Evidence for God from Science

dad wrote: Augustine denied the bible? Or did he merely get some things wrong?

Augustine wrote:I would not believe in the Gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church.

Augustine, and others seemed to have launched the RCC belief that the church/pope were God incarnate. So he would not believe the Bible apart from the strict interpretation of it by the church.

It is my opinion that the Word (Jesus) has to be believed no matter what He says no matter where. Not by some church that dictates to me that the "Queen of Heaven" should be worshiped. Doctrines of demons.

Jer 7:18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.

Read Jeremiah 7 It talks all about this queen of the heaven and Gods Judgment of it. Other teachings of the RCC you probably know and I wont get into them here.

Well, how could we judge that? Or should we even be trying to do so? I also wonder if we really have to believe the whole bible to be saved? I thought all we needed to do was believe in Jesus. Some might do that with only hearing, say 1 verse, like John 3:16. They would still know the truth, because Jesus is the truth.

I'm not talking about someone that doesn't know the Word. Were talking about people that twist and or disobey the Word.

It is a slippery slope isn't it? The Lord does tell us that He Judges the hearts and minds of men and also tells us that "out of the heart the mouth speaks".

However, for me at least it's black and white, yes or no. You either believe what Christ says or you don't. Yes God you died for me, but no God you didn't create the earth. Yadda yadda.

A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump right? What does God say happens when we play around with the doctrine found in Revelations?

Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Keep in mind were talking about a church leader here (I almost said 'father' ooppss another RCC fumble).

1Jn 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

Some apparently abide in different ways than others. I guess long as we do the best we can.

Some would do well to believe on Him.

Pro 3:3 Let not mercy and truth forsake thee: bind them about thy neck; write them upon the table of thine heart:
Pro 3:4 So shalt thou find favor and good understanding in the sight of God and man.
Pro 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
Pro 3:6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
Pro 3:7 Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil.

Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Joh 14:27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.

IRQ Conflict wrote:

dad wrote: Augustine denied the bible? Or did he merely get some things wrong?

Augustine wrote:I would not believe in the Gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church.

Augustine, and others seemed to have launched the RCC belief that the church/pope were God incarnate. So he would not believe the Bible apart from the strict interpretation of it by the church.

It is my opinion that the Word (Jesus) has to be believed no matter what He says no matter where. Not by some church that dictates to me that the "Queen of Heaven" should be worshiped. Doctrines of demons.

It's ok, IRQ, I'm sure she forgives you anyway (by the power of Christ, of course). The prodigal son was welcomed back to the fold with open arms, no matter how long and how much he was misguided.

Seriously though, when did the flavor of this thread change to catholic-bashing? I know it's a rather popular pastime but let's try and stick to the subject, shall we? There's plenty of blame-the-RCC threads over in the aberrant christianity forum (where it belongs, right?). Or you can always create a new thread where, for example, you can ask questions like who came first, the church or the books of the canon.

It seems to me that detailed analysis of every biblical passage is filled with the danger of flawed human interpretation. After all, even in Jesus' time, just 2000 years agao, people had to be presented with parables (aka analogies) to help them understand.

Byblos wrote:It's ok, IRQ, I'm sure she forgives you anyway (by the power of Christ, of course). The prodigal son was welcomed back to the fold with open arms, no matter how long and how much he was misguided.

Nice to hear from you too Byblos!

I'm sure I won't knead the queen of hot crossed buns to forgive me.

Seriously though, when did the flavor of this thread change to catholic-bashing? I know it's a rather popular pastime but let's try and stick to the subject, shall we?

Old habits die hard I guess?


Believe me, the intent here was simply to show that St. Augustine's opinion on the Genesis account should not be held with any credence. I did however bring you some talc for the chaffing.

retiredbob wrote:It seems to me that detailed analysis of every biblical passage is filled with the danger of flawed human interpretation. After all, even in Jesus' time, just 2000 years agao, people had to be presented with parables (aka analogies) to help them understand.

