Jump to content


Photo

Death Before Adam's Sin?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
52 replies to this topic

#21 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 06 October 2011 - 04:19 PM

No. I am not aware of any TE who believes the Bible needs to be rewritten, or that God lied. Why would you think they believe that?


So you think that what makes evolution work completely agrees with the Bible and visa versa? What is of God does not turn people against God, make people question His Word, nor can it be what people who stand against God (atheists) believe.

In the view of many theists, evolution already conforms to the Bible, so such a translation would be unnecessary.


The key phrase is "in the view of many theists". Majority opinion does not change God or His written word. Do you think God is going to say: Oh since the majority of you think I used evolution to create, I guess I will conform to that?...

Evolution cannot be a religion, in the ordinary meaning of that word. Yes, evolution involves belief systems and worldviews, like a religion. But religion is a belief system about spirituality, moral values and ultimate meaning. The science of evolution -- like all sciences -- is just a belief system about particular observed physical facts; namely, about what living things are made of and how they develop over time.


What's ironic about this whole TE belief is that on one hand you include it as part of your religion, and on the other hand you say it's not a religion? That's an oxymoron. Also, I noticed that you left out that there are any facts in the Bible. Does religion = myths to you?

And your preaching of evolution and it's facts, did evolution ever bring anyone to salvation? Where are the TE crusades (like Billy Graham crusades) for Christ? Where are the TE street preachers for Christ?

The subject of creation has brought many to Christ, the subject of evolution has bought zip to Christ. And here's the reason why:

jn 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

God the Father controls the drawing power unto the Son for salvation. What is not of the Father will not have that drawing power. So regardless of majority views, or claimed facts. The reality of what God "accepts" as His truth is plain and clear to which subject brings people to salvation, and which one does not.

Some evolutionists draw religious meaning out of evolution science: Richard Dawkins draws an atheistic meaning, whilst Michael Behe draws a theistic meaning. Since the science is the same for both of them, yet they see completely opposite religious meanings, this goes to show that the science of evolution is not a religion per se, and any religious meaning must be "in the eye of the beholder" or established on some other grounds.

Cheers


At the end of the day, it will not be about who believes what and why. Or for what reason. It is about what God clearly says in His Word. And that what He said draws people unto salvation. And what He did not say draws no one to salvation. When we stand before God, and if God were to separate us like those who believed in TE and those who believed in creation. And there was a scoreboard behind God that shows which belief saved souls and which did not. Who do you think will have zero?

Why is that important? If 1 thousand creationists can bring 1 million souls into Heaven with their subject of creation, and the TE bring no one but could have. Then that's 1 million souls that burn in Hell over the TE message that cannot draw unto salvation. So who do you think answers for the souls who burn in Hell? Do you think God is just going to laugh it off and say: Okay, no problem you would not believe what was written. No problem that what you believed did not bring even one soul into the kingdom with the TE message. And because I prefer that 1 million more souls go to Hell than to Heaven, come on through those pearly gates.

You'd be sadly mistaken.

#22 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 06 October 2011 - 08:04 PM

No. I am not aware of any TE who believes the Bible needs to be rewritten, or that God lied. Why would you think they believe that?

So you think that what makes evolution work completely agrees with the Bible and visa versa?

I would say there are areas of overlap, and no indisputable incompatibility between evolution theory and the Bible.


What is of God does not turn people against God, make people question His Word, nor can it be what people who stand against God (atheists) believe.


I cannot agree that what is of God cannot be what atheists believe. Atheists believe lots of things that are of God: for example, they believe that the Earth orbits the Sun, which is a true part of God's creation. Whether atheists believe something has very little relevance, in my opinion, to whether it is true or false, or Godly or unGodly.

In the view of many theists, evolution already conforms to the Bible, so such a translation would be unnecessary.

The key phrase is "in the view of many theists". Majority opinion does not change God or His written word. Do you think God is going to say: Oh since the majority of you think I used evolution to create, I guess I will conform to that?...


No, I don't think that. Majority opinion does not change God or His written word. But I think that majority opinion, especially majority expert opinion, should guide our view of what is the best interpretation of God's word (Proverbs 15:22).

I wonder why no TE has ever made the effort to translate a Biblical version of the Bible that conforms to evolution instead of creation? Maybe because it would show that evolution is more of a religion than a theory?

Evolution cannot be a religion, in the ordinary meaning of that word. Yes, evolution involves belief systems and worldviews, like a religion. But religion is a belief system about spirituality, moral values and ultimate meaning. The science of evolution -- like all sciences -- is just a belief system about particular observed physical facts; namely, about what living things are made of and how they develop over time.

What's ironic about this whole TE belief is that on one hand you include it as part of your religion, and on the other hand you say it's not a religion? That's an oxymoron. Also, I noticed that you left out that there are any facts in the Bible. Does religion = myths to you?

And your preaching of evolution and it's facts, did evolution ever bring anyone to salvation? Where are the TE crusades (like Billy Graham crusades) for Christ? Where are the TE street preachers for Christ?


Yes, TE is part of my religion. But evolutionary science is not a religion, which is what you claimed and what I attempted to rebut. Theistic evolution is a religious view on the compatibility between Bibical creation and evolution. As such, TE is a religious viewpoint, whilst evolution theory is a science. They're different things. So there is no irony and no contradiction in what I have said, in my view.

