Jump to content


Photo

How Can God Use A Cause If Evolution Is A Cause?


  • Please log in to reply
209 replies to this topic

#201 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,727 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 26 April 2017 - 12:25 AM

Others will read our discussions and form their own opinions based on our comments.  They will also form an opinion if neither, either, or both of us is an "arrogant fool."

.Yes, and it will be plainly clear to them how you continually evade and ignore my questions... And I can understand why..

I will even post those questions again right here and now so they can see the evasion loud and clear for themselves..

It will be equally clear that the responses to your questions were given in post 159 as you were reminded in post 185 and again in post 195 and yet again now.  It will also be obvious that you simply ignore those responses and repeat the questions as if they were never addressed.

 

Your insistence on ignoring the responses to your questions does not constitute a failure on my part to provide them.

 

 

God does not speak to us only thru the Scripture.  His creation also tells us its story.  The overwhelming empirical, observational evidence is God's creative event took place billions of years ago, not thousands.

 

"Truth cannot contradict truth."

 

If God's creation is a deception, how can we possibly trust His word?

That might be true IF it were a deception (Which it isn't) "And He Streched out the heavens" Over 10 Times explains why we ASSUME it took the light from stars, galaxies and super novas billions of years to get to Earth when it would be much less..

Well, your suggestion that God inserted photons signaling such events as Sn1987a (the brightest supernova observed from Earth in the last 400 years) would certainly make it a deception.  I even produced testimony from multiple YEC ministries stating this would be deceptive and was a claim that should be avoided.

 

I think "over 10 Times" is about how many mentions you've made of the "stretching" of the heavens argument and I've addressed it.  You simply ignore the rebuttal and repeat the claim. 

 

Here it is AGAIN......

Stretching the heavens will also stretch the light.  This would produce absolutely huge redshifts many times greater than those we observe.  In a 6,000 year old universe light waves from Sn1987a (167,000 light years) nearly 28x longer and those from Andromeda (2.4 million light years) would be about 400x longer.

 

One way to demonstrate what happens to waves when stretched is to make two marks on a rubber band.  This represents one wave.  Stretch the rubber band.  What happens to the length of the wave?  (Hint: It will stretch in direct proportion to the stretching of the rubber band.)

 

This isn't my opinion, it's not the Big Bang or billions of years.  It's not the stuff of a PhD.....  It's 9th grade physical science.

 

The direct, observational, empirical evidence refutes your claim "stretching the heavens" can show thousands of years, not billions.

 

The fossils Clearly Indicate a worldwide flood just like Genesis tells us... Maybe you should trust God at his word and believe him instead of pretending that you know better than he does..

The fossils clearly indicate many local or regional events over a period on the order of millions of years, not a single global event less than 5,000 years ago.

 

I was incapable of the mental contortions, distortions, and gymnastics necessary to reconcile a deceptive creation with a truthful Creator.  I choose to accept the evidence that is the least subject to human fallibilities and difficulties in interpretation.

 

My experience has been about half of "Theistic Evolutionsist" are just brainwashed and indoctrinated by the lie of Metaphysical Naturalism and the other half are truly nefarious "Wolves in sheeps clothing" I am still not sure which category you fall under..

Well, you'll need to do better than something below 9th grade science or claims I've been "brainwashed and indoctrinated" to resolve the questions that led to my rejection of Genesis literalism.

 

I'll explain this again .... try paying attention this time ......

I was raised YEC thru high school.  Never really questioned it.  When I went to university, I was an engineering major so there was a lot of study in math and physics.  All students were automatic philosophy minors.  It was a Jesuit school and I had ready access to philosophers and theologians.  When I realized the astronomical evidence was that the universe was billions of years old, not thousands, it triggered a "crisis of faith." 

 

It was only after a great deal of research, study, thought, lengthy discussions with mentors and prayer that I reached my conclusion Genesis should not be read literally.

 

During my time on this forum, there have been a number of discussions on theistic evolution, and I've openly participated in all of them.  Just look for "Theistic Evolution" in the topic.