Uh? No, Jesus used parables to fulfill prophecy and answer questions in view of the pharisees when he didn't want them to understand. After which he would explain to the Apostles what he meant by them.

Mat 13:34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:
Mat 13:35 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.

Mar 4:10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.
Mar 4:11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
Mar 4:12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

IRQ Conflict wrote: Nice to hear from you too Byblos!

Same here.

IRQ Conflict wrote:

Seriously though, when did the flavor of this thread change to catholic-bashing? I know it's a rather popular pastime but let's try and stick to the subject, shall we?

Old habits die hard I guess?

LOL! cute pun.

IRQ Conflict wrote: Believe me, the intent here was simply to show that St. Augustine's opinion on the Genesis account should not be held with any credence. I did however bring you some talc for the chaffing.

Well you know what they say about opinions, everybody's got one. Thanks for the concern though it's not necessary, I have a very thick skin. The intent was purely from a moderator's standpoint in adherence with the discussion guidelines.

I'll clarify this here and now. To me catholics (the people) are great, love the Lord and from what I can tell have done more than any other denomination world wide to feed the poor and spread the Gospel.

When I criticize the RCC it is for good reason. Not to "Bash" I do like to have fun though, it's in my nature. And I know your a good natured catholic Byblos.

IRQ Conflict wrote:

Other teachings of the RCC you probably know and I wont get into them here.

Right. Apparently a mod suggested the same thing.

I'm not talking about someone that doesn't know the Word. Were talking about people that twist and or disobey the Word.

Right, of course the OECs think that it is YECs that do that. The church down the street might think the church up the street does that. The pre tribbers think the post tribbers do it. The we are in the end times folks think the sleep on, they always were wrong before when they said that, crowd are out of it. And on it goes.
Perhaps such railing judgments might not be the best thing on a mixed public forum.

It is a slippery slope isn't it? The Lord does tell us that He Judges the hearts and minds of men and also tells us that "out of the heart the mouth speaks".

Right, but there is a time and a place for judging. Meanwhile, lest we want to be judged, why bother identifying a group, better to stick to ideas.

However, for me at least it's black and white, yes or no. You either believe what Christ says or you don't. Yes God you died for me, but no God you didn't create the earth. Yadda yadda.

A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump right? What does God say happens when we play around with the doctrine found in Revelations?

Well, He did put a warning in there for the would be stinkers, but I think that most would not need to worry about that at all. Most simply try to grasp it, and interpret it. Nothing wrong with that.

Keep in mind were talking about a church leader here..

But, if his topical ideas on a day not really being a day were not widely accepted, what does it matter if he was wrong on that score? It doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

Some would do well to believe on Him.

I think all Christians do that. No?

I think the YECs feel their duty is to defend the bible as true, and right. The OECs feel it is their duty to expose the YECs, who they think, many of them, are a reproach to the cause, for having bad science, to back up their case. My idea is that the YEC science is wrong, and that the OEC acceptance of science, and what it claims, is also wrong. If the past was a different universe state, all science is invalid where we try to apply it out of the present.
That is why I say, why bother, any more, OECs, trying to allign yourself with what is not science after all, but a myth? A myth that opposes the bible six ways from Sunday.

dad wrote:The evidence is what Usher used to come up with dates. There are lifespans given, that can be added up. Within a fairly small degree of possible interpretive time margins.

No way... They cannot be added up.

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/sld012.html

dad wrote:If, as I say must have happened, that the universe was different in the past, how could we use the temporary physical present for evidence of a past that was not at all the same? Don't contradict yourself. The bible evidences of the differences abound.

The physical past says the earth is old and the Bible has never contradicted this claim.

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/yeclaims.html
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/appearance.html

dad wrote:Where did I say that rot?

Right here... http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... t=0#p49734

You stated: You see, the bible deals with the spiritual as well as the physical.

