Evidence for God from Science

Posted: **Thu Oct 10, 2013 11:31 am**

PaulSacramento wrote:I have a Bach in Theology and I am quite a devote Christian AND believe that God is a Triune Being.

Good! Then both your degree and your faith should have been evident in your posts on this subject. Why weren't they?

PaulSacramento wrote:None of that keeps me from being able to see the "other side".

This wasn't a debate. This was about PerciFlage asking a question. The best I can say is that in your misguided attempt at fairness to ''the other side'' you acheived nothing. You displayed poor pedagogy in the way you entered this conversation.

PaulSacramento wrote: My point is, very seldom or things so black and white and they never are simply because "we want them to be".

Your point is quite right but had no bearing to the conversation I was having with PerciFlage.

PaulSacramento wrote:
Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:
RickD wrote:This thread is becoming...aberrant.
Whaddya expect when a Froot Loop theologian tries to explain something?!

FL
So we are ok with insults now?
And we wonder where guys like Revolution and Lu get the ides that is ok...

Did you miss the part where I called myself a Lucky Charmian? Scroll up and read it.

Anyway, I forgive you.

FL

Posted: **Thu Oct 10, 2013 1:45 pm**

This is the OP:

What defines an aberrant or non-mainstream denomination around here? Is it a single or small set of core tenets (e.g. a belief in salvation and the Trinity)? Is it based on the holy texts of that denomination? Is it the number of adherents relative to other denominations? Is it all of those things? Or none?

The question is a valid one and the simple fact is that you haven't really answered other than say that what is orthodox is dictated by the bible but the truth is that it is not that simple.
RC and Orthodox teachings are as much about tradition as they are scripture.
My question and view are simply that we don't have a concrete and universal way to decided what is or isn't.
Does a religion that disregards one doctrine from main steam Christianity make it aberrant?
I don't think so because that means that Protestants that disregard the transubstantiation doctrine of the RCC are an aberrant form and I don't think anyone thinks that.

Now, in regards to the Trinity, that may seem like a different matter but not to many how are NOT Trinitarians and, according to them, have valid reasons for that.

In short, what defines an aberrant form of "Christianity" is NOT that clear or easy to peg down.

That said, IMO, any form of Christianity that goes against what is EXPLICITLY stated in the NT would be an aberrant form of Christianity.
I think the area gets a bit gray when you go into what is IMPLICIT VS EXPLICIT.

Posted: **Thu Oct 10, 2013 3:49 pm**

There was a reason why the Nicene Creed was developed, to help sort out what this thread is discussing.

The basics of Salvation by Christ alone, Who he is, God's nature (Trinity), what was accomplished upon the cross, the Resurrection are foundational truths.

Aberrant beliefs strays away from these. Oneness Pentecostals are a good example to use - they are fellow believers in Christ, yet, stray in forming their concept of what 'One God' means and implementing of holiness by a works/grace concept. Extremist Arminian and Extremist Calvinist also stray into Aberrant beliefs about predestination, preterism, etc, but hold the core values of Christianity defined in the Nicene Creed in who Jesus is and what He did, etc. They can't agree on the methods or language each uses but they agree in who Jesus is and what he did and who God is. That's the point.

JW's, Mormons totally change the bible and what it teaches on God and Christ Jesus, as do the cults. So there is a difference...

I think it also comes down to how one uses the word - Aberrant - too and whom it refers, should be better defined in conversations so all are on page one.
-
-
-

Posted: **Fri Oct 11, 2013 4:19 am**

B. W. wrote:JW's, Mormons totally change the bible and what it teaches on God and Christ Jesus, as do the cults. So there is a difference...

Although JWs and Mormons would disagree as they have their own - not necessarily rational or theologically sound - reasons for marginalising the Bible.

FL - both Paul's and your posts have been illuminating. It's useful having someone representing the Christian side and playing devil's advocate, it's definitely helped my understanding of what is meant by aberrant in the context of this forum.