#202 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 936 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 01 May 2017 - 07:41 AM

It will be equally clear that the responses to your questions were given in post 159 as you were reminded in post 185 and again in post 195 and yet again now. It will also be obvious that you simply ignore those responses and repeat the questions as if they were never addressed.

Your insistence on ignoring the responses to your questions does not constitute a failure on my part to provide them.



Well, your suggestion that God inserted photons signaling such events as Sn1987a (the brightest supernova observed from Earth in the last 400 years) would certainly make it a deception. I even produced testimony from multiple YEC ministries stating this would be deceptive and was a claim that should be avoided.

I think "over 10 Times" is about how many mentions you've made of the "stretching" of the heavens argument and I've addressed it. You simply ignore the rebuttal and repeat the claim.

Here it is AGAIN......
Stretching the heavens will also stretch the light. This would produce absolutely huge redshifts many times greater than those we observe. In a 6,000 year old universe light waves from Sn1987a (167,000 light years) nearly 28x longer and those from Andromeda (2.4 million light years) would be about 400x longer.

One way to demonstrate what happens to waves when stretched is to make two marks on a rubber band. This represents one wave. Stretch the rubber band. What happens to the length of the wave? (Hint: It will stretch in direct proportion to the stretching of the rubber band.)

This isn't my opinion, it's not the Big Bang or billions of years. It's not the stuff of a PhD..... It's 9th grade physical science.

The direct, observational, empirical evidence refutes your claim "stretching the heavens" can show thousands of years, not billions.


The fossils clearly indicate many local or regional events over a period on the order of millions of years, not a single global event less than 5,000 years ago.

I was incapable of the mental contortions, distortions, and gymnastics necessary to reconcile a deceptive creation with a truthful Creator. I choose to accept the evidence that is the least subject to human fallibilities and difficulties in interpretation.


Well, you'll need to do better than something below 9th grade science or claims I've been "brainwashed and indoctrinated" to resolve the questions that led to my rejection of Genesis literalism.

I'll explain this again .... try paying attention this time ......
I was raised YEC thru high school. Never really questioned it. When I went to university, I was an engineering major so there was a lot of study in math and physics. All students were automatic philosophy minors. It was a Jesuit school and I had ready access to philosophers and theologians. When I realized the astronomical evidence was that the universe was billions of years old, not thousands, it triggered a "crisis of faith."

It was only after a great deal of research, study, thought, lengthy discussions with mentors and prayer that I reached my conclusion Genesis should not be read literally.

During my time on this forum, there have been a number of discussions on theistic evolution, and I've openly participated in all of them. Just look for "Theistic Evolution" in the topic.


..


One way to demonstrate what happens to waves when stretched is to make two marks on a rubber band. This represents one wave. Stretch the rubber band. What happens to the length of the wave? (Hint: It will stretch in direct proportion to the stretching of the rubber band.)

So God used a rubber band when he stratched out light like he said he did over 10 times? Arent you making all kinds of assumptions of how light reacted when it was FIRST CREATED?? Your arrogance is stunning

..
"reached my conclusion Genesis should not be read literally."

Why stop at Genesis?

FOR EXAMPLE (One of 100s)

Should a dead man coming to life after lying in the grave for 3 days be taken literally??

Please answer the question...

You are as slippery of an eel as every other TE I have encountered..
  • Calypsis4 likes this

#203 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,727 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 02 May 2017 - 01:39 PM

One way to demonstrate what happens to waves when stretched is to make two marks on a rubber band.  This represents one wave.  Stretch the rubber band.  What happens to the length of the wave?  (Hint: It will stretch in direct proportion to the stretching of the rubber band.)

So God used a rubber band when he stratched out light like he said he did over 10 times? Arent you making all kinds of assumptions of how light reacted when it was FIRST CREATED?? 

Only one assumption is necessary..... that if space is stretched the waves that fill that space will also stretch.  If you can find an example where space stretches without the waves also stretching, you are invited ....no, URGED... to produce it.

 

Of course, God could always insert waves as you once claimed.  That introduces so many theological and philosophical issues with respect to the character of God and His creation that even the creationist ministries distance themselves from it. 

