lying for God?

[thatkidakayoungguy]

Good article actually-https://answersingenesis.org/morality/a-righteous-lie/

[Kurieuo]

Good article? You and I couldn't disagree more there.

Very rich coming from AiG, given much of their ministry is built upon deception, misrepresentation, distortion and teaching lies. Also, I see a typical self-righteousness Jesus hated in the pharisees. I find some things Hodge's says digusting, hopefully no Christian would follow his advice. Probably a good thing he wasn't present during the halocaust because his telling the Nazis where the Jews were hidden wouldn't have been honouring to Christ, wouldn't have been loving to God, certainly not loving to the Jews, only loving to his own self-righteousness.

To any YECs, don't attach yourself to AiG, keep your faith in Christ alone. Believe what you do of your own accord, and be convinced of it in your own eyes. My words here are not intended to be a slur on YECs at large or against you.

[RickD]

Good article? You and I couldn't disagree more there.

Very rich coming from AiG, given much of their ministry is built upon deception, misrepresentation, distortion and teaching lies. Also, I see a typical self-righteousness Jesus hated in the pharisees. I find some things Hodge's says digusting, hopefully no Christian would follow his advice. Probably a good thing he wasn't present during the halocaust because his telling the Nazis where the Jews were hidden wouldn't have been honouring to Christ, wouldn't have been loving to God, certainly not loving to the Jews, only loving to his own self-righteousness.

To any YECs, don't attach yourself to AiG, keep your faith in Christ alone. Believe what you do of your own accord, and be convinced of it in your own eyes. My words here are not intended to be a slur on YECs at large or against you.

This post is nothing but another compromise, a compromise of scripture, from an old earth compromiser who believes in death before Adam's sin, and billions of years.

Kurieuo, you should be ashamed of yourself for believing it's better to lie, than to let a Nazi kill someone hiding in your attic.

[thatkidakayoungguy]

Good article? You and I couldn't disagree more there.

Very rich coming from AiG, given much of their ministry is built upon deception, misrepresentation, distortion and teaching lies. Also, I see a typical self-righteousness Jesus hated in the pharisees. I find some things Hodge's says digusting, hopefully no Christian would follow his advice. Probably a good thing he wasn't present during the halocaust because his telling the Nazis where the Jews were hidden wouldn't have been honouring to Christ, wouldn't have been loving to God, certainly not loving to the Jews, only loving to his own self-righteousness.

To any YECs, don't attach yourself to AiG, keep your faith in Christ alone. Believe what you do of your own accord, and be convinced of it in your own eyes. My words here are not intended to be a slur on YECs at large or against you.

Hmm, now I think about it, I agree with you.
But still it's lying, and I'm confused.
God judges sin, and as someone in another thread said will God judge "necessary evil" or in this case lying?
We know God goes by intent as well, but still sin should be punished.

[Kurieuo]

It is done in love, that is what God wants as demonstrated by Christ who "broke" the Sabbath. The Pharisees were correct in the literal to challenge Christ, but couldn't be more wrong in the spiritual. Challenging Christ's love just showed their own wretched decaying self-righteousness.

[thatkidakayoungguy]

Good article? You and I couldn't disagree more there.

Very rich coming from AiG, given much of their ministry is built upon deception, misrepresentation, distortion and teaching lies. Also, I see a typical self-righteousness Jesus hated in the pharisees. I find some things Hodge's says digusting, hopefully no Christian would follow his advice. Probably a good thing he wasn't present during the halocaust because his telling the Nazis where the Jews were hidden wouldn't have been honouring to Christ, wouldn't have been loving to God, certainly not loving to the Jews, only loving to his own self-righteousness.

To any YECs, don't attach yourself to AiG, keep your faith in Christ alone. Believe what you do of your own accord, and be convinced of it in your own eyes. My words here are not intended to be a slur on YECs at large or against you.

This post is nothing but another compromise, a compromise of scripture, from an old earth compromiser who believes in death before Adam's sin, and billions of years.