It seems that two distinct definitions are at play together, and both of them were alluded to by FL in his initial reply to me. The first definition would be "non-biblical", and groups like JWs and LDS would fall into that camp due to lacking a belief that the Bible was divinely and singularly inspired. The second definition would be the "bad doctrine" FL talked about - groups who might base their faith entirely on the Bible, but interpret the scripture in ways that are seen as invalid by more mainstream denominations.

So aberrancy is to some extent a gray area, but much less gray to me than it was a couple of days ago.

Posted: **Fri Oct 11, 2013 4:49 am**

See Paul and FL, your seemingly meaningless quibbling served a purpose after all.

Posted: **Fri Oct 11, 2013 6:14 am**

PerciFlage wrote:
B. W. wrote:JW's, Mormons totally change the bible and what it teaches on God and Christ Jesus, as do the cults. So there is a difference...
Although JWs and Mormons would disagree as they have their own - not necessarily rational or theologically sound - reasons for marginalising the Bible.

FL - both Paul's and your posts have been illuminating. It's useful having someone representing the Christian side and playing devil's advocate, it's definitely helped my understanding of what is meant by aberrant in the context of this forum.

It seems that two distinct definitions are at play together, and both of them were alluded to by FL in his initial reply to me. The first definition would be "non-biblical", and groups like JWs and LDS would fall into that camp due to lacking a belief that the Bible was divinely and singularly inspired. The second definition would be the "bad doctrine" FL talked about - groups who might base their faith entirely on the Bible, but interpret the scripture in ways that are seen as invalid by more mainstream denominations.

So aberrancy is to some extent a gray area, but much less gray to me than it was a couple of days ago.

It should be noted that JW's view the bible as the inspired written word of God.
They just views all other translations than their own as "corrupted and incorrect".

You will not find a JW doctrine that is NOT in the bible.
It is their interpretation that is aberrant.

The fact is that for any of us to make a call that a group is aberrant we must TRULY know what they teach and why BEFORE we make that call.
JW's are an off shoot of the 2nd Adventist movement.
IMO< their biggest teaching that is aberrant isn't even the denial of the Trinity, it is their view that CHrist is NOT the mediator for all but only the anointed 144K and that there is a mediator between Christ and Man and that mediator is the 144k anointed, lead by the Governing Body of the JW's.

Posted: **Fri Oct 11, 2013 10:01 am**

PaulSacramento wrote:My question and view are simply that we don't have a concrete and universal way to decided what is or isn't.

Of course we do, Paul. You should know better than to make such a silly statement. The Scriptures are both concrete and universal. That some people fail to interpret them correctly has no bearing on either a) the fact that they are wrong or b) the fact that those of us who interpret them correctly can know that we are right. It's a simple matter of reason. The Bible declares that salvation is by grace alone through fatih alone in Christ alone, that we who "believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God . . . may have life in His name" (John 20:31). Mormons don't believe that. They are aberrant. JWs don't believe that. Theyare aberrant. Christian Scientists don't believe that. They are aberrant. And, of course, since they believe things not taught in and/or are contradicted by Scripture, they just invent their own or offer their own modified versions of the Bible.

Denominations, then, aren't aberrant. They (all of them) have bad theology in spots. But they meet the basic requirements for what it means to be a Christian (and a Christian church). Put differently, Christians may disagree on the Millennium, on predestination, on ecclesiology, on spiritual gifts, and other such things. Christians may not disagree on Jesus Christ, the Son of God, being the sole means of salvation to all those who believe in Him. Those who do not believe those things (the three mentioned above, for instance, but of course, there are other such groups) are not Christian. They hold an aberrant theology, and the standard by which we pronounce that is the very words of Scripture.

edit:

You will not find a JW doctrine that is NOT in the bible.
It is their interpretation that is aberrant.