 

Your arrogance is stunning

This from the one who's first topic on this forum was based on a claim the opposition was mentally disturbed.

 

This from the one who claims an IQ of 165.  So what, when you can't handle 9th grade physical science?

 

So, who is the arrogant one?

 

Should a dead man coming to life after lying in the grave for 3 days be taken literally??

Please answer the question...

A dead man?   No.

 

Of course, the point of the Resurrection isn't that Christ is human.  It's proof of His divine nature.  So, I'll add this.....

 

The Son of God .... YES.



#204 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 936 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 04 May 2017 - 04:34 PM

It will be equally clear that the responses to your questions were given in post 159 as you were reminded in post 185 and again in post 195 and yet again now. It will also be obvious that you simply ignore those responses and repeat the questions as if they were never addressed.

Your insistence on ignoring the responses to your questions does not constitute a failure on my part to provide them.



Well, your suggestion that God inserted photons signaling such events as Sn1987a (the brightest supernova observed from Earth in the last 400 years) would certainly make it a deception. I even produced testimony from multiple YEC ministries stating this would be deceptive and was a claim that should be avoided.

I think "over 10 Times" is about how many mentions you've made of the "stretching" of the heavens argument and I've addressed it. You simply ignore the rebuttal and repeat the claim.

Here it is AGAIN......
Stretching the heavens will also stretch the light. This would produce absolutely huge redshifts many times greater than those we observe. In a 6,000 year old universe light waves from Sn1987a (167,000 light years) nearly 28x longer and those from Andromeda (2.4 million light years) would be about 400x longer.

One way to demonstrate what happens to waves when stretched is to make two marks on a rubber band. This represents one wave. Stretch the rubber band. What happens to the length of the wave? (Hint: It will stretch in direct proportion to the stretching of the rubber band.)

This isn't my opinion, it's not the Big Bang or billions of years. It's not the stuff of a PhD..... It's 9th grade physical science.

The direct, observational, empirical evidence refutes your claim "stretching the heavens" can show thousands of years, not billions.


The fossils clearly indicate many local or regional events over a period on the order of millions of years, not a single global event less than 5,000 years ago.

I was incapable of the mental contortions, distortions, and gymnastics necessary to reconcile a deceptive creation with a truthful Creator. I choose to accept the evidence that is the least subject to human fallibilities and difficulties in interpretation.


Well, you'll need to do better than something below 9th grade science or claims I've been "brainwashed and indoctrinated" to resolve the questions that led to my rejection of Genesis literalism.

I'll explain this again .... try paying attention this time ......
I was raised YEC thru high school. Never really questioned it. When I went to university, I was an engineering major so there was a lot of study in math and physics. All students were automatic philosophy minors. It was a Jesuit school and I had ready access to philosophers and theologians. When I realized the astronomical evidence was that the universe was billions of years old, not thousands, it triggered a "crisis of faith."

It was only after a great deal of research, study, thought, lengthy discussions with mentors and prayer that I reached my conclusion Genesis should not be read literally.

During my time on this forum, there have been a number of discussions on theistic evolution, and I've openly participated in all of them. Just look for "Theistic Evolution" in the topic.

"Here it is AGAIN......
Stretching the heavens will also stretch the light. This would produce absolutely huge redshifts many times greater than those we observe. In a 6,000 year old universe light waves from Sn1987a (167,000 light years) nearly 28x longer and those from Andromeda (2.4 million light years) would be about 400x longer."


"This would produce absolutely huge redshifts many times greater than those we observe"

Your arrogance remains stunning as you avoid answering questions...
You make all kinds of assumptions about the nature of light and Matter when God was creating it in the beginning, just because you have been brainwashed into believing the 14.2 Billion Year paradigm does not give you the right to pontificate to others that you posess knowledge and wisdom that only God has... Just like it says in Job..

Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding, 5Who set its measurements? Since you know. Or who stretched the line on it? 6 "On what were its bases sunk? Or who laid its cornerstone,…


Redshift is neither distance nor velocity. It is pretty simple stuff here. If Redshift is velocity there is mathematically a hyperbolic path that could place the object anywhere along that path and thus the distance is not known. Similarly based upon distance there is a hyperbolic path along which if Redshift was velocity where the object velocity would be correct. Thus neither velocity nor distance can be deduced by Redshift. The math doesn't hold up!

Now the evidence of what Redshift is comes from what are called Z-numbers. Z-numbers occur not in a continuum as predicted by the theorys using Redshift for distance and velocity but in quantized steps. These steps occur on a trigonometric regularity where each successive redshift Z-number is equal to one over the square root of 2. This is Sin(45)! Not an accident at all here. This means that for one set of Z-numbers on the scattergram, the next cluster can be predicted by multiplication by 0.7071.

Cutting to the chase this happens to be a phenomena of too much regularity to be an accident. It happens to be precisely the amount of the area of a sine wave curve above or below zero that has an amplitude of 1. In electronics it is known as Root Mean Square. In electro-optics the phenomena is known as tuning. Literally it is a heterodyne rule for antenna at half waves and the energy efficiency of these structures.

What this all means is that all we are seeing in Redshift is a quantity of times the light passed through an excited media. It is nothing but laser tuning! This is a known electro-optical phenomena. The rules for it are well known and the subject of our standard industrial technology. In short using Redshift to determine distance or velocity is Academic Fraud on mathematical grounds and it is also a manifestation of a completely unrelated phenomena to either velocity or distance. It would also provide for anomalous appearing objects that are definitely close but appear on Redshift as distance/velocity grounds to be very fast.

Most young people who come from Christian households come out of the universities with more than just a "Crisis of Faith" thanks to the Fraud of Darwin being shoved down their throat as "Scientific Fact" they abandon their Faith All together.. You have just decided to take half measures, becoming an Oval-Earther by trying to keep one foot in the Atlantic and one in the Pacific.... Time to shake off the scales from your eyes..

Maybe you should give your "Crisis of faith" another look and learn the following rule..

Trust in the LORD with all your heart And do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He will make your paths straight.…

#205 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,727 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 07 May 2017 - 04:19 AM

Here it is AGAIN......

Stretching the heavens will also stretch the light.  This would produce absolutely huge redshifts many times greater than those we observe.  In a 6,000 year old universe light waves from Sn1987a (167,000 light years) nearly 28x longer and those from Andromeda (2.4 million light years) would be about 400x longer.

 

One way to demonstrate what happens to waves when stretched is to make two marks on a rubber band.  This represents one wave.  Stretch the rubber band.  What happens to the length of the wave?  (Hint: It will stretch in direct proportion to the stretching of the rubber band.)

 

This isn't my opinion, it's not the Big Bang or billions of years.  It's not the stuff of a PhD.....  It's 9th grade physical science.

 

The direct, observational, empirical evidence refutes your claim "stretching the heavens" can show thousands of years, not billions.....

 

Well, you'll need to do better than something below 9th grade science or claims I've been "brainwashed and indoctrinated" to resolve the questions that led to my rejection of Genesis literalism.

 

Your arrogance remains stunning as you avoid answering questions...
You make all kinds of assumptions about the nature of light and Matter when God was creating it in the beginning, just because you have been brainwashed into believing the 14.2 Billion Year paradigm does not give you the right to pontificate to others that you posess knowledge and wisdom that only God has...

Your claim of avoiding answering questions is a deliberate lie

 

I have already told you there is only one assumption ..... that as space stretches, the light contained in that space will also stretch.

 

What you call "pontification" most of us call "discussion" or "debate."  The very purpose of this forum is "to provide a place for honest, educational, civil, and fun debate on the topic of origins." (Source: Forum rules

 

Redshift is neither distance nor velocity. It is pretty simple stuff here. If Redshift is velocity there is mathematically a hyperbolic path that could place the object anywhere along that path and thus the distance is not known. Similarly based upon distance there is a hyperbolic path along which if Redshift was velocity where the object velocity would be correct. Thus neither velocity nor distance can be deduced by Redshift. The math doesn't hold up!