I'm also angry that the people who head the youth group at me local church (did anyways) feed us AiG and Kent Hovind a lot. Some praise him and stuff like that, while I began to see through the lies. Now these are God fearing people who do seek God, and seem to be honestly just mislead. I can't help but be irked as to when we watched a video about sturgeons evolving in Ray Comfort's video, well someone said "it's still a fish". IT'S STILL A FISH. A FISH! Now uk me I dont wanna gossip but come ON they have LITERALLY ALMOST NO UNDERSTANDING OF EVOLUTION, THEN THEY TAKE A STRAWMAN AS SO MILLIONS, AND DEBUNK IT AND SAY EVOLUTION HAS NOT A SCRAP OF EVIDENCE GOING FOR IT!!!
Aye, YECs and OECs and even TEs can be saved but learn about the stuff your going against and also of different biblical ideas for creation.

[thatkidakayoungguy]

It is done in love, that is what God wants as demonstrated by Christ who "broke" the Sabbath. The Pharisees were correct in the literal to challenge Christ, but couldn't be more wrong in the spiritual. Challenging Christ's love just showed their own wretched decaying self-righteousness.

I feel like that last sentence spoke about me.

[Philip]

Kid, do you understand the beliefs of Progressive Creationists?

[Kurieuo]

I find it interesting that many Christians today seem to skip over progressive creation, jump straight to BioLogos or the like, but it's something I no longer or rarely feel compelled to tackle.

[thatkidakayoungguy]

Kid, do you understand the beliefs of Progressive Creationists?

Yea why?
I said b4 I was one for a while. I was 8.

[thatkidakayoungguy]

I find it interesting that many Christians today seem to skip over progressive creation, jump straight to BioLogos or the like, but it's something I no longer or rarely feel compelled to tackle.

They see the evidence for evolution is very strong and so skip P.C.. Besides, P.C. seems redundant too imho. We know microevolution works and so with time naturally we get macroevolution.
I think I posted elsewhere about how I view "kinds" as mentioned in Genesis 1.

[Philip]

Because it is a huge mistake to think the truth of Creationism only lies in the choices between evolution and young earth creationist beliefs.

BTW, the human / chimp DNA differences are much more significant than one might think: http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/sld070.html

A common Creator having available to Himself all of His created genetic code to utilize, with many aspects of it cross-functional in animals and humans, and with various designs, like for bi-peds and quadrapeds, have useful cross-functionality across species - ever consider that the commonality is actually due to the Creator, His coding, and His designs?

Did you realize we share 80% of our DNA with a COW? About 85% of it with a mouse, and 90% of it with a cat?

Think of the immense range of physical characteristics of human beings - size, hair type, skin tone, musculature, etc. From the pygmy to the giants of earth, extreme paleness to blackness - and we all are about 99.9% genetically the same. Look at the chimp study and slideshow of Rich Deem's I linked above - and you'll see that slight differences in DNA produce enormously different results. Which is why a banana shares about 60% of a human's DNA.

[Kurieuo]

I find it interesting that many Christians today seem to skip over progressive creation, jump straight to BioLogos or the like, but it's something I no longer or rarely feel compelled to tackle.

They see the evidence for evolution is very strong and so skip P.C.. Besides, P.C. seems redundant too imho. We know microevolution works and so with time naturally we get macroevolution.

The same evidence assumed to be evolution, also fits with progressive creation, only PC ideas have been around longer than evolutionary ideas.

Re: macro/micro, many say this is a distinction created by creationists, but I actually think it may be more the other way around. Certainly, these are terms that have been used in scientific papers. But, in open public discussions (like happens on boards like this), I find these terms are injected into the debate to setup a strawman against those who'd argue against evolution (i.e., "macroevolution is just microevolution over longers periods of time"). It is best just the jump over this muddy puddle altogether and discuss the details, the mechanisms, of evolution itself and what can/can't be sustained according to our knowledge.