For a partial list of theologians who have spoken and written in support of TE, see the Wikipedia entry on theistic evolution.

The subject of creation has brought many to Christ, the subject of evolution has bought zip to Christ.
...
Why is that important? If 1 thousand creationists can bring 1 million souls into Heaven with their subject of creation, and the TE bring no one but could have. Then that's 1 million souls that burn in Hell over the TE message that cannot draw unto salvation. So who do you think answers for the souls who burn in Hell? Do you think God is just going to laugh it off and say: Okay, no problem you would not believe what was written. No problem that what you believed did not bring even one soul into the kingdom with the TE message. And because I prefer that 1 million more souls go to Hell than to Heaven, come on through those pearly gates.


I believe its just speculation that creationism has won more souls than TE. I have heard stories going the other way, such as people who lost their faith because they were told they had to reject evolution science to be a Christian. Do you have any evidence or statistics on this? Just curious.

If someone wanted to come to Christ, but said they just couldn't get past the young-earth belief because of, say, astronomical evidence, I would tell them that I do not believe God will judge anyone harshly for having the wrong belief about the age of the earth.

What would you tell them?

Cheers

#23 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 07 October 2011 - 09:44 AM

Yes, TE is part of my religion. But evolutionary science is not a religion, which is what you claimed and what I attempted to rebut. Theistic evolution is a religious view on the compatibility between Bibical creation and evolution. As such, TE is a religious viewpoint, whilst evolution theory is a science. They're different things. So there is no irony and no contradiction in what I have said, in my view.


There is no theory of evolution. The ACLU payed a teacher to admit to teaching it in class so they could get it to trial; It was known as the scopes trial. At the time it was illegal to teach such things in public school, but the ACLU wanted to fight for religious freedom. When they got their foot in the door, it was a reversal of the former law not a theory.

The only evidence for evolution was circular reasoning, which could be interpreted as anything. A belief about something is not a theory. I may not be able to see atomic energy working, but I can show you the math and prove it powers homes and levels entire cities. In the same context of a theory, I can show the math of why an old earth and evolution can't be true.


Enjoy.

#24 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 08 October 2011 - 12:48 AM

I would say there are areas of overlap, and no indisputable incompatibility between evolution theory and the Bible.


Then why is not the subject of evolution used as a salvation message?

I cannot agree that what is of God cannot be what atheists believe. Atheists believe lots of things that are of God: for example, they believe that the Earth orbits the Sun, which is a true part of God's creation. Whether atheists believe something has very little relevance, in my opinion, to whether it is true or false, or Godly or unGodly.


Here you just revealed what I have suspected. Defending evolution to the point that you do, and now defending atheism shows that you are an atheist posing as a TE.

No, I don't think that. Majority opinion does not change God or His written word. But I think that majority opinion, especially majority expert opinion, should guide our view of what is the best interpretation of God's word (Proverbs 15:22).


22 Without counsel purposes are disappointed: but in the multitude of counsellors they are established.

Purposes does no = Bible interpretation.

Yes, TE is part of my religion. But evolutionary science is not a religion, which is what you claimed and what I attempted to rebut. Theistic evolution is a religious view on the compatibility between Bibical creation and evolution. As such, TE is a religious viewpoint, whilst evolution theory is a science. They're different things. So there is no irony and no contradiction in what I have said, in my view.


What is not religion cannot become part of religion. The evolutionary idea existed way before Darwin. Egyptian pagan beliefs said that man came from animals. This is why their wall paintings were often of half man, half animals. And abiogenesis is nothing new. The same people believed that all life came from the slime (like primordial slime) that existed around Nile river.

And what's even more ironic that connects the dots to Darwin and Egyptian religion. Is that Darwin had a degree in theology. Which means he had to learn about these beliefs. Evolution idea was religion before it become science. And what's even more ironic is that during Egyptian times, the priest were considered scientist because practicing magic and working on medical cures was considered scientific. So basically the whole thing comes full circle proving that evolution is religion repackaged.

For a partial list of theologians who have spoken and written in support of TE, see the Wikipedia entry on theistic evolution.


So man dictates to God? If you do not think TE makes God into a liar, let's see if you can pass this test.

Question: Do you believe that God word was correct when it said the whole universe and life was created in 6 literal days?

I believe its just speculation that creationism has won more souls than TE. I have heard stories going the other way, such as people who lost their faith because they were told they had to reject evolution science to be a Christian. Do you have any evidence or statistics on this? Just curious.


Have yet to see any TE preachers, TE salvation messages, TE crusades, etc... Instead of dodging the question and reversing the burden of proof so you don't have to answer. How about some examples of your own? The reason you went to great lengths here is because you cannot provide examples in each of the areas listed. This is because TE is not about salvation, it's about compromise.

If someone wanted to come to Christ, but said they just couldn't get past the young-earth belief because of, say, astronomical evidence, I would tell them that I do not believe God will judge anyone harshly for having the wrong belief about the age of the earth.

What would you tell them?

Cheers


If age dating were 100% accurate, all matter would date the very same age due to it coming from one source according to the Big Bang idea. Matter coming from a Creator that time does not control, can create matter all different ages according to what age was needed for each part of His creation to work. Something does not come from nothing, and science has yet to prove that it can. A Creator outside of time can exist before time. And live in another dimension in which matter can be phased from to our universe.