And this suggests a naive view of "the bible," especially coming from someone with formal education on these matters. Take their standard arguments concerning John 1:1. Would you say, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god" is "in the Bible"? Of course not. That's why I said above, they don't have "the Bible." They have a modified version of it "translated" (to use the word terribly loosely) to fit their own preconceived notions.

Moreover, it does you no good to say their interpretation is aberrant (beyond being demonstrably false--the "bible" they follow is aberrant since it is so terribly "translated"--it does not reflect the words and ideas of the inspired authors). Take their belief that Jesus is just Michael incarnated. That's not "in the bible," either. That they find it in their distorted version of Scripture means nothing. They have claimed a belief that is not in Scripture (contrary to your claim just quoted). And worse, that non-Scriptural belief actually contradicts the gospel of Jesus Christ.

So, once again, they are aberrant, not because of poor hermeneutics (that leads to bad theology) but because they positively believe and preach that which contradicts the gospel and denies the Person of Jesus Christ. We know this because what they say contradicts Scripture (not their adulterated version of it).

Posted: **Fri Oct 11, 2013 10:20 am**

Jac3510 wrote: Denominations, then, aren't aberrant. They (all of them) have bad theology in spots. But they meet the basic requirements for what it means to be a Christian (and a Christian church). Put differently, Christians may disagree on the Millennium, on predestination, on ecclesiology, on spiritual gifts, and other such things. Christians may not disagree on Jesus Christ, the Son of God, being the sole means of salvation to all those who believe in Him. Those who do not believe those things (the three mentioned above, for instance, but of course, there are other such groups) are not Christian. They hold an aberrant theology, and the standard by which we pronounce that is the very words of Scripture.

GREAT! I love you! If Hinduism was right, I'd want my next incarnation to be Jac3510.

FL

Posted: **Fri Oct 11, 2013 10:33 am**

FL wrote:
GREAT! I love you! If Hinduism was right, I'd want my next incarnation to be Jac3510.

TWO Jacs?

God help us all!!

Posted: **Fri Oct 11, 2013 10:47 am**

PerciFlage wrote:...So aberrancy is to some extent a gray area, but much less gray to me than it was a couple of days ago.

Think of aberrancy as an extremist position on a matter and you'll be close.

Aberrant Christian denominational views can take an extreme view on a matter such as Baptizing in Jesus Name Only doctrine. They entrench that belief based on what Peter did and said on Baptism but ignore what Jesus said in Matthew 28 thur use of faulty study methods. Though extremist in their pet pevee doctrines, they do not deny the essentials of the Christian faith but seek pridfully to buttress their personal extremist view on Water Baptism.

Aberrant Cultist - use the bible to build strange doctrines that deny totally the essentials of the Christian faith - Mormons for example teach - we will become God's and Jesus and Satan are biological brothers. JW's teach Jesus was merely a created being alone. Both despise God's grace and exchange it for a works based approach to find God. Both use the bible and both stray into false doctrines that will lead a person to an unpleasant eternal surprise.

It is the essential's of the Christian faith as simply defined in the Nicene Creed that help define what these essentials are. The majority of the cults do their utmost to discredit this Creed.

Stay with what the bible teaches on the essentials - very simple.
-
-
-

For Rick -

Two Jac's - no aces - and deuces wild - let's see - I can fold now or raise you double the pot???

Posted: **Fri Oct 11, 2013 10:49 am**

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:GREAT! I love you! If Hinduism was right, I'd want my next incarnation to be Jac3510.

FL

Well we're all One anyway, so on taht view, that you are. Or, I am. Or, we is. Or something like that.

