Christian Forums

Quote from: Amo on Sat Mar 04, 2023 - 15:05:29Creationists have the advantage of a single authoritative source, with which to compare or judge their differing views.

First, that is Young Earth Creationists that you are speaking of. I am a creationist.  You just don't like my version of creation.  Second, if they have a single authoritative source, where do their differing views come from?

Quote from: Amo on Sat Mar 04, 2023 - 15:05:29Nor do they have to minutely define or explain how everything operates or came about, as it is most obvious that Creation requires design, and intentional design answers so very many questions and or apparent contradictions which random chance cannot even begin to address. So be it.

The problem with the YEC argument of the requirement for design is at what point is the design imposed.  Where is the design of the oak tree?  So, Amo, is the design in the tree or in the acorn from which the tree grows, or possibly both? Of the fifteen or so varieties of oak trees, Amo, which came about by your definition of design? Was it just one of the varieties or all varieties?  Or was the design even administered in the oak tree.  Given that God tells us in Genesis 2:3 that God rested from all of His work of creation, it must be that the oak tree was there in the beginning.  Which oak tree was there?  One or all fifteen varieties?  Was the design administered with the oak tree or perhaps it was with the apple tree?  Or perhaps a banana tree? [You might want to refer to Genesis 2:9 when you answer that.] It would seem that your knowledge and understanding of design is as severely limited as your knowledge and understanding of science. Aside from that I would appreciate hearing about your experience and background on design.

And in answering such questions, and there are millions just like the ones about trees, please provide your single authoritative source that you claim to have.

Quote from: 4WD on Sun Mar 05, 2023 - 03:59:41
I suspect that my view of Jesus Christ as the Son of God is much in common with Jesuit and or Roman Catholic views also.  It seems that since Amo stands in adamant opposition to the views of Jesuits and or Roman Catholics, he thus rejects my view. Such is Amo's rationale.

BOOM!

Quote from: 4WD on Sun Mar 05, 2023 - 03:59:41
I suspect that my view of Jesus Christ as the Son of God is much in common with Jesuit and or Roman Catholic views also.  It seems that since Amo stands in adamant opposition to the views of Jesuits and or Roman Catholics, he thus rejects my view. Such is Amo's rationale.

You certainly can place me with the opposition to the Jesuits. A second reply on that follows this one. (As to the Roman Catholic, and or Easter Orthodox views that is for another discussion about their beliefs and methods of worship)... But any man who would stand in front of the entire world and utter A 'Personal Relationship With Jesus' is 'Harmful And Dangerous' does not share my view of Jesus Christ and the only begotten son of God the Father and my savior. EVEN YOUR FAVORITE THEOLOGIAN  cannot be this messed up.

This isn't the first time that the Pope has made very inflammatory statements regarding Jesus Christ. In 2015, the Pope claimed that Jesus's life ended in failure: BTW there are several links that could be posted about this. This is only one.

https://www.truthandaction.org/pope-francis-a-personal-relationship-with-jesus-is-harmful-and-dangerous/3/

QuoteHere is what the Pope said, verbatim:

"The cross shows us a different way of measuring success. Ours is to plant the seeds. God sees to the fruits of our labors. And if at times our efforts and works seem to fail and not produce fruit, we need to remember that we are followers of Jesus Christ and his life, humanly speaking, ended in failure, the failure of the cross."

Since that time, many have debated what the Pope actually meant. The most prolific pro-pope argument claims that Pope Francis meant from a superficial, human point of view, Jesus' death looks like a failure, but actually, from God's perspective, it was not.

This is a futile attempt at covering up the Pope's true intent. It is because of Jesus's death on the cross that HUMANS have salvation. It is because of the cross that HUMANS now have access to the Father and can be forgiven for sins. Do all humans perceive that to be a failure? Of course not! An early death could very easily mean a successful life in many scenarios.

After having maligned Jesus by painting his death with such words, Pope Francis now seeks to cut your personal relationship with the Son of God. Move on to the next page to see this for yourself:

Pope Francis shared in a recent sermon in front of crowds of cheering liberal Catholics that having a "personal relationship" with Jesus was "harmful and dangerous".