So can you show where:
1) Science has made life from dead matter?
2) Show that age dating is 100% accurate?
3) Show that something can come from nothing?
4) Show why that every living fossil (30 existing) prove the the fossil record is not a record of time? Because if it were, the record would have recorded the living fossil surviving until present time as it did. But 30 times it does not.
etc...

So if the person has a problem with age on the YEC side when he has a more huge problem from his own. Then by choice he is choosing to justify his disbelief with one problem. It's his choice. If the person wants to go to Hell over such a problem I say more power to them. Split Hell wide open. Shocked? I don;t waste my time with people who want to nick pick every little detail. If they want justification for a straight way to Hell, go for it. I can bring 10 times as many people to salvation in the amount of time I would waste trying to convince someone who is not even interested.

So the point is that it's their choice. And that I won't waste my time trying to change that choice when their mind is already made up.

One more thing. I am changing your world view to atheist. In this post not only did you defend atheists, but you also used debating tactics atheists quite often use against Christians. If you were a theist you would not have done that. If you change it back I will ban you. You will not be using TE to evangelize for atheistic evolution Here.

Side note: The reason I come after TEs so hard on this forum is because many atheists use the TE world view to evangelize for full atheistic evolution. They come here from other atheist forums Claiming TE worldview which allows them to insert doubt into the believer's mind, and allows them to also insert that it's biblically supported as they are Christians too. Once they befriend a Christian here who is not well established in the faith then they systemically work on them until they lose that faith.

It can be pointed out to them that evolution destroys the faith of Christians everyday, they don't care because why would a atheist care about salvation? I have debated long enough to know how to spot a poser.

#25 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 08 October 2011 - 08:34 AM

If someone wanted to come to Christ, but said they just couldn't get past the young-earth belief because of, say, astronomical evidence, I would tell them that I do not believe God will judge anyone harshly for having the wrong belief about the age of the earth.

What would you tell them?


God would say that Christ matters, so you are correct. What if they wanted to come to Christ, but were doubtful because he mentioned Adam and Noah and we went around telling people that Adam and Noah were complete nonsense because of political technicalities in our schools and scientific academia? Humans sharing a common ancestor with apes rules out Adam and uniformitairian dogma rules out Noah, so what would Christ be? Could we be saved if we didn't accept the message that was preached? If Christ didn't tell the truth about everything, then what parts of it are we going to accept? Jesus is the truth and anyone who doesn't believe on him is either being lied to or not being honest about believing on him. I've found that many people believe other things except the bible, but say they believe in righteousness anyways simply because they don't want others to know what they are doing behind closed doors. The word "God" becomes akin to "I don't do drugs" for an addict when filling out a job application.


Enjoy.

#26 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 08 October 2011 - 09:27 AM

the problem for the te is manifold, first one must shrug how the bible is written for the evo science to be accepted

for instance if the flood isnt global then therefore the the jugdgment of man isnt globalwide either.
the ages of adam and his descidents are also some mysterious poetic meaning that for some reason just dismissable. theres numerology in the bible that cant be ignored and has deep prophotec meanings or code of sorts.

ie jesus claimed a title that by that method leads back to the name of ANGEL UNTO THE LORD OR MALAK YAHWEH,EL SHADDAI.

HE CALLED himself the great shepphard.

and btw the monkey trial presented no evidence of the the theory of evolution at all in fact they lost and and the teacher was fined , the church after the trial and death of bryans lost heart(namely this event) the people did start to doubt genesis then. the only evidence they had then was the so called piltdown man' tooth which was later to be revealed by evo scientists a pigs tooth.

now then the te must ask himself why does he buy the cross when in athiesm the virgin birth is refuted(attempted) by the idea of animals having offspring without s@x.

yet those same athiests havent seen any human do that since then or at all ever. not at once or post the odds of it happening.

#27 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 08 October 2011 - 08:30 PM

Yes, TE is part of my religion. But evolutionary science is not a religion, which is what you claimed and what I attempted to rebut. Theistic evolution is a religious view on the compatibility between Bibical creation and evolution. As such, TE is a religious viewpoint, whilst evolution theory is a science. They're different things. So there is no irony and no contradiction in what I have said, in my view.

There is no theory of evolution. The ACLU payed a teacher to admit to teaching it in class so they could get it to trial; It was known as the scopes trial. At the time it was illegal to teach such things in public school, but the ACLU wanted to fight for religious freedom. When they got their foot in the door, it was a reversal of the former law not a theory.

The only evidence for evolution was circular reasoning, which could be interpreted as anything. A belief about something is not a theory. I may not be able to see atomic energy working, but I can show you the math and prove it powers homes and levels entire cities. In the same context of a theory, I can show the math of why an old earth and evolution can't be true.

Enjoy.

Okay, that's fine. What I said earlier is evolution science is a set of beliefs and worldviews about what living things are made of and how they develop over time. Personally I use the word "theory" to mean a set of beliefs, understandings, assumptions, laws etc. that relate to some subject.

Whatever you want to call evolution science -- theory, belief, circular, false etc -- the fact is some people who are Christian accept it. And, with regard to the OP, in my experience many of those (but probably not all) actually accept there was a real, literal Adam and a real literal Fall. This is what I have been pointing out.