RickD wrote:TWO Jacs? God help us all!!

ur jus gelus he dont wanna b u

Posted: **Fri Oct 11, 2013 11:15 am**

Jac3510 wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:My question and view are simply that we don't have a concrete and universal way to decided what is or isn't.
Of course we do, Paul. You should know better than to make such a silly statement. The Scriptures are both concrete and universal. That some people fail to interpret them correctly has no bearing on either a) the fact that they are wrong or b) the fact that those of us who interpret them correctly can know that we are right. It's a simple matter of reason. The Bible declares that salvation is by grace alone through fatih alone in Christ alone, that we who "believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God . . . may have life in His name" (John 20:31). Mormons don't believe that. They are aberrant. JWs don't believe that. Theyare aberrant. Christian Scientists don't believe that. They are aberrant. And, of course, since they believe things not taught in and/or are contradicted by Scripture, they just invent their own or offer their own modified versions of the Bible.

Denominations, then, aren't aberrant. They (all of them) have bad theology in spots. But they meet the basic requirements for what it means to be a Christian (and a Christian church). Put differently, Christians may disagree on the Millennium, on predestination, on ecclesiology, on spiritual gifts, and other such things. Christians may not disagree on Jesus Christ, the Son of God, being the sole means of salvation to all those who believe in Him. Those who do not believe those things (the three mentioned above, for instance, but of course, there are other such groups) are not Christian. They hold an aberrant theology, and the standard by which we pronounce that is the very words of Scripture.

edit:

You will not find a JW doctrine that is NOT in the bible.
It is their interpretation that is aberrant.
And this suggests a naive view of "the bible," especially coming from someone with formal education on these matters. Take their standard arguments concerning John 1:1. Would you say, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god" is "in the Bible"? Of course not. That's why I said above, they don't have "the Bible." They have a modified version of it "translated" (to use the word terribly loosely) to fit their own preconceived notions.

Moreover, it does you no good to say their interpretation is aberrant (beyond being demonstrably false--the "bible" they follow is aberrant since it is so terribly "translated"--it does not reflect the words and ideas of the inspired authors). Take their belief that Jesus is just Michael incarnated. That's not "in the bible," either. That they find it in their distorted version of Scripture means nothing. They have claimed a belief that is not in Scripture (contrary to your claim just quoted). And worse, that non-Scriptural belief actually contradicts the gospel of Jesus Christ.

So, once again, they are aberrant, not because of poor hermeneutics (that leads to bad theology) but because they positively believe and preach that which contradicts the gospel and denies the Person of Jesus Christ. We know this because what they say contradicts Scripture (not their adulterated version of it).

I do understand where you guys are coming from, you guys know I do.
None of that changes that what we are doing is a circular argument.
The are aberrant because our understanding of the bible, which is different than theirs, is different.
So what makes ours correct and theirs wrong?
You say it is our correct translation and interpretation of the bible, to which they may counter that it is THEIRS that is correct and ours that is faulty.
They can point out that many things we view as orthodox are NOT explicit in the bible and as such are human interpretations.
I know because I have been presented with these arguments in my discussion with JW's ( as one example).
Our claim that they are aberrant because they don't follow mainstream translations and interpretations is actually a "plus" for them in their view since they view other translations as faulty and incorrect and based more on the traditions of Man than of the Word of God.
Again, we can argue that isn't so but if our only backing of our argument is "our faulty" ( in their view) translations and interpretations, then you don't have much of an argument.

What we are honestly arguing from is an argument from the majority.
We are stating that the majority interpret it this way, and as such, it must be that way.

I agree 100% with this comment:

So, once again, they are aberrant, not because of poor hermeneutics (that leads to bad theology) but because they positively believe and preach that which contradicts the gospel and denies the Person of Jesus Christ. We know this because what they say contradicts Scripture (not their adulterated version of it)

And that was one of the major reasons I never became a JW.

Posted: **Fri Oct 11, 2013 11:36 am**

PaulSacramento wrote:I do understand where you guys are coming from, you guys know I do.
None of that changes that what we are doing is a circular argument.
.
.
.
What we are honestly arguing from is an argument from the majority.
We are stating that the majority interpret it this way, and as such, it must be that way.

No, Paul, you are wrong on both of these counts. What we are suggesting is not circular, nor is it an appeal to majority.