Here are the transcribed notes from this shocking new message by Pope Francis. Scroll down to view the video of Pope Francis addressing the crowds and warning of the dangers of having a relationship with God.

Sometimes you may hear people say "I believe in God, in Jesus, but the church, I do not care" How many times have we heard this? This is wrong. There are those who believe you can have a personal, direct, and immediate relationship with Jesus Christ outside of the communion and mediation of the church.These temptations are dangerous and harmful. They are in the words of the great Pope Paul V "absurd dichotomies"

It is true that journeying together can be challenging and sometimes it can be tiring. It may be that some brother or sister (in the church) makes us face a problem, or scandalize us.

But the Lord entrusted his message of salvation to humans, all of us, as witnesses; and in our brothers and sisters in Christ, with their gifts and limits, who come to us and make themselves known. This means belonging to the church.

(See the video in the link)

Further resources and links to Pope Francis's controversial messages teaching Catholics that "Jesus failed on the cross" and "all religions worship the same God" below the video.

Additional Resources:

Learn more about Pope Francis's sermon saying "Jesus failed on the cross"

Join the conversation regarding whether Pope Francis was right when he said "all religions worship the same God"

Learn more about Pope Francis's shocking order decree mandating Nigerian priests write him and express complete obedience to him over God or any other man

Why should priests have to profess obedience to Pope Francis but be told that having a "personal relationship" with Jesus is "harmful and dangerous"?

The Church is changing. And it doesn't seem like it's for the Good.

He came in his own name and not that of Jesus....

https://veritas-vincit-international.org/2017/06/11/pope-to-u-n-assembly-i-come-in-my-own-name/

QuotePope to U.N. Assembly: I come "in my own name"
In his address to the United Nations General Assembly on September 25, 2015 in New York, Pope Francis chose not to mention the name of Jesus Christ.  Rather, he addressed the assembled nations "in his own name".

Below is the opening statement of the speech of the Pope:

QuoteFollowing a tradition by which I feel honored, the Secretary General of the United Nations has invited the Pope to address this distinguished assembly of nations.  In my own name, and that of the entire Catholic community, I wish to express to you, Mr Ban Ki-moon, my heartfelt gratitude.

The name of Jesus was never mentioned during the entire speech.  In his subsequent addresses to the U.S. Congress, as well as in the White House, the name of Jesus still was not mentioned. Following the speech, many Catholic commentators pointed out that the Pope speaks in the name of Jesus, and should therefore explicitly invoke his name in order to direct national and world leaders to the light of Christ and His teaching.

Many argued in response that the U.N. function, as well as the White House and U.S. Congress speeches, were diplomatic functions, justifying that it may not be appropriate to mention the Lord's name. It will be helpful to recall Scripture and the experience of Peter and the Apostles in the face of government and religious authorities' prohibition of using the name of Jesus: "We strictly charged you not to teach in this name." [Acts 5:28] St. Peter and the apostles did not obey the restriction, obviously.   Shouldn't the present successor of St. Peter likewise do the same and follow his example?

John Paul II Made Reference to Jesus Six Times in His U.N. Address

(read more in the link).............

[/size]

There are more things that have been revealed in these very pages on GC. I shall waste no more time other then post this odd quote... which certainly should be consolation for those unsaved.

QuoteHell
Interview with the Italian newspaper La Repubblica25, Mar 28, 2018: When asked where bad souls are punished, Francis replied: "They are not punished, those who repent obtain the forgiveness of God and enter the rank of souls who contemplate him, but those who do not repent and cannot therefore be forgiven disappear. There is no hell, there is the disappearance of sinful souls."

And when you dont have a firm belief of what Jesus has done for us...

QuoteIslam

Evangelii Gaudium6, November, 2013: "We must never forget that they [the Moslems] 'profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, who will judge humanity on the last day'."