When you look into the details, you see that there actually appear to be boundaries in nature that aren't passed. One needs to argue how this "elastic band" around DNA doesn't merely stretch, but snaps. Further, there is a lot of symbiosis, a lot of structures and lifeforms that converge (i.e., must have evolved two or more times independantly). This has lead many to believe that the laws of evolution are rigged. Such that, if they were to play out over and over again, we'd see the same or very similar structure re-assemble. We ought to see vertebrates over and over if evolution were played out. If we found life on another planet, we shouldn't really expect them to be too much different to us. An easier, less redundant imho, position, is to just say there was never a reason to drop progressive creation in the first place. Evolution blows a lot of smoke, is very puffed up, but then for me, upon closer inspection it can be blown away. PC seems to fit facts that are a difficult fit for an unintelligible evolutionary process.

[thatkidakayoungguy]

I find it interesting that many Christians today seem to skip over progressive creation, jump straight to BioLogos or the like, but it's something I no longer or rarely feel compelled to tackle.

They see the evidence for evolution is very strong and so skip P.C.. Besides, P.C. seems redundant too imho. We know microevolution works and so with time naturally we get macroevolution.

The same evidence assumed to be evolution, also fits with progressive creation, only PC ideas have been around longer than evolutionary ideas.

Re: macro/micro, many say this is a distinction created by creationists, but I actually think it may be more the other way around. Certainly, these are terms that have been used in scientific papers. But, in open public discussions (like happens on boards like this), I find these terms are injected into the debate to setup a strawman against those who'd argue against evolution (i.e., "macroevolution is just microevolution over longers periods of time"). It is best just the jump over this muddy puddle altogether and discuss the details, the mechanisms, of evolution itself and what can/can't be sustained according to our knowledge.

When you look into the details, you see that there actually appear to be boundaries in nature that aren't passed. One needs to argue how this "elastic band" around DNA doesn't merely stretch, but snaps. Further, there is a lot of symbiosis, a lot of structures and lifeforms that converge (i.e., must have evolved two or more times independantly). This has lead many to believe that the laws of evolution are rigged. Such that, if they were to play out over and over again, we'd see the same or very similar structure re-assemble. We ought to see vertebrates over and over if evolution were played out. If we found life on another planet, we shouldn't really expect them to be too much different to us. An easier, less redundant imho, position, is to just say there was never a reason to drop progressive creation in the first place. Evolution blows a lot of smoke, is very puffed up, but then for me, upon closer inspection it can be blown away. PC seems to fit facts that are a difficult fit for an unintelligible evolutionary process.

Evolution was thought up by the Ancient Greeks with horses and donkeys-only special creation and the idea of fixation of species held the masses for millenia.
You ain't the only one to notice those boundaries. Like what Ken Ham said to Bill Nye that actually made sense: we need male and female animals at the same time to survive. So, going back to the first sexual cells, we would need a male and a female at about the same time to survive. Then knowing the odds of these cells dying before being able to have sex by whatever means, the idea of some intelligent guide such as that theistic evolution and progressive creationism teaches makes sense.

[Kurieuo]

Given the apparent telos in evolution, theistic evolution is the only mechanistic theory that makes any sense to me. So if you're after mechanistic processes, then that's really the only possible option I see. Let's just say I see certain mechanisms lacking, which are still unknown, especially if we throw consciousness in to the mix.

As Jordon Peterson would say, we know very little about consciousness despite our best efforts to date. And, as Thomas Nagel has said, [Neo-]Darwinian Evolution might be great at explaining the physical order, but doesn't remotely explain the evolution of consciousness from lower beings to higher, or even know where the correlation lies in the physical.

What is it that makes chimps more animalistic, lesser intelligence, non-moral, non-spiritual and the like compared to us who are light years ahead of any other species in terms of what is often labelled "consciousness". Especially if we're so very physically similar, right? There's more going on that many physical/materialist types close their eyes to.