Cheers

#28 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 08 October 2011 - 09:47 PM

Then why is not the subject of evolution used as a salvation message?


I see now my worldview is marked as 'atheist' ! If that's the correct label for how my arguments are perceived here, then I'm not in any position to dispute that. Might come as a surprise to some of my old YEC friends on this board, who helped me set up my user picture and commented that I was "an honest debater". Not to mention my pastor! :)

The answer to why evolution is not used as a salvation message is, I think, that its not relevant. Neither is quantum physics, for example (so far as I know).

I cannot agree that what is of God cannot be what atheists believe. Atheists believe lots of things that are of God: for example, they believe that the Earth orbits the Sun, which is a true part of God's creation. Whether atheists believe something has very little relevance, in my opinion, to whether it is true or false, or Godly or unGodly.

Here you just revealed what I have suspected. Defending evolution to the point that you do, and now defending atheism shows that you are an atheist posing as a TE.


What I was trying to do was make a purely logical point: that just because atheists (or Hindus, or Scientologists, or anyone) believe something, or use something as an argument, is of no relevance to whether that thing is true or Godly. Thinking otherwise would be a well known logical fallacy called the genetic fallacy. Romans 1:20 tells us even the heathen will be held to account before their Creator, because God's goodness and other qualities are evident from the creation: to me, this means it is quite possible for the unbeliever to hold true beliefs about the creation and even about God.

22 Without counsel purposes are disappointed: but in the multitude of counsellors they are established.

Purposes does no = Bible interpretation.


Well then, I suppose we simply disagree on this point. My view is that it is wise and proper to take advice from friends, pastor, commentaries, etc. when approaching scripture humbly with a view to having the right interpretation.

Where are the TE crusades (like Billy Graham crusades) for Christ? Where are the TE street preachers for Christ?

For a partial list of theologians who have spoken and written in support of TE, see the Wikipedia entry on theistic evolution.

So man dictates to God? If you do not think TE makes God into a liar, let's see if you can pass this test.
Question: Do you believe that God word was correct when it said the whole universe and life was created in 6 literal days?


I don't claim man dictates to God. I simply responded to your question about who are the TEs that preach for Christ, by providing a reference to a list of such.

You know I am TE so you know that I don't accept the creation of the whole universe and life in 6 literal 24-hour days. Only YECs accept that.

Have yet to see any TE preachers, TE salvation messages, TE crusades, etc... Instead of dodging the question and reversing the burden of proof so you don't have to answer. How about some examples of your own? The reason you went to great lengths here is because you cannot provide examples in each of the areas listed. This is because TE is not about salvation, it's about compromise.


Honestly, I don't have a problem with compromise, in areas not affecting salvation. Sometimes compromise can lead one in the right direction, if one's initial position was incorrect. I am always willing to learn.

So if the person has a problem with age on the YEC side when he has a more huge problem from his own. Then by choice he is choosing to justify his disbelief with one problem. It's his choice. If the person wants to go to Hell over such a problem I say more power to them. Split Hell wide open. Shocked? I don;t waste my time with people who want to nick pick every little detail. If they want justification for a straight way to Hell, go for it. I can bring 10 times as many people to salvation in the amount of time I would waste trying to convince someone who is not even interested.

So the point is that it's their choice. And that I won't waste my time trying to change that choice when their mind is already made up.


For my part I wouldn't see it as a waste of time to offer someone the good news, and tell them I really don't think it matters what their view on the age of the universe is. Providing they acknowledge their sin and falling short of God's standards, repent, and personally receive Jesus as the substitute for their sins and believe in His name, everything else is very, very secondary.

Cheers

#29 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 08 October 2011 - 10:12 PM

God would say that Christ matters, so you are correct. What if they wanted to come to Christ, but were doubtful because he mentioned Adam and Noah and we went around telling people that Adam and Noah were complete nonsense because of political technicalities in our schools and scientific academia? Humans sharing a common ancestor with apes rules out Adam and uniformitairian dogma rules out Noah, so what would Christ be? Could we be saved if we didn't accept the message that was preached? If Christ didn't tell the truth about everything, then what parts of it are we going to accept? Jesus is the truth and anyone who doesn't believe on him is either being lied to or not being honest about believing on him. I've found that many people believe other things except the bible, but say they believe in righteousness anyways simply because they don't want others to know what they are doing behind closed doors. The word "God" becomes akin to "I don't do drugs" for an addict when filling out a job application.

Enjoy.


Hi jason

I'm not sure I followed everything you posted above, but it seems we are in agreement that believing on Jesus' name is the important thing, and everything else is secondary.

Cheers

#30 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 09 October 2011 - 02:31 AM

I see now my worldview is marked as 'atheist' ! If that's the correct label for how my arguments are perceived here, then I'm not in any position to dispute that. Might come as a surprise to some of my old YEC friends on this board, who helped me set up my user picture and commented that I was "an honest debater". Not to mention my pastor! :)


You think I'm really worried about all that? You have been suspect for all this for sometime. You slipped up and now trying to reverse the guilt. Which by the way is another atheist debate tactic. Chalk them up one by one.

The answer to why evolution is not used as a salvation message is, I think, that its not relevant. Neither is quantum physics, for example (so far as I know).


That's why salvation is not relevent to you.

