / Re: Can a Christian support evolution?
« Last post by Dr. Alan on Yesterday at 04:11:57 PM »
Dear S.M.

The use of the term "spontaneously create" is a reference to the omnipotence of the Creator. Either we accept that He made this creation - or we go with the scientists and their crazy "big bang" idea.  If the latter then we need to embrace the concept that physical matter can create itself somehow.  This would negate the basic principle of all belief in His omnipotence, that sentience can create insentience but not the other way around. 

For example - your deeper skin layers and your blood carry the sentient force of life in them.  If there is damage to any part with which they come in contact then they can create a repair or a new part.  This power to repair comes from sentience.

On the other hand your finger nails and any hair on your body, although they are created by the sentient life force in the body, they are not in themselves sentient (i.e. they do not carry a sentient life force) or in common language 'they are dead matter' even though they are still an essential part of your body.  Nails and hair cannot repair themselves if damaged, neither can they repair any other part with which they come into contact.  This is an imperfect analogy -  which is an attempt to explain the principle that sentience can create insentience but not the other way around. 

Hence the 'big bang' idea is flawed because it involves only insentient matter which could never become alive in the way we see all living things.  Dead matter cannot create living creatures. And since we see that there are living creatures - then we must come back to rely on the omnipotent Creator.

So if we accept that the Creator is the principle and omnipotent (all powerful) sentient force in the universe, then He has no limits to what He can do.  He has delegated this mundane function to Mother Nature - so that He can sit back 'as it were' and keep a watchful eye over all that goes on while She gets busy with all the detailed running of things.  Hence She must carry that omnipotence as an inheritance from Him.  So She can create from air, fire, water and earth any form which she wishes spontaneously. There is no doubt about it.  Creatures do not have to change from one form into another.  If we go down the route of doubt about this we end up with the unsolvable "which came first the chicken or the egg".  i.e. was it a microbe or amoeba which came as the first living creature.

In Genesis 11 & 12 it says - And God (the Creator) said (Willed) let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself; and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind. And God saw that it was good.

This is a statement of a basic principle. That first life forms are spontaneously created (by Him or Him in the form of His secret agent), after that they reproduce with their seed (or sperm or whatever).  It does not say that He created the seeds and planted them. So the answer to the question, "which came first the chicken or the egg?" is that the Creator came first with the knowledge of how to create a chicken  (i.e. not an egg).

We should not fall in to the limiting idea that the Creator has created all this and retired from it all.  He still has the power to do anything He wishes at any time.  He was not made less by bringing this creation into being.  He is here and now with us.  (The Kingdom of God is at hand) i.e. is right here now.

We must accept the authority of the scripture.  Because it has originated from the perfect minds of those great and holy human beings who have seen with their own intellect the things which they have attempted to describe for us.  Any human language will show up deficiencies when it tries to explain the unexplainable - so we must allow for that when we read scripture.  And remember all we ever read in English has been through the mill many times with translation and language change, word meaning change etc. So the original power in some scripture has been a bit lost.

Sorry its a bit of a drawn out answer - but your query was a very important one and very relevant . I have tried my best to explain.

Best wishes

 
54
Theology Forum / Re: What saves and what doesn't save.
« Last post by Jd34 on Yesterday at 03:57:15 PM »
So who cares about the differences in the translations of Gods word ?
You left out the "Cotton Patch Version".........any reason?

I don't know of any "cotton patch" versions. The point is that salvation does not rest in scripture.. Well maybe in the KJV only.  ::lookaround::
55
Christian Politics Forum / Re: Self decevied
« Last post by mclees8 on Yesterday at 03:45:39 PM »
TS, all of us are tasked to do our part in saving the world, but a person's job can be done well and in Keeping with a person's faith without overtly evangelizing. St Francis said preach the Gospel and use words if necessary. I work in the oil business and not every second or even every minute is an evangelism opportunity, but it is an opportunity to do what is right as my faith guides me as yours does you. We preach a sermon by the way we conduct ourselves and treat people.  McLeese is contending that a Christian can't be a good President.  A Christian will know right from wrong, whether he can convince a majority of the country to follow or not. Better a leader with faith guided good sense than not, it seems to me.

I am not saying a Christian could not be a good president. I am say one cannot be the servant of Christ in that office by virtue of the office. Here what I am saying though that if one understood the nature of the office as a believer he should never seek it.  Would you fill out an application to work at a bar or a strip club. I know that we do not witness by word of mouth only but our walk should be a testimony.  Most who want ot be president are people of personal ambition.  The president serves the people but cannot serve Christ.  If I could not in the oval office on TV before the whole world say Jesus is Lord of All and died for our sins then he should not even try for that office. Jesus is our witness before the whole world. It is this free world modernday church that has lost sight of what our witness is and how many died for it. If we have to be ashamed of Jesus before men then Christ will also be of us before the Father
56
Theology Forum / Re: The greatest unused power in the world today....
« Last post by grace on Yesterday at 03:44:07 PM »


Sorry grace---you are a tough act to follow. Pentecost and Caesarea are the only two manifestations of the Holy Spirit we read about that "fell." First upon the apostles in Jerusalem and approximately ten year later upon the Gentiles.
If you note in Acts 6:6-8 the "power" came by the laying on of apostolic hands.
Note that Philip was one of the seven who had hands laid on him. we find him in Samaria  preaching the word of God and baptizing, but he laid hands on no one. It took Peter and John to pass this power on by the laying on of their hands. (v.17).