Remember now??

dad wrote:Looks like the ax already came down on your claims. Boom. How sweet it is. Try and get some sort of grip of the facts, and what you claim people think, or say. That would be a lot simpler than making stuff up! Occam would smile on you.

Boom... see you.

dad wrote:No, theirs is weak. Your so called science claims of the whole universe being in a little hot soup, so small, it was invisible to the naked eye are what is silly. Also, the silly claims that there was no creation, but that we are pond scum, who are relatives to the flatworm, and cockroach.

Now you are changing topics.. We were talking about the literal seven day creationism, and now you change it to Darwinian evolution. A separate subject.

dad wrote:Strawman. There is no fault in believing the bible,

You don't speak for the Bible...

dad wrote:and you better get used to folks saying your phony science claims are wrong. They are very wrong. Your myth of a same past is dead in the water.

Maybe you would like to challenge the scientific community in a debate?

dad wrote:I will be happy when the world is really onto you.

Threats now?

dad wrote:No, it says nothing of the sort. It says that it now works a certain way. Like decaying. The rest you assume, that the past was the same, and also in decay, etc.

Why is it evil to say that decaying is bad? Decaying is good, it replenishes the earth's ecosystem and was instigated by God. Maybe you should complain about it to Him.

dad wrote:Jesus said that He hid these things from the wise, and revealed them to babes. Such is the true wisdom. God sent the bible for man, and made it pretty simple. You better get a crayon to draw your pond scum, cause that is the only way the fable will be seen.

I don't think the Bible was a fable.

dad wrote:Say what? The years Adam lived are pretty clear. The years he lived, till his son was born, and how long the son lived are also clear. Pretty well on down the line. No billions of years available, so who is bending???

Only you... http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/longlife.html

dad wrote:Anyone speak English here?

Another ad hominem... Sad.

dad wrote:We have the scriptures, passed on, and preserved, and the records of the early Christians. Are you suggesting that God is incapable of getting a record for man handed down?

God is capable, but man is also capable of corrupting and twisting the word of God too. I believe Jesus also encountered the pharisees in his time here on earth. And these guys claimed they had the word down pat. Remember what Christ said about them?

dad wrote:So? People speak for God as well. You think He is a mute?? Or dead?

Not according to your claims... You stated earlier that only the Bible speaks for God.

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =15#p49746

dad wrote:They must be right about some things. Are you suggesting they are all wrong??? What, am I supposed to hate them now?

Remember the Bible tells us not to condemn others.. We are to hate wrong principles however.

dad wrote:The bible does deal with those things. So?? What has that got to do with pointing out the obvious limitations of science?

The only limitations of science exist in YEC. Sorry...

(great post Gman) Whew! Lots of stuff going on....had a lot of grading to do. Tests are finally done.

It IS very important that we get scripture straight. I agree here.

That being said.....

1) scripture has always been subject to interpretation by human wisdom and with the Holy Spirit providing discernment, this interpretation is powerful indeed. Anybody who says otherwise is silly and ridiculous. There is a lot of talk about the plain "reading of the word" and that "only babes understand", and yet the entire history of Christianity shows men establishing doctrine and interpreting scripture. Augustine is suddenly dismissed because....oh no, he might have thought that Genesis was just mysterious enough that days could have meant long periods of time! Oh no, let's reject him, despite his immense contribution to the history and doctrine of the church!

Verses that speak about only babes understanding should always be applied cautiously. WE love to use this scripture when we want and then use other scriptures to establish the need for wisdom from examing and understanding scripture. How shall we apply this? Does this that every decision made in ignorance is better than one made with knowledge? IF this were true, then why bother interpreting scripture? Obviously this verse does not mean that we should never examine things. For every verse that speaks about the mysteriousness of scripture and the "wisdom" of man, there are others verses exhorting examining and pouring over scripture. Nor does it mean that the Holy spirit does not provide discernment.