Red shift is nothing more than the Doppler effect applied to light frequencies.  Doppler shifts are caused by the expansion or compression of waves.  As space stretches, the waves in that space will also stretch.  This shows up as a lower frequency.  The math is 9th grade science, it holds up.

 

Now the evidence of what Redshift is comes from what are called Z-numbers.

The evidence of redshift is a change of frequency or wavelength.  The Z number is a measurement of that change.

In astronomy, it is customary to refer to this change using a dimensionless quantity called z. If λ represents wavelength and f represents frequency (note, λf = c where c is the speed of light), then z is defined by the equations .... ( λobs - λemit ) / λemit  OR  ( femit - fobs ) / fobs .

 

The largest redshift from a galaxy is around 12, or so.  Using the above equation, Sn1987a should have a redshift around 27 and Andromeda should be about 400.  Instead, the redshift from Sn1987a is negligible and Andromeda has a negative redshift (ie: blueshift). 

 

Z-numbers occur not in a continuum as predicted by the theorys using Redshift for distance and velocity but in quantized steps. These steps occur on a trigonometric regularity where each successive redshift Z-number is equal to one over the square root of 2. This is Sin(45)! Not an accident at all here. This means that for one set of Z-numbers on the scattergram, the next cluster can be predicted by multiplication by 0.7071.

Cutting to the chase this happens to be a phenomena of too much regularity to be an accident. It happens to be precisely the amount of the area of a sine wave curve above or below zero that has an amplitude of 1. In electronics it is known as Root Mean Square. In electro-optics the phenomena is known as tuning. Literally it is a heterodyne rule for antenna at half waves and the energy efficiency of these structures.

There are a number of phenomena that use 1 over the square root of 2.  I'm quite familiar with RMS..

 

Cutting to the chase, quantized red shifts do nothing to explain why we don't see much larger redshifts due to the stretching of the heavens such that we would be able to see even nearby astronomical objects such as Sn1987a and Andromeda in only 6000 years.  We should se numbers into the billions.

 

What this all means is that all we are seeing in Redshift is a quantity of times the light passed through an excited media. It is nothing but laser tuning! This is a known electro-optical phenomena. The rules for it are well known and the subject of our standard industrial technology. In short using Redshift to determine distance or velocity is Academic Fraud on mathematical grounds and it is also a manifestation of a completely unrelated phenomena to either velocity or distance. It would also provide for anomalous appearing objects that are definitely close but appear on Redshift as distance/velocity grounds to be very fast.

Objects out to billions of light years are measured using the Inverse Square Law and "standard candles,"  not redshift.  The distance to Sn1987a was calculated by trigonometry.  We are able to measure to 10,000 light years using parallax.  Technological advances will stretch that to 30,000 light years with the launch of new space telescopes.



#206 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,727 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 07 May 2017 - 04:23 AM

Most young people who come from Christian households come out of the universities with more than just a "Crisis of Faith" thanks to the Fraud of Darwin being shoved down their throat as "Scientific Fact" they abandon their Faith All together.. You have just decided to take half measures, becoming an Oval-Earther by trying to keep one foot in the Atlantic and one in the Pacific.... Time to shake off the scales from your eyes..

Maybe you should give your "Crisis of faith" another look and learn the following rule..

Trust in the LORD with all your heart And do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He will make your paths straight.…

Most of the ones I've met have said they left their belief because their mentors took your attitude..... "The Bible says it, believe it, end of discussion." 

 

I know if my mentors had said that, I would have left the faith.  Instead, they told me to review Genesis with an eye more toward the moral and spiritual lessons it contains than as a science text.



#207 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 936 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 07 May 2017 - 05:47 AM

Most of the ones I've met have said they left their belief because their mentors took your attitude..... "The Bible says it, believe it, end of discussion."

I know if my mentors had said that, I would have left the faith. Instead, they told me to review Genesis with an eye more toward the moral and spiritual lessons it contains than as a science text.



"Most of the ones I've met have said they left their belief because their mentors took your attitude..... "The Bible says it, believe it, end of discussion."