Address to the President of Religious Affairs in Turkey and Muslim and Christian political and religious leaders12, Nov 28, 2014: "We, Muslims and Christians, are the bearers of spiritual treasures of inestimable worth. Among these we recognize some shared elements, though lived according to the traditions of each, such as the adoration of the All-Merciful God, reference to the Patriarch Abraham, prayer, almsgiving, fasting... elements which, when lived sincerely, can transform life and provide a sure foundation for dignity and fraternity."

AND ONE OF MY FAVORITE.......

QuoteOmnipotence of God
Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences10, Oct 27, 2014: "When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so."

QuoteSacrament of Confession
Vatican radio7 June 15, 2013: "True reconciliation means that God in Christ took on our sins and He became the sinner for us.  When we go to Confession, for example, it isn't that we say our sin and God forgives us.  No, not that! We look for Jesus Christ and say:  'This is your sin, and I will sin again'.  And Jesus likes that, because it was his mission:  to become the sinner for us, to liberate us."[/color]

Quote from: 4WD on Sun Mar 05, 2023 - 03:59:41
I suspect that my view of Jesus Christ as the Son of God is much in common with Jesuit and or Roman Catholic views also.  It seems that since Amo stands in adamant opposition to the views of Jesuits and or Roman Catholics, he thus rejects my view. Such is Amo's rationale.

As my other reply was so long this is posted without commentary from me. I suggest reading it carefully.

This is the basic oath, not the  Extreme Oath of Induction given to high ranking Jesuits only.

QuoteJesuit Oath of Office

The Oath as taken by the members of the Fourth Degree of the Knights of Columbus, entered into the
"I,____________________, now in the presence of Almighty God, the blessed Virgin Mary, the blessed
St. John the Baptist, the holy apostles, St. Peter and St. Paul, and all the saints, sacred hosts of heaven,
and to you my Ghostly Father, the Superior General of the Society of Jesus, founded by St. Ignatius, in
the pontification of Paul the III, and continued to the present, do by the womb of the Virgin, the matrix
of God, and the rod of Jesus Christ [the Church and the Pope likened to a sexual union, the Church
being "the matrix of God," the Pope possessing "the rod of Jesus Christ"], declare and swear that his
Holiness , the Pope is Christ's vicegeneral and is the true and only head of the Catholic or universal
church throughout the earth, and that by virtue of the keys of binding and loosing given His Holiness
by my Saviour, Jesus Christ, he hath power to dispose heretical kings, princes [and presidents], states,
commonwealths, and governments that they may be safely destroyed.

Therefore, to the utmost of my power, I will defend the doctrine and his Holiness' right and custom
against all usurpers of the heretical or Protestant authority whatever, especially the Lutheran church of
Germany, Holland, Denmark, Norway and Sweden and the now pretended authority of the Churches of
England and Scotland, and the branches of some now established in Ireland, and on the continent of
America and elsewhere, and all adherents in regard that they may be usurped and heretical, opposing
the sacred mother Church f Rome.

I now denounce and disown any allegiance as due to any heretical king, prince or state, named
Protestant or liberal, or obedience to any of their laws, magistrates or officials.

I do further declare that I will help, assist and advise all or any of his holiness' agents, in any place
where I should be in Switzerland, Germany, Holland or America, or in any other territory I shall come
to, and do my utmost to extirpate the heretical Protestant or Masonic doctrines, and destroy all their
pretended powers, legal or otherwise [the Order cleverly using this oath of the Knights of Columbus to
drive Protestants and Baptists into the arms of the Black Pope's "Invisible Empire" of Scottish Rite
Freemasonry, further destroying the LORD's Grand and Glorious Protestant Reformation].

I do further promise and declare that, notwithstanding I am dispensed with to assume any religion
heretical for the propagation of the mother church's interest, to keep secret and private all her agents'
counsels from time to time as they entrust me, and not divulge, directly or indirectly, by word, writing
or circumstances whatever, but to execute all that should be proposed given in charge, or discovered
unto me but by my Ghostly Father, or any of the sacred order.

I do further promise and declare that I will have no opinion or will of my own or any mental
reservation whatsoever, even as a corpse or cadaver (Perinde ac cadaver) but will unhesitatingly obey
each and every command that I may receive from my superiors in the militia of the Pope and Jesus
Christ.