These verses speak to looking to God for wisdom. And from ALL of the posts here....from all of the readings from OEC writers, they do this....repeatadly....WE do not blithely decide these matters. We pour over scriptures, asking God for wisdom. The fear of GOD is the beginning of wisdom. and all those who have posted hear concenring OEC have amply discussed this (it is a pity you reject going back and reading Kuriero;s posts, it shows a pitiful apathy on your part and a lack of love for fellow Christians.) you would see that he has that important fear of the LOrd, indeed, all of those that have posted have posted here often and have shown this to be true...and yet you come charging in without knowledge of us and make a spurious claim....this is not new to us, which is probably the number one reason every OEC here expresses frustration bordering on anger. Irq, you charged me with being afraid, a silly charge is you would go back and read all of my previous postings.

2) Many of the posts have brought up the idea that if we "mess" with scripture, then we are sliding down a slippery slope and joining with countless others that are compromising and in direct opposition to the real meaning of scripture. however, many of the controversies that have been brought up as comparisons do not hold true when examined. For instance, homosexuality is often brought up as a warning to messing with scripture. "If we mess with scripture, are we not like those who dismiss scripture to validate homosexuality?" Except that homosexuality has MULTIPLE sources from scripture, from Genesis to Leviticus to the New Testament. Another example commonly brought up is the trinity, and yet that has a wealth of verses that support the doctrine and allows us to build. The New Testament accounts of Christ as divine is often attacked and yet we can establish mutliple, numerous prophecies and old testament accounts of Christ.

But the age question has only ony chapter in the bible. And is contains a word that has multiple meanings depending on the context. (and despite the stubborness from those here, it IS a valid context, they are plenty of Biblical scholars that support this)

People have brought up the historical accounting of ADam and Eve. But here we DO have multiple sources verifying this from the scriptures themselves, from chapter 1 and 2 from Genesis all the way to Christ, who validated their existence. So no, the vast majority of OEC'er's here support the historical accuracy of Adam and Eve.

No reason to doubt the age of Adam and Eve and the others mentioned... Again, see multiple verifications here within Genesis. (and Gman's link is excellent)

No reason to doubt the existence of the flood, nor the damage and severity of it. Do we examine the scripture and see that it could be local (and somehow those fearful of this think we means it would not have been an ecological and world disaster). But a flood that damaging would have been disastrous. We do not doubt the existence of NOah or of his uniqueness int he flood (again, verified through other parts of scripture)

3) Repeatedly, Over and over and over again, we hold the innerrancy of scripture. We merely look and the Hebrew words and see the contexts. We look at GOD"S creation and understand it to be TRUSTWORTHY. Do we not do this with COUNTLESS other scripture verses? Just look at infant baptism and the controversy there! Obviously it says in scripture that infants were baptized in the New testament. As obvious as this is, there are huge numbers of churches that do not believe in infant baptism. Is this reason to reject their Christianity? Or charge that they are "wimpy"? (Gotta love his accusation that only he is the one that is standing firm! Way to go, dude, way to go!)

4) If scripture was as easy as you say, we wouldn't have the debates we do....Calvinism anyone? Armenianism? Infant baptism....the rapture? Amillinial, premillinial, anyone? A current debate right now in another thread....keeping the sabbath? (let's not go there again

Ok, come on Zoe! I'm ready to go. Aren't you?

jenwat3 wrote:Ok, come on Zoe! I'm ready to go. Aren't you?

hahahhaha,

go back and search some of the threads on Calvinism and Armenianism and baptism and the rapture and you will see what i mean

Call me dumb, but what is calvinism and armenenism? (did I spell that right?)

jenwat3 wrote:Call me dumb, but what is calvinism and armenenism? (did I spell that right?)

oy, now that would indeed call for either another thread or some links.. Let me find some links for you....

In the meantime you can search through the forums. They were some pretty heavy hitting debates, though

Yes, I know! One person said I was un-christian simply because our views were different. That REALLY upset me because I have always tried to respect another person's opinion even though I don't agree with it sometimes. Isn't that what this forum is about?