What I was trying to do was make a purely logical point: that just because atheists (or Hindus, or Scientologists, or anyone) believe something, or use something as an argument, is of no relevance to whether that thing is true or Godly. Thinking otherwise would be a well known logical fallacy called the genetic fallacy. Romans 1:20 tells us even the heathen will be held to account before their Creator, because God's goodness and other qualities are evident from the creation: to me, this means it is quite possible for the unbeliever to hold true beliefs about the creation and even about God.


Making everything into logical fallacies, Another atheist tactic.

Well then, I suppose we simply disagree on this point. My view is that it is wise and proper to take advice from friends, pastor, commentaries, etc. when approaching scripture humbly with a view to having the right interpretation.


Give an example of how the word purposes = Bible interpretation?

I don't claim man dictates to God. I simply responded to your question about who are the TEs that preach for Christ, by providing a reference to a list of such.


Short list.

You know I am TE so you know that I don't accept the creation of the whole universe and life in 6 literal 24-hour days. Only YECs accept that.


It's what the Bible says and I have yet to see anyone prove otherwise.

Honestly, I don't have a problem with compromise, in areas not affecting salvation. Sometimes compromise can lead one in the right direction, if one's initial position was incorrect. I am always willing to learn.


So what areas don;t affect salvation? Is there a study guide that's named: What parts of the Bible you can compromise without affecting your salvation? I'd like to see that.

For my part I wouldn't see it as a waste of time to offer someone the good news, and tell them I really don't think it matters what their view on the age of the universe is. Providing they acknowledge their sin and falling short of God's standards, repent, and personally receive Jesus as the substitute for their sins and believe in His name, everything else is very, very secondary.

Cheers


And it's for that reason you will now have a world view as atheist. Compromise means you don't have enough faith, and you really don;t care to. So you don;t get the theist part here because that's not what a theist is. Compromise is not a good representation of Christ.

#31 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 09 October 2011 - 04:06 AM

I see now my worldview is marked as 'atheist' ! If that's the correct label for how my arguments are perceived here, then I'm not in any position to dispute that. Might come as a surprise to some of my old YEC friends on this board, who helped me set up my user picture and commented that I was "an honest debater". Not to mention my pastor!

You think I'm really worried about all that? You have been suspect for all this for sometime. You slipped up and now trying to reverse the guilt. Which by the way is another atheist debate tactic. Chalk them up one by one.


No, I don't think you should be worried at all.

What I was trying to do was make a purely logical point: that just because atheists (or Hindus, or Scientologists, or anyone) believe something, or use something as an argument, is of no relevance to whether that thing is true or Godly. Thinking otherwise would be a well known logical fallacy called the genetic fallacy.

Making everything into logical fallacies, Another atheist tactic.


I'm not making everything into a logical fallacy, just the notion that an argument is false because of who makes it. That's the genetic fallacy, and it's really just common sense. Whether something is true or false has nothing to do with who says it.

... I think that majority opinion, especially majority expert opinion, should guide our view of what is the best interpretation of God's word (Proverbs 15:22) "Without counsel purposes are disappointed: but in the multitude of counsellors they are established."

Give an example of how the word purposes = Bible interpretation?


Sure. If my purpose is to rightly understand the Bible, Proverbs advises me to seek counsel, such as from commentaries and my pastor.

For a partial list of theologians who have spoken and written in support of TE, see the Wikipedia entry on theistic evolution.

Short list.


Indeed it is. The point was to show there are TEs who actively preach for Christ, as you asked.

So what areas don;t affect salvation? Is there a study guide that's named: What parts of the Bible you can compromise without affecting your salvation? I'd like to see that.


Now this is a great question: What does affect salvation? Can evolutionist Catholics be saved, like Michael Behe or Kenneth Miller? What about Jehovah's Witnesses, who are old-earth creationist (IIRC)? If the answer is "Yes" to all, then clearly beliefs about the creation timeframe and evolution are not really relevant to salvation.

What do you think? Are Catholics and Jehovah's Witnesses saved?

#32 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 09 October 2011 - 01:35 PM

Now this is a great question: What does affect salvation? Can evolutionist Catholics be saved, like Michael Behe or Kenneth Miller? What about Jehovah's Witnesses, who are old-earth creationist (IIRC)? If the answer is "Yes" to all, then clearly beliefs about the creation timeframe and evolution are not really relevant to salvation.

What do you think? Are Catholics and Jehovah's Witnesses saved?


Believing in false doctrines knowingly makes what you believe a sin.

James 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

If you "know" the Bible says 6-24 hour days, if you "know" the Bible time-line says 6,000 years, if you "know" the Bible does not support evolution in it's creation, etc.... Then you also "know" that what you believe is not of God so therefore is considered a lie by God about Him. "Knowingly" preaching a false doctrine as if it were the word of God makes God into a liar. You knowingly doing this means you do it on purpose.

Example: if you write a book on a certain subject that you say is true, and I take what you say and add or take away what is not in it. Then say that these things are in there making other people believe this, am I telling the truth about you? And when people believe what "I" say on purpose about you, even though I know better, does that make it true because I can get people to believe what I say about you? Or is this truth written in you book, and I'm making your book into a lie by telling falsehoods about it?

In today's society you could find a way to justify telling lies about one another. But there is no justification about telling lies knowingly about God.

