Evidence for God from Science

I grew up in a Big church that had no problem teaching Bible / the authority of God's Word. But there is Also great pressure to give in a bit and support theistic evolution -- even in churches.

If you really have a problem with a YEC person teaching your class -- then Maybe you should talk with the pastor -- not negatively about the teacher , but how the preacher feels about God's Word. And maybe You should think about God's Word as being authoritative.

What I'm seeing more and more is Christians being divided over fringe issues: YEC vs. OEC, Calvinism vs. Arminianism, God using evolution vs. Him using instantaneous Creationism and microevolution, long periods or 24-hour days, women in ministry, political approaches to culture vs. NO such approaches, etc. Perhaps God's Church needs to get the various "logs" out of its collective eyes instead of worrying about the many "specs" that are mostly irrelevant, as there is a lost world around us and nonetheless we are so often focused on debating things that matter FAR less. So many want to make litmus tests of non-salvational issues that never should be anywhere near the points of rancor they become. And thus we're carving each other up and killing relationships and the harmony that, if truly treasured and honored, we'd become a far more effective Church in all that God might use us in.

Philip wrote:What I'm seeing more and more is Christians being divided over fringe issues: YEC vs. OEC, Calvinism vs. Arminianism, God using evolution vs. Him using instantaneous Creationism and microevolution, long periods or 24-hour days, women in ministry, political approaches to culture vs. NO such approaches, etc. Perhaps God's Church needs to get the various "logs" out of its collective eyes instead of worrying about the many "specs" that are mostly irrelevant, as there is a lost world around us and nonetheless we are so often focused on debating things that matter FAR less. So many want to make litmus tests of non-salvational issues that never should be anywhere near the points of rancor they become. And thus we're carving each other up and killing relationships and the harmony that, if truly treasured and honored, we'd become a far more effective Church in all that God might use us in.

I think it would be nice if there was one church, with a consistent message.
Why do you suppose it is that it is so hard?

On another note, regarding something like YEC and belief in the great flood.

It seems easy enough for many Christians to accept that it did not actually happen that all the world went underwater. Some say you're not a true Christian if you dont.

The physics and geology of the event dont pan out, nor do the logistics or the biology.

To my mind, drowning every living thing save a boat load is a terrible act (understatement), and not one would want to say that God did it, if He did not.

How does it seem to you, if thro' negligence a person goes about telling falsehoods about God?

Audie wrote:I think it would be nice if there was one church, with a consistent message.

The closest thing to that is the Roman catholic Church. ''One'' Church will not be because humans are prideful.

Audie wrote:It seems easy enough for many Christians to accept that it did not actually happen that all the world went underwater.

It is always easier to follow the other lemmings.

Audie wrote:Some say you're not a true Christian if you dont.

Those who say that would be from the other klan of lemmings.

Audie wrote:How does it seem to you, if thro' negligence a person goes about telling falsehoods about God?

That happens everyday, Chinadoll. I sleep well.

FL

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

Audie wrote:I think it would be nice if there was one church, with a consistent message.

The closest thing to that is the Roman catholic Church. ''One'' Church will not be because humans are prideful.

Audie wrote:It seems easy enough for many Christians to accept that it did not actually happen that all the world went underwater.

It is always easier to follow the other lemmings.

Audie wrote:Some say you're not a true Christian if you dont.

Those who say that would be from the other klan of lemmings.

Audie wrote:How does it seem to you, if thro' negligence a person goes about telling falsehoods about God?

That happens everyday, Chinadoll. I sleep well.

FL

You are not the press secretary for some politician, are you?

Audie wrote:You are not the press secretary for some politician, are you?

No. I would be an incompetent secretary. Why do you ask?

FL

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

Audie wrote:You are not the press secretary for some politician, are you?

No. I would be an incompetent secretary. Why do you ask?

FL

The way you responded to my question.

Audie wrote:The way you responded to my question.

Oh...I was just being to-the-point, succinct, like you.

FL

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

Audie wrote:The way you responded to my question.

Oh...I was just being to-the-point, succinct, like you.

FL

But when I am succinct, it always has layers. Like an onion.

Audie wrote:But when I am succinct, it always has layers. Like an onion.

Well, no. Like me, you are more like garlic. I don't see how it is possible to be succinct and deep at the same time. Just look at Jac's and Kurieuo's posts: explanatory and long. And one must think while reading their posts; they are not succinct. I think Jesus was a master of succinct & deep sentence. His statement "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's..." is a perfect example of a simple and powerful answer.

