Summations Only

Sure Faith. By definition, no True Scotsman could ever hold an opinion different from yours.

On some subjects true Christians all agree, that's the way it is.

But it does have something to do with the readability of nature. I mentioned it to show that it's easier for scientists studying nature to achieve consensus on what nature means than it is for Christians studying the Bible to achieve consensus on what the Bible means.

All? Then either these subject are remarkably few in number, or the true Christians are. Either way, it seems the Bible is not so clear and informative as one would wish.

Lets take this and run with it. Our theory so far goes a little something like this:1) God always existed. He wanted to commune/relate with we humans on dust speck known as earth in the middle of His vast created universe.
2) Early humans somehow knew this storyline, and attempted to write about it in the best manner with which their early evolved brains(created, if you prefer) could grasp. Perhaps the definition of what is human versus what is evolved animal is differentiated by the idea of a name.

It's more like I don't think Nature is readable at all the way a book is and evidence for that is how long it took to develop scientific knowledge. If Nature were so easily readable primitive peoples could have understood what Newton and Einstein discovered. Also I don't think "secular scientists are wrong..." about anything other than evolution and the Old Earth. There's a long list of things they're right about. But again, it took until quite recently for that knowledge to be acquired. All I was saying was that God gave us the Bible BECAUSE Nature isn't readable. We'd see Him in Nature if it were. And yes this is because our minds are fallen, we're spiritually blind, and intellectually hindered as well. That's why we need a revelation from God to understand things rightly.

And again, this proposition is decidedly non-Biblical. I'm sure you and the people you deign to be Christians do believe it, but it is still non-Biblical. The Bible describes a few technological and intellectual advances for humans even in Genesis, but all of those advances are post Adam and Eve.

Yes, but sadly in order to deny those two things you have to deny virtually all of the natural sciences, from genetics and cell biology, through palaeontology, anthropology, biology and zoology generally (including taxonomy and cladistics), great lumps of medicine and pharmacology. Then we have all of geology, radioactive decay, all astronomy and great chunks of physics.I once started to compile a list of what you have to deny in order to stick with your primitive belief but I lost interest - maybe we should have another go.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Yes you did compile a list of sciences I'd supposedly have to reject if I reject evolution and an Old Earth but you are wrong, I reject none of them and none of them needs to be rejected because they fit in quite well with Creationist assumptions.

Ravi is one of my favorite defenders of the faith, and in this video a decent discussion evolves. (did I just use that word? ) I'm not sure if I agree...although I might were I to understand you better.How do we explain Romans 1:18-20?

Is Paul talking of "saved" or "unsaved" men?

​

Does the scripture apply to all men?

​

The Chapter starts by clarifying his audience:

Rom 1:7 writes:

​

To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints..

​

The question now is this, among other things.

​

Do the ones in Rome who are allegedly not loved by God remain incapable of understanding this passage?

Does anyone else have any other possible explanations?(pertaining to the meaning of the scripture)

​

Edited by Thugpreacha, : corrected meself

As the passage says it's our wickedness that keeps us from seeing God in Nature, not science, but God.

I don't think there's much difference in brain evolution between the early Hebrews and us. It's what we have observed in nature (despite Faith's clams) that has enabled us to conclude that much of what the Hebrews wrote was wrong. Huh?

No Faith, they don't; they really don't. The entire body of science is against you - all of it. You obviously can't agree with it but for God's sake don't try to fool yourself into thinking that your beliefs fit with scientific knowledge - that's just barking mad wrong.

Sorry, Tangle, it is you who are wrong. The vast majority of scientific knowledge is perfectly in tune with Creationist principles, and no Christian denies any of it.

We'd see Him in nature if He was there. And yet it's those who claim to have a revelation from God who don't see reality as it is. You have the dichotomy correct but you're looking at the back of the mirror instead of the front.