#33 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 09 October 2011 - 02:39 PM

I agree. Believing in Jesus requires a belief in the bible, so telling others to not believe the bible because most scientists don't is a flat out contradiction. The motive there is obvious "Jesus is true, but there's millions to be made in grants if we lie about the rest of it."



Enjoy.

#34 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 09 October 2011 - 02:55 PM

i almost when into oec and then was challenged by a yecer and reread the bible and went back to yec. as its read and to be taken literally the problem for seejay is where the bible tells you plainly what is poetic and figurative and also that them or(those) are repeated and that is only in eschatology and parables where the figures are all throughout the bible.

so by saying that the first parts of genesis arent literal then what exegis is proper?

men lived certain years and were mentioned and what length of time or symbol does that mean? is 969 is figurative number?

where in the bible does for in six days god made heaven and the earth and all that is therein mean that its not literal

lets do a look at the word yom in that context.

http://interlinearbi...g/exodus/20.htm

take note of verse 11 of exodus 20 and what it says and what it used. its kinda hard to see the thing but it can only be what it says.

it cant be six long periods, remember whom the first person and group heard that from YHWH.

#35 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 10 October 2011 - 02:38 PM

Now this is a great question: What does affect salvation? Can evolutionist Catholics be saved, like Michael Behe or Kenneth Miller? What about Jehovah's Witnesses, who are old-earth creationist (IIRC)? If the answer is "Yes" to all, then clearly beliefs about the creation timeframe and evolution are not really relevant to salvation.

What do you think? Are Catholics and Jehovah's Witnesses saved?


Believing in false doctrines knowingly makes what you believe a sin.

James 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

If you "know" the Bible says 6-24 hour days, if you "know" the Bible time-line says 6,000 years, if you "know" the Bible does not support evolution in it's creation, etc.... Then you also "know" that what you believe is not of God so therefore is considered a lie by God about Him. "Knowingly" preaching a false doctrine as if it were the word of God makes God into a liar. You knowingly doing this means you do it on purpose.

Example: if you write a book on a certain subject that you say is true, and I take what you say and add or take away what is not in it. Then say that these things are in there making other people believe this, am I telling the truth about you? And when people believe what "I" say on purpose about you, even though I know better, does that make it true because I can get people to believe what I say about you? Or is this truth written in you book, and I'm making your book into a lie by telling falsehoods about it?

In today's society you could find a way to justify telling lies about one another. But there is no justification about telling lies knowingly about God.


Thanks, that is food for thought. However, I can't figure out from your response whether in your view Catholic evolutionists or JW OECs are saved.

This is similar to our conversation recently about people not taking responsibility for their wrongdoing by trying to put the blame on their genetics, their upbringing etc. And you made the point, which I agree with, that that we will be judged for doing what we know to be sinful -- and accordingly the innocent child, the mentally deranged etc. will not be judged by God the same as you and me.

Jeremiah 17:10 I the Lord search the heart and test the mind, to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his deeds.

1 Corinthians 4:3-5 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself. For I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive his commendation from God.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

So what about those who, in all honesty and humility, after careful study, serious consideration of the alternatives pointed out to them, and with the full support of their elders and ministers, "know" in their heart that the scriptures allow for a poetical interpretation of the creation timeline, and allow for evolution?

I'm not asking anyone to accept that such views are correct, only that they are sincerely held.

Will they be judged harshly because, in spite of their heart being sincere, they "should have known better"? Or will God judge them mercifully because they have fulfilled the requirements of salvation, in spite of their other errors -- after all, we are all sinners?

What do you think?

Cheers

#36 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 10 October 2011 - 04:05 PM

Thanks, that is food for thought. However, I can't figure out from your response whether in your view Catholic evolutionists or JW OECs are saved.

JWs are not saved because they do not know God. Trust me on this, their God does not wash feet. Mine does. see John 5:23 "so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father." and Colossians 1:19 "For God in all his fullness was pleased to live in Christ."

They also teach that Jesus is not mediator for their so called Great Crowd, but rather the 144,000 have Christ as mediator and the Great Crowd must associate with the 144,000 in order to gain salvation.* In contrast, God's word says "If you believe that Jesus is the Christ and that he is God's Son and your Savior-- then you are a child of God." 1 John 5:1 "Anyone who believes and says that Jesus is the Son of God has God living in him." 1 John 4:15 In this way they replace Jesus as mediator with their "faithful and discreet slave" or "governing body" or writing committee. If a JW gets saved then they might stay in the organization in order to get others to come to the real truth, or they might leave immediately, but they will not continue to support such blasphemous teachings.

I did not receive the Spirit of Christ or the Holy Spirit until I decided that I did not need to listen to those men. Colossians 1:27: "For this is the secret: Christ lives in you, and this is your assurance that you will share in his glory."

They also are not baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Instead they are asked: "On the basis of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, have you repented of your sins and dedicated yourself to Jehovah to do his will?

Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah's Witnesses in association with God's spirit-directed organization?"

I don't know about Catholics, but the majority seem to believe that the church is like Noah's Ark, and therefore required for salvation. They also seem to put men (like priests and saints) in front of the common Catholic, instead of having a direct communion with Christ.

