Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,585 Year: 4,842/9,624 Month: 190/427 Week: 0/103 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Question for creationists: Why would you rather believe in a small God?
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 301 (702914)
07-12-2013 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Faith
07-11-2013 9:32 PM


Ah well, believers know what it means even if you don't.
Sure Faith. By definition, no True Scotsman could ever hold an opinion different from yours.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Faith, posted 07-11-2013 9:32 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Faith, posted 07-12-2013 4:50 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1524 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 32 of 301 (702915)
07-12-2013 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by NoNukes
07-12-2013 4:47 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by NoNukes, posted 07-12-2013 4:47 PM NoNukes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-12-2013 9:59 PM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 364 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 33 of 301 (702939)
07-12-2013 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Faith
07-12-2013 12:04 AM


Also nothing to do with the readability of the Bible.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 07-12-2013 12:04 AM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 364 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 34 of 301 (702940)
07-12-2013 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Faith
07-12-2013 4:50 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Faith, posted 07-12-2013 4:50 PM Faith has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18388
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003


Message 35 of 301 (702970)
07-13-2013 2:56 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by ringo
07-12-2013 1:32 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
Ringo writes:
If I understand Faith (and I wouldn't be surprised if I don't) she believes that she is fallen too but Jesus has helped her back up.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by ringo, posted 07-12-2013 1:32 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by ringo, posted 07-13-2013 11:58 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1524 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 36 of 301 (702974)
07-13-2013 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by ringo
07-12-2013 1:32 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
Phat writes:
And I think Faith is trying to explain her theory of why the secular scientists are wrong...being fallen, they couldn't read nature any better than they can read the Bible.
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.
ringo writes:
If I understand Faith (and I wouldn't be surprised if I don't) she believes that she is fallen too but Jesus has helped her back up.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by ringo, posted 07-12-2013 1:32 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by NoNukes, posted 07-13-2013 11:37 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 38 by Tangle, posted 07-13-2013 11:39 AM Faith has replied
 Message 40 by Phat, posted 07-13-2013 11:46 AM Faith has replied
 Message 45 by ringo, posted 07-13-2013 12:02 PM Faith has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 301 (702981)
07-13-2013 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Faith
07-13-2013 10:07 AM


Re: Science meets Faith
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.
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.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Faith, posted 07-13-2013 10:07 AM Faith has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9530
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 38 of 301 (702982)
07-13-2013 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Faith
07-13-2013 10:07 AM


Re: Science meets Faith
Faith writes:
Also I don't think "secular scientists are wrong..." about anything other than evolution and the Old Earth.
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.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Faith, posted 07-13-2013 10:07 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Faith, posted 07-13-2013 11:45 AM Tangle has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1524 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 39 of 301 (702983)
07-13-2013 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Tangle
07-13-2013 11:39 AM


Re: Science meets Faith
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Tangle, posted 07-13-2013 11:39 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Tangle, posted 07-13-2013 11:58 AM Faith has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18388
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003


(1)
Message 40 of 301 (702984)
07-13-2013 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Faith
07-13-2013 10:07 AM


Re: Science meets Faith
Ravi is one of my favorite defenders of the faith, and in this video a decent discussion evolves. (did I just use that word? )
Faith writes:
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.
I'm not sure if I agree...although I might were I to understand you better.
How do we explain Romans 1:18-20?
NIV writes:
Rom 1:18-20-- The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
  • 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

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 36 by Faith, posted 07-13-2013 10:07 AM Faith has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 41 by Faith, posted 07-13-2013 11:49 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

      
    Faith 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 1524 days)
    Posts: 35298
    From: Nevada, USA
    Joined: 10-06-2001


    Message 41 of 301 (702986)
    07-13-2013 11:49 AM
    Reply to: Message 40 by Phat
    07-13-2013 11:46 AM


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

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 40 by Phat, posted 07-13-2013 11:46 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

      
    ringo
    Member (Idle past 492 days)
    Posts: 20940
    From: frozen wasteland
    Joined: 03-23-2005


    Message 42 of 301 (702987)
    07-13-2013 11:58 AM
    Reply to: Message 35 by Phat
    07-13-2013 2:56 AM


    Re: Science meets Faith
    Phat writes:
    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.
    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.
    Phat writes:
    Perhaps the definition of what is human versus what is evolved animal is differentiated by the idea of a name.
    Huh?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 35 by Phat, posted 07-13-2013 2:56 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 56 by Coyote, posted 07-13-2013 2:05 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

      
    Tangle
    Member
    Posts: 9530
    From: UK
    Joined: 10-07-2011
    Member Rating: 4.9


    (1)
    Message 43 of 301 (702988)
    07-13-2013 11:58 AM
    Reply to: Message 39 by Faith
    07-13-2013 11:45 AM


    Re: Science meets Faith
    Faith writes:
    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.
    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.

    Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 39 by Faith, posted 07-13-2013 11:45 AM Faith has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 44 by Faith, posted 07-13-2013 12:00 PM Tangle has replied

      
    Faith 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 1524 days)
    Posts: 35298
    From: Nevada, USA
    Joined: 10-06-2001


    Message 44 of 301 (702991)
    07-13-2013 12:00 PM
    Reply to: Message 43 by Tangle
    07-13-2013 11:58 AM


    Re: Science meets Faith
    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.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 43 by Tangle, posted 07-13-2013 11:58 AM Tangle has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 46 by Tangle, posted 07-13-2013 12:08 PM Faith has replied
     Message 48 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-13-2013 12:16 PM Faith has replied

      
    ringo
    Member (Idle past 492 days)
    Posts: 20940
    From: frozen wasteland
    Joined: 03-23-2005


    Message 45 of 301 (702992)
    07-13-2013 12:02 PM
    Reply to: Message 36 by Faith
    07-13-2013 10:07 AM


    Re: Science meets Faith
    Faith writes:
    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.
    We'd see Him in nature if He was there.
    Faith writes:
    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 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.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 36 by Faith, posted 07-13-2013 10:07 AM Faith has not replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024