Look, you know that 1+1=2. You know that the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776. You know that too much Tylenol harms the liver. These are facts. We also know that there are some people out there, some through their own fault and some not, who are unaware or ignorant of these facts or even believe contrary "facts." Does, then, the fact that there are people who deny that 1+1=2 mean that the rest of us don't really know it? Is it a mere circular argument to say that we know that they are wrong? Is it an appeal to majority?

The answer is no in all cases. Your posts, Paul, sound like typical postmodern drivel--that we can't really know anything for sure, so all we can do is qualify that we believe this or that is to be true but we can't say any more. And that's stupid.

I have no qualms saying the JWs are wrong. I don't just think they are. I know they are. And sure, they think I'm wrong. But guess what? They are wrong about that, too! Just as wrong as the person who tells me I'm wrong that 1+1=2. It is an objective fact, Paul. There's nothing circular whatsoever here. Either reason is a valid tool or it is not. If it is, seeing "the other side" doesn't mean anything other than the fact that you can empathize with them. But that has absolutely no bearing on the truth value of their claims.

Now, the fact is that, whatever else a Christian is, he or she is one who believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that all who believe in Him are saved. That's not an interpretation or majority opinion, Paul. It's a fact. It's also a fact that JWs do not believe that (about Jesus and salvation). Therefore, they are aberrant.

There are lots of hills worth dying on. This, Paul, is not one of them. You are trying to be charitable, I get that. But you are mistaken. Your good intentions have led you to say things that are not true, even if you didn't intend them that way. You need to back off on this. There is a difference in bad theology and aberrant theology, and that difference comes down to the gospel. What the gospel is, is absolutely objective, and it is an objective fact that the JWs and other such groups openly repudiate the gospel and do so by proposing other spiritual authorities beyond Scripture. That is what makes them aberrant, and taht is what you need to say. Anything less, or anything different, and you only promote confusion.

Posted: **Fri Oct 11, 2013 12:03 pm**

This is quite incorrect:

Now, the fact is that, whatever else a Christian is, he or she is one who believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that all who believe in Him are saved. That's not an interpretation or majority opinion, Paul. It's a fact. It's also a fact that JWs do not believe that (about Jesus and salvation). Therefore, they are aberrant.

They do indeed believe that Jesus is the Son of God and all the believe in Him are saved.
That is not the issue.
That they use an incorrect transliteration of YHWH isn't the point either.
That their translation is bias to their theology isn't an issue either ( one can argue that most translations are).
In terms of pure christian salvation theology, they are mainstream ( They believe that Jesus is the Son of God, they he lived and died and was resurrected and will come again).
In those regards they are not aberrant.

Their problem and where they become aberrant is:
The nature of Christ - They believe him to be "a god", not God and they he was the Archangel Michael, that The Word was a created being ( to state just a few issues).
The nature of Christ as our mediator ( He is only mediator for the 144k anointed).
That only the anointed have a hope of being in heaven.
The the Anointed are mediators between mankind and Christ.
That we are to be witnesses to Jehovah and not Christ as commanded in Acts 1.
That we are to abstain from blood transfusions ( as per ACTS and the prohibition from the Jerusalem council).
That the bible was corrupted until it was made correct by them in the mid 1950's.
That the Trinity is a borrowed pagan concept and is not in the bible.
The HS is NO a person but simply an "active force".
I could go on and on and on...

But in regards to the core and most fundamental aspect of what it means to be a Christian:
That Jesus is the Son of God and only those that believe in Him are saved, that He lived, died and was resurrected and will come again.
This they believe 100%.

Posted: **Fri Oct 11, 2013 12:16 pm**

My point being stands.
At what point do we make the call that an expression of Christian religion, like the JW's, is aberrant?
As of right now it seems that it is based more on if they go against orthodox teachings that the majority agree on, then on whether they fallow the main Christian tenet of salvation, which is belief in Jesus as Son of God and our Lord and Saviour ( which they do believe).
So, is there ONE doctrine that is the defining one that if a group doesn't believe in it, they are aberrant?
Is it more than one? is it 2 or three?