That I will go to any part of the world whithersoever I may be sent; to the frozen regions of the north;
or the burning sands of the desert of Africa or the jungles of India; to the center of civilization of
Europe or to the wild haunts of the barbarous savages of America without murmuring or repining and
will be submissive in all things whatsoever is communicated to me.

I do further promise and declare, that I will, when opportunity presents, make and wage
relentless war, secretly or openly, against all heretics, Protestants and Masons, as I am directed to
do, to extirpate and exterminate them from the face of the whole earth, and that I will spare
neither age, sex, nor condition, and that I will burn, hang, waste, boil, flay, strangle, bury alive,
these infamous heretics, open up the stomachs and wombs of their women and crush their
infants' heads against the walls in order to annihilate their execrable race.

That when the same cannot be done openly, I will secretly use the poison cup, the strangulation
cord, the steel of the poniard, or the leaden bullet, regardless of the honor, rank, dignity or
authority of the persons whatever be their condition in life, either public or private, as I at any
time may be directed to so do, by any agent of the Pope, or superior of the Brotherhood of the
Holy Faith of the Society of Jesus.

In confirmation of which I hereby dedicate my life, soul and all corporeal powers, and with the dagger
which I now receive, I will subscribe my name, written in my blood in testimony thereof; and should I
prove false or shaken in my determination, may my brethren and fellow soldiers of the militia of the
Pope cut off my head and my feet and my throat from ear to ear, my belly opened and sulphur burned
therein with all the punishment that can be inflicted upon me by demons in eternal hell forever.

That I will in voting always vote for a Knight of Columbus in preference to a Protestant, especially a
Mason, and that I will lead my party so to do, that if Catholics are on the ticket I will satisfy myself
which is the better supporter of the mother Church and vote accordingly.

That I will not deal with or employ a Protestant if in my power to deal with or employ a Catholic. That
I will place Catholic girls in Protestant homes of heretics.

That I will provide myself with arms and ammunition that I may be in readiness when the word is
passed, or am commanded to defend the church either as an individual or with the militia of the Pope.

All of which I, ___________________, do swear by the blood of the trinity and the blessed Eucharist
and witness the same further with my name written with the point of this dagger, dipped in my own
blood, and seal, in the face of this holy sacrament.

Quote from: 4WD on Sun Mar 05, 2023 - 03:59:41
I suspect that my view of Jesus Christ as the Son of God is much in common with Jesuit and or Roman Catholic views also.  It seems that since Amo stands in adamant opposition to the views of Jesuits and or Roman Catholics, he thus rejects my view. Such is Amo's rationale.

Do you believe our Lord was born of a sinless women, the Immaculate Conception? Therefore completely separated from the rest of humanity in that both of His parents were also completely separated from the rest of humanity? Which basically destroys the entire gospel message.

Quote from: Alan on Sun Mar 05, 2023 - 06:26:48

BOOM!

I ask you the same as 4WD. Do you believe in the Immaculate Conception? If not, you do not believe the same about our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, as Roman Catholics do.

QuoteFirst, that is Young Earth Creationists that you are speaking of. I am a creationist.  You just don't like my version of creation.  Second, if they have a single authoritative source, where do their differing views come from?

You have said this often, but you will never clearly define your position as a creationist. As I have asked of you many times. You believe in creation, and you believe in evolution, but you will never define how that works. So how is anyone supposed to know? Or how your views might differ from Catholic positions which are more specifically defined by that church?

QuoteThe problem with the YEC argument of the requirement for design is at what point is the design imposed.  Where is the design of the oak tree?  So, Amo, is the design in the tree or in the acorn from which the tree grows, or possibly both? Of the fifteen or so varieties of oak trees, Amo, which came about by your definition of design? Was it just one of the varieties or all varieties?  Or was the design even administered in the oak tree.  Given that God tells us in Genesis 2:3 that God rested from all of His work of creation, it must be that the oak tree was there in the beginning.  Which oak tree was there?  One or all fifteen varieties?  Was the design administered with the oak tree or perhaps it was with the apple tree?  Or perhaps a banana tree? [You might want to refer to Genesis 2:9 when you answer that.] It would seem that your knowledge and understanding of design is as severely limited as your knowledge and understanding of science. Aside from that I would appreciate hearing about your experience and background on design.