*Please read 1 Timothy 2:5 and 1 Corinthians 11:3 and see how God’s Word compares. “There is one mediator between God and man” “The head of every man is Christ”

If the JW does not know that Christ is not his mediator, then tell him to look at this: “Jesus Christ is not the Mediator between Jehovah God and all mankind. He is the Mediator between his heavenly Father, Jehovah God, and the nation of spiritual Israel, which is limited to only 144,000 members.” —Worldwide Security Under the “Prince of Peace,” p. 10

The heading Mediator in the Insight book: He mediates a new covenant between God and those taken into the New Covenant, spiritual Israel. The total number of those is revealed in Revelation as 144,000. (This is actually very wordy, the Jehovah’s Witnesses do that a lot in their literature and Bible translation. That way people don’t realize what they are actually saying.)


So what about those who, in all honesty and humility, after careful study, serious consideration of the alternatives pointed out to them, and with the full support of their elders and ministers, "know" in their heart that the scriptures allow for a poetical interpretation of the creation timeline, and allow for evolution?

I'm not asking anyone to accept that such views are correct, only that they are sincerely held.

Will they be judged harshly because, in spite of their heart being sincere, they "should have known better"? Or will God judge them mercifully because they have fulfilled the requirements of salvation, in spite of their other errors -- after all, we are all sinners?

What do you think?

Cheers

This is what I think: I believe that God's justice is perfect and that He has set an example for us in the OT and in the NT. Will God come and judge people based on their reactions to how imperfect men have tried to teach them about God? If people are not Christians receiving a reward, then are they going to go to eternal torment in hell? Two categories and nothing in-between? How could that be? Did every restitution for sin in the OT include the death penalty?

In addition Jesus spoke of

1. the servant that is rewarded 2. the servant is punished with the greatest severity 3. the servants beaten with few strokes 4. the servants beaten with many strokes


Luke 12:41Peter said, Lord, are You telling this parable for us, or for all alike?

42And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful steward, the wise man whom his master will set over those in his household service to supply them their allowance of food at the appointed time?

43Blessed (happy and [o]to be envied) is that servant whom his master finds so doing when he arrives.

44Truly I tell you, he will set him in charge over all his possessions.

45But if that servant says in his heart, My master is late in coming, and begins to strike the menservants and the maids and to eat and drink and get drunk,

46The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour of which he does not know, and will punish him and cut him off and assign his lot with [p]the unfaithful.

47And that servant who knew his master's will but did not get ready or act as he would wish him to act shall be beaten with many [lashes].

48But he who did not know and did things worthy of a beating shall be beaten with few [lashes]. For everyone to whom much is given, of him shall much be required; and of him to whom men entrust much, they will require and demand all the more.

#37 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 10 October 2011 - 07:20 PM

JWs are not saved because they do not know God. Trust me on this, their God does not wash feet. Mine does. see John 5:23 "so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father." and Colossians 1:19 "For God in all his fullness was pleased to live in Christ."

They also teach that Jesus is not mediator for their so called Great Crowd, but rather the 144,000 have Christ as mediator and the Great Crowd must associate with the 144,000 in order to gain salvation.* In contrast, God's word says "If you believe that Jesus is the Christ and that he is God's Son and your Savior-- then you are a child of God." 1 John 5:1 "Anyone who believes and says that Jesus is the Son of God has God living in him." 1 John 4:15 In this way they replace Jesus as mediator with their "faithful and discreet slave" or "governing body" or writing committee.


Hello MamaElephant, and thanks for for info on Jehovah's Witnesses. Clearly I don't know much about them, other than I thought they were OEC, based on a door-knock conversation I had with them a few years ago. Obviously I picked a bad example for my question about salvation.

Interestingly, in that conversation at my front door, they held up ID proponent Michael Behe as a scientific supporter of their views, and I pointed out that Michael Behe in fact accepted common descent, including humans. They didn't believe me! I had his book inside where he states such clearly, and offered to fetch it and show them, but they were not interested. So I said I wasn't interested in discussing anything further with them either.

This is what I think: I believe that God's justice is perfect and that He has set an example for us in the OT and in the NT. Will God come and judge people based on their reactions to how imperfect men have tried to teach them about God? If people are not Christians receiving a reward, then are they going to go to eternal torment in hell? Two categories and nothing in-between? How could that be? Did every restitution for sin in the OT include the death penalty?

In addition Jesus spoke of

1. the servant that is rewarded 2. the servant is punished with the greatest severity 3. the servants beaten with few strokes 4. the servants beaten with many strokes ... {Luke 12:41-48}


To be honest, I never thought about the parable of the faithful servant in terms of there being different degrees of punishment or reward at the throne of judgement. I always thought of the final judgement in either/or terms -- if you're not covered by Jesus' blood, then its eternal separation from God.

If you are covered by Jesus' blood, then does it really matter what your sins are? We're all sinners, all equally short of God's glory. But we're saved anyway.

That's what its all about, isn't it?

Cheers

#38 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 10 October 2011 - 07:51 PM

Hello MamaElephant, and thanks for for info on Jehovah's Witnesses. Clearly I don't know much about them, other than I thought they were OEC, based on a door-knock conversation I had with them a few years ago. Obviously I picked a bad example for my question about salvation.

They are half OEC and half YEC and quote-mine, misquote or misrepresent various experts (including but not limited to the Bible) in order to support their views.

If you are covered by Jesus' blood, then does it really matter what your sins are? We're all sinners, all equally short of God's glory. But we're saved anyway.