Are anabaptists aberrant?
What about Christadelphians?

Look at what Christadelphians believe:

The Bible[edit]
Christadelphians state that their beliefs[75] are based wholly on the Bible,[76] and they do not see other works as inspired by God.[77] They regard the Bible as inspired by God and, therefore, believe that, in its original form, it was error free (errors in later copies are thought to be due to 'errors of transcription or translation').[78] Based on this, Christadelphians teach what they believe to be true Bible teaching.[79][80]
God[edit]
Christadelphians believe that God is the creator of all things and the father of true believers,[81] that he is a separate being from his son, Jesus Christ,[82][83] and that the Holy Spirit is the power of God used in creation and for salvation.[84] They also believe that the phrase Holy Spirit sometimes refers to God's character/mind, depending on the context in which the phrase appears,[85] but reject the orthodox Christian view that we need strength, guidance and power from the Holy Spirit to live the Christian life,[86] believing instead that the spirit a believer needs within themselves is the mind/character of God, which is developed in a believer by their reading of the Bible (which, they believe, contains words God gave by his Spirit) and trying to live by what it says during the events of their lives which God uses to help shape their character.[87][88]

Christadelphian Hall in Bath, United Kingdom
Jesus[edit]
Christadelphians believe that Jesus is the promised Jewish Messiah, in whom the prophecies and promises of the Old Testament find their fulfilment.[83][89][90] They believe he is the Son of Man, in that he inherited human nature (with its inclination to sin) from his mother, and the Son of God by virtue of his miraculous conception by the power of God.[83][89][91] Although he was tempted, Jesus committed no sin, and was therefore a perfect representative sacrifice to bring salvation to sinful humankind.[83][89][91] They believe that God raised Jesus from death and gave him immortality, and he ascended to Heaven, God's dwelling place.[89] Christadelphians believe that he will return to the earth in person to set up the Kingdom of God in fulfilment of the promises made to Abraham and David.[92][93] This includes the belief that the coming Kingdom will be the restoration of God's first Kingdom of Israel, which was under David and Solomon.[94][95][96] For Christadelphians, this is the focal point of the gospel taught by Jesus and the apostles.
Salvation[edit]
Christadelphians believe that people are separated from God because of their sins but that mankind can be reconciled to him by becoming disciples of Jesus Christ.[97][98] This is by belief in the gospel, through repentance, and through baptism by total immersion in water.[98][99] They do not believe we can be sure of being saved, believing instead that salvation comes as a result of a life of obedience to the commands of Christ [100] After death, believers are in a state of non-existence, knowing nothing until the Resurrection at the return of Christ.[101] Following the judgement at that time, the accepted receive the gift of immortality, and live with Christ on a restored Earth, assisting him to establish the Kingdom of God and to rule over the mortal population for a thousand years (the Millennium).[102] Christadelphians believe that the Kingdom will be centred upon Israel, but Jesus Christ will also reign over all the other nations on the earth.[103] Some believe that the Kingdom itself is not worldwide but limited to the land of Israel promised to Abraham and ruled over in the past by David, with a worldwide empire.[104]
Life in Christ[edit]
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
The Commandments of Christ
The historic Commandments of Christ demonstrates the community's recognition of the importance of Biblical teaching on morality. Marriage and family life are important. Christadelphians believe that sexual relationships are limited to heterosexual marriage, ideally between baptised believers.[105][106]

Evidence for God from Science

Quick question

Re: Quick question

Re: Quick question

Re: Quick question

Re: Quick question

Re: Quick question

Re: Quick question

Re: Quick question

Re: Quick question

Re: Quick question

Re: Quick question

Re: Quick question

Re: Quick question

Re: Quick question

Re: Quick question

Re: Quick question