And in answering such questions, and there are millions just like the ones about trees, please provide your single authoritative source that you claim to have.

Completely moot points. As it is most obvious that God built the ability to change and adapt into His original design. Knowing the end from the beginning as he does, and therefore the ultimate need for such. Also obviously being a God who loves variety. What do you suggest, that the ability in living things to change and adapt, just randomly happened apart from God's intentional design?

Quote from: Amo on Sun Mar 05, 2023 - 07:59:13
I ask you the same as 4WD. Do you believe in the Immaculate Conception? If not, you do not believe the same about our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, as Roman Catholics do.

The immaculate conception is not about Jesus but rather about His mother Mary.

Quote from: Amo on Sun Mar 05, 2023 - 08:03:11
You have said this often, but you will never clearly define your position as a creationist. As I have asked of you many times. You believe in creation, and you believe in evolution, but you will never define how that works. So how is anyone supposed to know? Or how your views might differ from Catholic positions which are more specifically defined by that church?

Actually I have answered your question about creation many times.  I believe in the creation as given in the Genesis account.  There are only in three instances where it says in the account that God creates.  The first is heaven and earth (v.1). More than a few Hebrew scholars tell us that the phrase heaven and earth is a metaphor, specifically a merism, one that in the opposites presented represents the totality of everything being considered.  The young and old is a merism representing the entire population being spoke of.  The high and low is a merism. Ladies and gentlemen is a merism.  Heaven and earth is a merism.  It is the sum total of all the stuff which goes to make up the universe. I would add here that likely included the whole of natural law governing that stuff.

The second statement say that God creates deals with biological life (v.21 )and the third statement deals with the spirit of man (v.27).

Everything else results from those three elements of God's creation.

When God said, "Let there be light", that resulted from the stuff and the natural law.  We know how that happens.  The conditions under which that can happen is known.  And we can describe reasonably well what is meant by his decree of, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens; We know how that happens' not so much in the case of, "Let the earth sprout vegetation".

And we know that God didn't say that He created the physical bodies of man and woman.  Those He made.  Clearly the creation there was the spirit of man and woman in His own image.

Quote from: Rella on Sun Mar 05, 2023 - 07:30:18

You certainly can place me with the opposition to the Jesuits.

You missed the point entirely.

Quote from: Alan on Sun Mar 05, 2023 - 08:43:34

You missed the point entirely.

Your points are easy to do that with.

Quote from: Amo on Sun Mar 05, 2023 - 08:08:19 As it is most obvious that God built the ability to change and adapt into His original design.

That ability to change and adapt that God built into His original design is called evolution by those in the know. 

Quote from: 4WD on Sun Mar 05, 2023 - 11:37:17
That ability to change and adapt that God built into His original design is called evolution by those in the know. 

The idea that we evolved from lower creatures is retarded. 

So if God created the means for that to happen, does that make God retarded?

Quote from: 4WD on Sun Mar 05, 2023 - 11:59:46
So if God created the means for that to happen, does that make God retarded?

God didn't.  So your question is moot.

Quote from: Texas Conservative on Sun Mar 05, 2023 - 12:32:15
God didn't.

Where did God say He didn't?

Quote from: Texas Conservative on Sun Mar 05, 2023 - 11:46:48
The idea that we evolved from lower creatures is retarded.

Yes sir. You are 100% correct.

I am just waiting to see when they are going to suggest the idea of all this trans stuff is simply humanity evolving into their next stage. Perhaps eventually to be Hermaphrodites.... or LOL... evolve backwards and become like those say of a parrot fish who
are protogynous hermaphrodites, meaning that the species' females can become male at any point in their lives.

Quote from: 4WD on Sun Mar 05, 2023 - 15:17:48
Where did God say He didn't?

Genesis. 

Quote from: 4WD on Sun Mar 05, 2023 - 08:10:17
The immaculate conception is not about Jesus but rather about His mother Mary.