I know if my mentors had said that, I would have left the faith. Instead, they told me to review Genesis with an eye more toward the moral and spiritual lessons it contains than as a science text."


I think your mentors did a pretty good job of that anyway..
They not only caused you to reject Genesis, they also caused
you to call Jesus a liar and or Ignorant as well when he spoke of
Noahs flood and Abel...


You see, that was Satan's goal from the beginning, "Did God REALLY say"? That is why Evolution is Satan's greatest lie straight from Hell and I am grateful for people like the ones who run this website for helping spread the truth..

And you bought it, hook line and sinker..

You go ahead and believe whatever you want, Just dont get upset for me pointing out the truth of your deception..

‘Christianity has fought, still fights, and will continue to fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.’ American Atheist


"The day will come when the evidence constantly accumulating around the evolutionary theory becomes so massively persuasive that even the last and most fundamental Christian warriors will have to lay down their arms and surrender unconditionally. I believe that day will be the end of Christianity.” G. Richard Bozarth, “The Meaning of Evolution”

"Darwin made it possible to be an Intellectually fulfilled Atheist"
R Dawkins

#208 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,727 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 07 May 2017 - 12:05 PM

You go ahead and believe whatever you want, Just dont get upset for me pointing out the truth of your deception..

And you go ahead and believe whatever you want. 

 

On these forums, I have no expectation that any of the really active participants will change their position.  However, for every active participant in a discussion group like this, there are many many lurkers.  At any given time, go to the Forum page and look at the list of on-line users.  You'll find unregistered outnumber registered by at least 10:1.  As I write this, there are 27 users on the forum and only 2 are registered.

 

‘Christianity has fought, still fights, and will continue to fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.’ American Atheist

"The day will come when the evidence constantly accumulating around the evolutionary theory becomes so massively persuasive that even the last and most fundamental Christian warriors will have to lay down their arms and surrender unconditionally. I believe that day will be the end of Christianity.” G. Richard Bozarth, “The Meaning of Evolution”

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth,
the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion
and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions,
about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of
the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs,
stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being
certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and
dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably
giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these
topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing
situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and
laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant
individual is derided, but that people outside the household of
faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great
loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our
Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find
a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and
hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are
they going to believe those books in matters concerning the
resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom
of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on
facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the
light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy
Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren
when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and
are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our
sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and
obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy
Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which
they think support their position, although they understand neither
what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.

---- St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, c410AD

 

You cite an atheist rag and a hack writer for it.  I cite one of the greatest theologian/philosophers of Christianity.



#209 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 936 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 07 May 2017 - 08:09 PM

And you go ahead and believe whatever you want. 
 
On these forums, I have no expectation that any of the really active participants will change their position.  However, for every active participant in a discussion group like this, there are many many lurkers.  At any given time, go to the Forum page and look at the list of on-line users.  You'll find unregistered outnumber registered by at least 10:1.  As I write this, there are 27 users on the forum and only 2 are registered.
 

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth,
the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion
and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions,
about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of
the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs,
stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being
certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and
dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably
giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these
topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing
situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and
laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant
individual is derided, but that people outside the household of
faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great
loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our
Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find
a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and
hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are
they going to believe those books in matters concerning the
resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom
of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on
facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the
light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy
Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren
when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and
are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our
sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and
obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy
Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which
they think support their position, although they understand neither
what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.
---- St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, c410AD
 
You cite an atheist rag and a hack writer for it.  I cite one of the greatest theologian/philosophers of Christianity.


I can only hope that as many onlookers as possible have been following our posts so they can see for themselves who represents the truth and who continually dodges questions and moves goalposts..

I wish you the best..

Kind regards Blitz

#210 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,727 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 07 May 2017 - 08:22 PM

I can only hope that as many onlookers as possible have been following our posts so they can see for themselves who represents the truth and who continually dodges questions and moves goalposts..

I wish you the best..

Kind regards Blitz

Likewise.

 

BTW, do you know someone with the screen name "Deplorable Paul?"






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users