Posted on 10/11/2009 6:56:59 AM PDT by OneVike
Why does it bother you that some people dont think its an appropriate subject for political activism?
No, the more appropriate question is why does this continue being ignored?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2347175/posts?q=1&;page=301#323
It’s an old tactic. Just amounts to alot of projection about attacks and so forth, you’re better served ignoring it and saving your time.
And yet again, cottshop says more in one paragraph than you’ve contributed.
Do not trust your spell checker. This advice is not just for witches and warlocks, but for everyone. The spell checker will insert words that are not your words. Beware ...
Another new word!
You've walked onto thin ice here.
I have pointed out on previous threads that Young Earth Creationism implies that Yahweh acts like Loki the Trickster. That is, the overwhelming evidence of the earth's old age is either real, or God is misleading us.
Secondly, if God "doesn't do wasteful," then life can't begin at conception--since many millions of zygotes are created but discarded from the womb before the mother even knows a conception has occurred.
Moses is the one who penned Genesis and was as well the one God elected to teach these unlearned newly free slaves out of Egypt. And IF Moses was going to be teaching them about how long Methuselah 'lived' and how that by Genesis 6 the Heavenly Father said I will shorten the time span of flesh living upon this earth. Then that would be by necessity mean the difference in what a day with the LORD means versus what a day means to flesh beings.
And that would also mean that Moses who penned Genesis 1:1 and 2 would have had to explain to these unlearned in the WORD that there had been two different floods for two totally different reasons.
The Bible does NOT say sin first took place with 'flesh' it say that 'the' Adam was the first flesh to sin.
We in these flesh bodies were NOT in flesh bodies when Satan rebelled. At Christ tells Nicodemus in John 3 that just to 'see' the kingdom of God one must be born from above. Christ did not say that all that are born in flesh would enter the kingdom of God but they would see it. As we are told in Revelation about those 7,000 that would be instantly killed at the return of Christ. Those are the ones who polluted the 'daughters' of 'the' Adam in Genesis 6 and those who the book of Jude among other places describe.
Those dinos left the evidence that this earth is millions upon millions of years old, else Noah would have been required to have built a bigger ship to house them when the polluted bloodline to Christ was removed from this earth.
Hardly evidence. Some people believe global warming and alot of the charade that is evolution are science, but that's not "evidence" that they're not mutually exclusive.
For all the liberal demands of "evidence" it makes me wonder why people should bother accomodating them.
In the least.
Only because you know it will have to be that way on the religion forum anyway.
“While I am a Bible believer, I see nothing in scripture that proves there was not a gap between Gen. 1:2 and Gen. 1:3...Plus, there is scripture that does bolster that idea...”
Nor is there any indication of the amount of time between “In the beginning...” and the earth as described in verse two, which simply says the earth was existing in a water covered state.
Nonetheless, what Scriptures would, as you say, bolster that idea?
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Really. How do you discuss religion when only one side is allowed to discuss it.
OTOH, it was your buddies that crossed the line with the personal attacks on this RELIGION thread.
Hi OneVike,
I just moved to TX from CA this Sat so missed this thread until now. I’m also responding via iPhone so this is a short response.
I almost became an Astronomy major before I came to my senses and swiched to CompSci LOL. So I am (currently) an OEC. There is just too much evidence that the Universe is more than 6,000 years old. I’ve also really enjoyed Dr. Hugh Ross’ work of squaring Gen with scientific data.
But let me clear: I do not believe in evolution, and neither do any of the OEC folks that I know. Neither does Dr. Ross or any other OEC person I know personally. I do not appreciate being lumped in with the evo crowd.
Thanks for the ping.
I am pretty much in full agreement with your position. The Bible is a wonderful document, and explains many mysteries of life and this world for those who are open to its truth. However, the Bible doesn’t explain every detail of creation, and there are many matters the Lord has left for us to ponder ourselves. On some points though, I feel that the Bible is exceedingly clear, and to ignore the plain statements therein, in favor of the “wisdom” of the world is to turn one’s heart away from the truth the Lord has graced us with.
Once one starts down the path of attempting to ignore or explain away the historical narratives of the Bible in favor of man’s imperfect accounts, you will soon arrive at a quandary. If some of these passages, which are written in the particular style of Biblical history, may be rendered as parables or non-historical traditions, then how does one determine which, or indeed if any, of the other historical passages are to be taken as literal fact or not? If Genesis is not to be taken literally, then who can say that Exodus is historical? Likewise, if Exodus is not historical, then perhaps the stories of Judges are simply parables as well.
Even for Biblical events where we have extra-Biblical writings, or archaelogical evidence for corroboration, it seems universal that the Bible explains these events in much greater detail than any other source. To toss out the validity of the Bible as a historical document therefore effectively leaves us in the dark about nearly all of the events recorded therein, including, most significantly, the life and work of the Saviour. The enemies of truth know this well, and they have used it to their advantage, especially in recent history, as they have attempted to gradually undermine faith in the accuracy of the Word even amongst believers.
The prominence of these beliefs on evolution amongst the faithful, I believe, are only one example of the fruit their work has borne. Amongst other claims, you will now find it fairly commonplace for those claiming to be Christian to believe that the Bible was simply an oral tradition for centuries or millenia before being written down. Knowing our modern civilization’s inherent distrust of “myths” and “legends”, what better way to cast the shadow of doubt on the Lord’s Word, than to convince people that instead of the most ancient example of literature, the Bible is just a collection of tribal stories, collated and edited at a much later date?
Likewise, how many Christians have been seduced by those who, under the guise of science, attempt to pick apart the Bible with subjective “literary analysis”? Their claims to be able to divine a diverse body of human authors, not only contradict the Bible’s own attributions, but by inference cast doubts on the very notion of divine inspiration itself.
Surely, we should all agree that matters of faith in our Lord Jesus and his redemptive accomplishment are the most important facts for Christians to agree on. There are many other points of contention amongst believers that we should not let overshadow that principle which unites us. Notwithtanding, I believe that in light of my observations above, every Christian should consider that the work of the enemy is not divided, but unified in their attempt to destroy the fundamental faith in the Word. Their work is doomed to failure of course, but that does not excuse us from being vigilant to speak out against the erroneous doctrines that they teach.
“To believe in the 6-day creation and the devolution of man attributes a failure in design by God. God is perfect. Why would he create the evil in the world.”
I can’t really agree with this statement. First of all, what man can know fully the purposes of God when he set about to make His creation? Unless one is sure that the Lord has revealed all of his plans and purposes, then how can one attribute a failing to God based on any observation of the creation, without knowing His intent? Perhaps evil itself serves a purpose of which God is aware, but of which you are simply ignorant?
Second, regarding the creation of evil, I believe it’s altogether too simplistic to say that God created evil. I believe the best definition of evil is disobedience to the will of God. God cannot disobey His own will, therefore, God cannot, by that definition, commit evil. Only a creation of God, with the ability to choose obedience or disobedience, could originate evil. If you wish to ascribe to God responsibility for creating the ability to choose evil, then I think you would be able to make a more sensible argument.
Thanks for the ping.
Are you referring to the serpent that talked?
Permit me to make a simplistic argument (that avoids a lot of complicated discussion): You either believe in God, or not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.