That is right, it most certainly is. To the effect that she was not like any of us. Now we know that Jesus' Father was not like any of us. So if His mother was not like any of us either, then He also was not like any of us. If He was not like us, then scripture is false, and we are not saved. But to the contrary -

Rom 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, 2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) 3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; 15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. 16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. 17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. 18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

Heb 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. 15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

Quote from: Texas Conservative on Sun Mar 05, 2023 - 18:17:20
Genesis.

Some people just pretend certain scriptures just don't say what they plainly state. Others insist they mean something they simply do not say at all. Go figure.

Quote from: Texas Conservative on Sun Mar 05, 2023 - 18:17:20
Genesis.

Genesis says what God did do.  I doesn't say what He didn't do.

Quote from: Amo on Sun Mar 05, 2023 - 20:23:29
That is right, it most certainly is. To the effect that she was not like any of us. Now we know that Jesus' Father was not like any of us. So if His mother was not like any of us either, then He also was not like any of us. If He was not like us, then scripture is false, and we are not saved. But to the contrary -

Rom 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, 2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) 3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; 15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. 16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. 17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. 18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

Heb 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. 15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

Yeah so what is your point?  I am not sure, but I don't think the Roman Catholics would argue with those passages you posted.

And besides, given that you believe, I think, in original sin, you are probably closer in theology to the RCC than I am. That whole immaculate conception thing by the RCC is their answer to why Jesus was born sinless when according to them everyone else is born in the sin of Adam.

Quote from: Texas Conservative on Sun Mar 05, 2023 - 11:46:48
The idea that we evolved from lower creatures is retarded.

Incorrect - yes.  Retarded?  I don't think so.  That word just means "slow."

Romans 1 has the answer to that. When society as a whole loses sight of the God who created them, they are forced to come up with something else.  Whether it is an alternative to our creation, an alternative form of worship, or an alternative to God-ordained sexuality, these alternatives are all just a symptom of rejecting God and His authority.

Quote from: DaveW on Mon Mar 06, 2023 - 05:55:55
Romans 1 has the answer to that. When society as a whole loses sight of the God who created them, they are forced to come up with something else.  Whether it is an alternative to our creation, an alternative form of worship, or an alternative to God-ordained sexuality, these alternatives are all just a symptom of rejecting God and His authority.

What have I ever said that would lead you to think that I have lost sight of the God who created us.  So far as I can determine there is nothing in the cosmological theory of the big bang that would cause anyone to lose sight of the God who created the universe.  If you think there is, then I think you are mistaken.  But feel free to show me what makes you think it does.

So far as biological evolution is concerned, I do not have a sufficient understanding of biology in general to weigh in on the subject.   However, I think there are many perfectly good indications that some form of it has occurred.

Quote from: 4WD on Mon Mar 06, 2023 - 06:15:39
What have I ever said that would lead you to think that I have lost sight of the God who created us.  So far as I can determine there is nothing in the cosmological theory of the big bang that would cause anyone to lose sight of the God who created the universe.  If you think there is, then I think you are mistaken.  But feel free to show me what makes you think it does.

So far as biological evolution is concerned, I do not have a sufficient understanding of biology in general to weigh in on the subject.   However, I think there are many perfectly good indications that some form of it has occurred.

It is in the society around us and we soak up what is there.   Paul said in Romans 12 "... do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind."  Soaking up what is around us is the process Paul warned about -  conforming to the world around us.  If you believe in evolution, you did NOT get that from the Bible but from the world. In the same way many honest believers are starting to swallow the worldly view that homosexuality is ok and that God himself is ok with it - which He most certainly is NOT.

It is a Greek (aka pagan) mindset that believes everything has to fit the "scientific" world view.  The biblical world view is much different. It does not fit the rules of logic as we understand them. 

And just what is the "scientific world view" that you seem to be so set against? 

That you think that God is somehow illogical is just plain nuts.  God is the author of logic as we know it.  What you call Hebrew block logic is not logic at all. So far as I can find, there is not an illogical statement in the whole of the Bible.