FL

FL: I think Jesus was a master of succinct & deep sentence. His statement "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's..." is a perfect example of a simple and powerful answer.

Yes, Jesus' use of questions and His ability to land a laser beam to the heart of every matter is why I just love this verse: "And no one was able to answer him a word, nor from that day did anyone dare to ask him any more questions." (Matthew 22:46)

EVERY time the religious leaders had one of their boys go up in front of the crowds to try to trip Jesus up with "clever" questions, it merely exposed them further as to what they truly were about.

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

Audie wrote:But when I am succinct, it always has layers. Like an onion.

Well, no. Like me, you are more like garlic. I don't see how it is possible to be succinct and deep at the same time. Just look at Jac's and Kurieuo's posts: explanatory and long. And one must think while reading their posts; they are not succinct. I think Jesus was a master of succinct & deep sentence. His statement "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's..." is a perfect example of a simple and powerful answer.

FL

No, I am more like an onion. Or a parfait.

I think I detected a contradiction, btw, in bold.


I believe in any case the word "render" ala KJV, or "give" as you said it, is more properly translated as return.

Note how he takes a coin, points out whose face is on it.

Return Ceasars (impure, detested, foreign) things to him, and return the temple, the holy land, to God.

Loaded words, for sure, but the same call as from many other Jewish revolutionaries.

Of course, the likelihood that someone transcribed exactly what was said is pretty low, but it may well be that Jesus, like a lot of 'simple" country folk who may be a bit laconic and compress a lot into a few words.

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:Just look at Jac's and Kurieuo's posts: explanatory and long.

Yes, it's rather obvious I'm not terribly witty. I won't speak for (against?) K on the matter!

Audie wrote:I believe in any case the word "render" ala KJV, or "give" as you said it, is more properly translated as return.

Note how he takes a coin, points out whose face is on it.

Return Ceasars (impure, detested, foreign) things to him, and return the temple, the holy land, to God.

In the interest of being succint, I'll just say that I wouldn't put so much emphasis on "return." The English word has a wrong connotation, as if the destination is what is important. The KJV picked the word "render" because it has a better connotation. The real idea is to make a payment on something owed. Jesus is saying that the Jews ought to pay what they owe to Ceasar, and they ought to pay what they owe to God. In the former, we are talking things like taxes. In the latter, we are talking about absolute love (per Deut 6:4ff).

FYI, the same word (apododomi) is used in Matt 16:17 to refer to God "rewarding" us for our works. We cannot say that God "returns" to us our works. That doesn't make any sense. So, once again, the word apododomi does not mean "give back" or "return," although such English translations may catch the idea of any given passage.

Hmm. I think I failed in my interest here.

Why do you suppose he made a point of showing whose face was on the coin?

The coin was not in Caesars pocket, but, it was his; of him, from him, owed him, to be returned to him.

Do you disagree with the concept that he was saying that the holy land, the temple etc belong to God?

If they did, then they cannot be "given' to Him, but, only returned.

So if Jesus was making a balanced statement, using the same word, he meant return.

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:
Well, no. Like me, you are more like garlic. I don't see how it is possible to be succinct and deep at the same time. Just look at Jac's and Kurieuo's posts: explanatory and long. And one must think while reading their posts; they are not succinct. I think Jesus was a master of succinct & deep sentence. His statement "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's..." is a perfect example of a simple and powerful answer.

Audie wrote:I think I detected a contradiction, btw, in bold.

It certainly looks like a contradiction at first glance. In my defense, these two points:

1. I was basing my observation on my own experience.
2. Jesus is God, so he is able to be both succinct & deep simultaneously.

Since Jesus isn't your god, #2 would be invalid for you. Even as a man, Jesus was a master of wit.

Audie wrote:No, I am more like an onion. Or a parfait.

Between a stinky vegetable and a dessert, choose the dessert.

Jac3510 wrote:Yes, it's rather obvious I'm not terribly witty. I won't speak for (against?) K on the matter!

You are intelligent and studied and incisive. So, yes, you are witty in the sense that you are clever and smart. If by "witty" you mean "jocular" then, no, you are not that. RickD is jocular and shows himself here as such but your wittiness is expressed differently. Intelligence has many forms. I, for example, am simply eminently loveable.

Thank you.

FL