True, yet not all are saved...

To be honest, I never thought about the parable of the faithful servant in terms of there being different degrees of punishment or reward at the throne of judgement.

But there it is. Why does Jesus speak of some being beaten with few strokes and other many strokes, if there is only one punishment?

#39 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 10 October 2011 - 08:45 PM

Thanks, that is food for thought. However, I can't figure out from your response whether in your view Catholic evolutionists or JW OECs are saved.


1) It depends on what the doctrine or denomination teaches.
2) If the belief openly exalts people from the Bible to God like status.
3) If the person who believes it:
a) Has the ability to discern the Bible.
B) Has access to the Bible.
c) Knowingly chooses to believe a lie.

There are to many factors to judge, besides I'm not God so I cannot make such judgments. But if I don;t warn those who believe things that are "not written" in the Bible, then I do the kingdom of God a disservice.

This is similar to our conversation recently about people not taking responsibility for their wrongdoing by trying to put the blame on their genetics, their upbringing etc. And you made the point, which I agree with, that that we will be judged for doing what we know to be sinful -- and accordingly the innocent child, the mentally deranged etc. will not be judged by God the same as you and me.

Jeremiah 17:10 I the Lord search the heart and test the mind, to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his deeds.

1 Corinthians 4:3-5 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself. For I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive his commendation from God.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.


It's the only righteous and fair way to judge. And since God has the ability to know a man's heart and mind without him having to speak it means that no man will end up in Heaven or hell that does not deserve to be there.

So what about those who, in all honesty and humility, after careful study, serious consideration of the alternatives pointed out to them, and with the full support of their elders and ministers, "know" in their heart that the scriptures allow for a poetical interpretation of the creation timeline, and allow for evolution?


If you cannot find evolution explained in some way in God's word, then what believed is inserted. But God also knew that evolution would be taught and here is what is said:

deut 32:18 Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee.

I'm not asking anyone to accept that such views are correct, only that they are sincerely held.

Will they be judged harshly because, in spite of their heart being sincere, they "should have known better"? Or will God judge them mercifully because they have fulfilled the requirements of salvation, in spite of their other errors -- after all, we are all sinners?

What do you think?

Cheers


If you are a teacher and I'm the student. You tell the whole class to read a certain book and do an essay. And I don't like what the book says so I add stuff that's not even there and basically made up my own essay. Do I deserve a good grade when I knew you instructions but refused to follow them?

The other thing you are trying to convey is that salvation is a ticket to sin. As long as we get the salvation part right we can sin and lie about God? Salvation is not a ticket to sin which includes lying.

So if we can lie about what was said in the Bible, why not go murder, rape, and steal also? They are sins and if lying about God is okay all those sins should be also, right?

You see if God allows even one person into Heaven for willful sin, then everyone from Hell gets to go to Heaven as well. Where we draw the line in the middle of sin, God draws the line at the beginning of sin.

Fair and Righteous judgment cannot include being merciful. Why? Where would you draw the line in being merciful? In fact since you use the word, why not make a list of what you think God should be merciful about and allow into heaven regardless of anything else. Do you see the problem? Being merciful does not really have any defining line between right and wrong.

Examples: Do you think a child molester that was molested their selves get mercy because they continued the sin and made someone else suffer? Do you think a murderer should get mercy because he was beaten when he was a child?

God can only show us mercy while we are here on this earth. When we get to the judgment, exact right from wrong is what will be judged. The only leeway we get will be our knowledge about right and wrong and what we did with it. Like what I said before that you agreed with will be the only leeway.

But let's put this into better terms. Let's say that the rights read to you when you get arrested is the word of God. Now if you know the word and what it says about right from wrong, in the court room you cannot claim that your rights were not read to you. The supreme judge (God) will know your heart and will know better. But let's say your rights (God's word) was not read to you. So even though you did understand some, you did not understand most all of it. The supreme judge will have no choice but to show you leniency, not mercy, for you lack of knowledge.

The atheist, on the other hand, was read the word but refused to listen. How else could he know to be against God if he did not already know Him? A person cannot be against what does not exist. So being an atheist shows you knew the right thing, knew what to read, but refused it even if it were read to you. The supreme judge (God) this time would have to use the full measure of the law. Why? If I move to another state or even country. And I live there most all my life and never read their law book. And one day I break a law that I did not know existed. And I am taken into court and I say: Judge, I did not know that law existed. Truly I would not have done it if I had known. The judge looks at my record and says: You have lived here for 30 years, why did you not ever pick up a law book and know what the law was? What excuse could I use? Nothing. There is no excuse for not doing what I should have done.

Here's the problem. If by what he does with me determines what he must do with everyone else. Then if he let's me off then everyone else must go free also. Understand. There is no mercy for being ignorant on purpose.

#40 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 10 October 2011 - 10:15 PM

Fair and Righteous judgment cannot include being merciful. Why? Where would you draw the line in being merciful? In fact since you use the word, why not make a list of what you think God should be merciful about and allow into heaven regardless of anything else. Do you see the problem? Being merciful does not really have any defining line between right and wrong.


Yes, I see the problem. It was a mistake to use the word "merciful" in the context of God's final judgement -- it will be the time for righteous justice, not the merciful overlooking of our wrongs.

I will ponder your other thoughts and respond.

Cheers




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users