Quote from: 4WD on Mon Mar 06, 2023 - 07:43:22
And just what is the "scientific world view" that you seem to be so set against? 

First off - it is entirely independent of God. 
Second - it was formulated by an idol worshiper - Aristotle.

QuoteThat you think that God is somehow illogical is just plain nuts.  God is the author of logic as we know it. 

I have never said God was illogical.

QuoteWhat you call Hebrew block logic is not logic at all.

And there is the rub.  Of course it is logic.  There is a lot of material out on it currently.  And it has been used by the Jews for 3000 years.

QuoteSo far as I can find, there is not an illogical statement in the whole of the Bible.

No there isn't;  but you will have to admit there are many things in Scripture that are "mysteries." But if you look at them from Hebrew Block logic, they become much less "mysterious."

Just saying things like "retarded" doesn't make a case for anything, it's basically shutting down a conversation with insults and zero backup, in fact it sounds similar to the way many atheists respond to the concept of God.

Quote from: DaveW on Mon Mar 06, 2023 - 10:40:52
First off - it is entirely independent of God. 
Second - it was formulated by an idol worshiper - Aristotle.

You still didn't say what it is.  There are lots of things, ideas, etc. that are independent of God and formulated by idol worshipers, depending of course on what you call an idol. That doesn't make them wrong.

Quote .......but you will have to admit there are many things in Scripture that are "mysteries."

Being a mystery has little if anything to do with logic.

Quote from: DaveW on Mon Mar 06, 2023 - 10:40:52
But if you look at them from Hebrew Block logic, they become much less "mysterious."

I looked into that some time ago when you first introduced it.  I came to the conclusion that it wasn't about logic at all.  It was more about a philosophical outlook.

Quote from: Alan on Mon Mar 06, 2023 - 10:49:17
Just saying things like "retarded" doesn't make a case for anything, it's basically shutting down a conversation with insults and zero backup, in fact it sounds similar to the way many atheists respond to the concept of God.

The concept is a religious belief.  So if by faith, you believe that what is written in Genesis is allegory, and that God created the framework and let it rip with evolution, at least admit that you believe it by faith. 

https://evolutionnews.org/2022/11/there-is-no-settled-theory-of-evolution/

Article below is from link above.

QuoteThere Is No Settled "Theory of Evolution"

What is evolution? The origin of species by: natural selection, random causes, common descent, gradualism, etc. Right?

Wrong. Too often that is what is taught, but it is false. That's according to evolutionists themselves. A typical example? See, "The study of evolution is fracturing — and that may be a good thing," by Lund University biologist Erik Svensson, writing at The Conversation.

Evolutionists themselves can forfeit natural selection, random causes, common descent, etc. How do I know? Because it is in the literature.

So, what is evolution? In other words, what is core to the theory — and not forfeitable? It's naturalism. Period. That is the only thing required of evolutionary theory. And naturalism is a religious requirement, not a scientific one.

Aside from naturalism, practically anything is fair game: Uncanny convergence, rapid divergence, lineage-specific biology, evolution of evolution, directed mutations, saltationism, unlikely simultaneous mutations, just-so stories, multiverses ... the list goes on.

But this is where it gets interesting. Because if you have two theories, you don't have one theory. In other words, you have a multitude of contradictory theories. And you have heated debates because nothing seems to fit the data. In science, that is not a good sign. But it is exactly what evolutionists have had — for over a century now.

There is no such thing as a settled theory of evolution. On that point, textbook orthodoxy is simply false.

This post is adapted from Dr. Hunter's comments on Twitter.

If you spend just a few weeks here at GC forum, or any other gathering of the saints, you would have to conclude that there is no "settled theology" either.  So then according to your Dr. Hunter and you, on that point, textbook orthodoxy is simply false.

Quote from: 4WD on Fri Apr 14, 2023 - 14:56:53
If you spend just a few weeks here at GC forum, or any other gathering of the saints, you would have to conclude that there is no "settled theology" either.  So then according to your Dr. Hunter and you, on that point, textbook orthodoxy is simply false.

Isn't it?