As I said before that laying on of hands is one way to receive. Believing in faith is the way to receive the baptism with the Holy Spirit. Jesus said in Mark 17 that THOSE THAT BELIEVE signs would follow. It does not say that you have to have hands laid on you.'
Acts 2 The Holy Spirit was poured out on them (no laying on of hands)
Acts 10 No laying on of hands
Acts 19 hands laid on them
Acts 9:17 A believer laid hands on Paul
You can be alone anywhere to believe and receive.

Quote
Interesting that at Pentecost only the twelve were speaking in tongues, and working miracles and in Caesarea, Cornelius and his household spoke in tongues, no report by Peter that Cornelius and his household worked miracles.
It was not just the 12 on the day of Pentecost...there were 120 in the upper room. The Holy Ghost fell on them ALL.
Cornelius did speak in tongues...one of the manifestations of the Holy Spirit.



Quote
Question: Since you believe this manifestation of the Holy Spirit is still active today, why had not Peter seen this manifestation of the Spirit in approximately ten years, or as he said in verse 15 of chapter 11 "As I began to speak the Holy Spirit FELL on them as upon us (the apostles) in the BEGINNING (meaning Pentecost)?
Where do you get that the Holy Spirit did not manifest in anyone for 10 years?
You added the apostles to the Word it does not say it was just the apostles....that is your words! Who was with Peter at Cornelius house? Brethren from Joppa! So that disproves your theory of just the 12 received!


Quote
Note in Acts 4 where "about five thousand BELIEVED" in Jerusalem from Peter and John preaching Jesus  there is no mention of the Holy Spirit falling on these believers. I know you will have an educated answer backed by scripture, so edify us grace, please edify.....:)
It is not recorded that Paul did either when Ananias laid hands on him. But we know he spoke in tongues more than
all those at Corinthians (Corinthians14:18)


Quote
Your ask: "Can I ask another question...Was the Great commission intended for the entire church age? Sure was, how else would the men of today receive the word and believe that "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God"? (Romans 10:17).[/quote/] So answer  my question in my last post... Why would go into all the world and preach be for all ages and not the signs that follow to confirm His Word?


Quote
My question: When do you believe the "church age will end"?
Please wrap you answer around Ephesians 3:21. "Unto him be the glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end."
Love you grace---keep a punching....:)
Good question! Let me think on this one!
57
Theology Forum / Re: If we suffer like Paul, shall we enter the heaven?
« Last post by Charlie46 on Yesterday at 03:41:22 PM »
       It's not me draw such conclusion,let's look at  God's word, just as Almighty God says:”whereas the path that Paul had walked upon since the beginning was the path of opposition to Christ, and it was only because the Holy Spirit wished to use him, and to take advantage of his gifts and all his merits, that he worked for Christ for several decades. He was merely someone who was used by the Holy Spirit, and he was not used because Jesus looked favorably upon his humanity, but because of his gifts. He was able to work for Jesus because he was struck down, not because he was happy to do so. He was able to do such work because of the enlightenment and guidance of the Holy Spirit, and the work he did by no means represents his pursuit, or his humanity. The work of Paul represents the work of a servant, which is to say that he did the work of an apostle......The course of Paul’s work also contained his personal pursuit: his pursuit was for the sake of nothing more than his hopes for the future, and his desire for a good destination. He did not accept refinement during his work, nor did he accept pruning and dealing. He believed that as long as the work he did satisfied God’s desire, and all that he did was pleasing to God, then a reward ultimately awaited him. There were no personal experiences in his work—it was all for its own sake, and not carried out amid the pursuit of change. Everything in his work was a transaction, it contained none of the duty or submission of a creature of God. During the course of his work, there occurred no change in Paul’s old disposition. His work was merely in order to be of service to others, and was incapable of bringing about changes in his disposition. Paul carried out his work directly, without having been made perfect or dealt with, and he was motivated by reward.....Although Paul did much work, it was all the work of the Holy Spirit, and even though Paul cooperated in this work, he did not experience it. ”
58
History Forum / Re: Why???
« Last post by LexKnight on Yesterday at 03:37:35 PM »
All these differences in the physical realm are the work of Mother Nature (the secret agent of the Creator).  She has unlimited scope in the application of name and form in the physical world.  Look at the number of different species - and then the number of variations within each species etc. etc.  the numbers - over time - are in the billions - and more are appearing all the time.  The application of this principle is how, over time, all the variations of the human form have come about - in language - religion - customs - cultures - including our physical forms etc. etc. It is all part of the glorious manifestation of His creation.  But the soul within each is of the same nature - whatever the outer appearance.  Water - ice - mist - snow - vapour are all forms of water - but the inner nature is the same for all - This is just an analogy to clarify what I said about the soul being the same in each.  The common ancestor is really the archetypal soul - referred to as Adam in the OT.

Sounds new age. The Scriptures already gave an answer concerning the different languages.
59
History Forum / Re: Why???
« Last post by Dr. Alan on Yesterday at 03:18:56 PM »
All these differences in the physical realm are the work of Mother Nature (the secret agent of the Creator).  She has unlimited scope in the application of name and form in the physical world.  Look at the number of different species - and then the number of variations within each species etc. etc.  the numbers - over time - are in the billions - and more are appearing all the time.  The application of this principle is how, over time, all the variations of the human form have come about - in language - religion - customs - cultures - including our physical forms etc. etc. It is all part of the glorious manifestation of His creation.  But the soul within each is of the same nature - whatever the outer appearance.  Water - ice - mist - snow - vapour are all forms of water - but the inner nature is the same for all - This is just an analogy to clarify what I said about the soul being the same in each.  The common ancestor is really the archetypal soul - referred to as Adam in the OT.
60
Christian Politics Forum / Re: This absolutely scares me.
« Last post by Amo on Yesterday at 03:16:16 PM »
You should have been scared long before this. This country has been being Romanized for quite some time now, and this is largely why we are where we are.
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10