A challenge for Christians

[★ Citsonga ★]

 

 

Well, that is my point.  What science says today is true may not be true ten years from now.   They don't know.  They are learning.   

 

When science has the truth, let me know.

 

Stranger

 

Your ancient myths are still the same old nonsense they've always been. They are unchanged and have not grown truer. Science has progressively grown in truth, and anything in science today that isn't exactly correct is still MUCH closer to truth than those ancient myths.

 

[★ Citsonga ★]

 

The Bible declares itself to be the Word of God.  I believe it.  I need no evidence. 

 

Truth has nothing to fear from honest inquiry. The evidence would support it. The fact that you don't care about evidence demonstrates that you really don't care about truth. All you care about is propping up your preconceived notions.

 

Besides, the Koran declares itself to be the word of God. People believe it. They need no evidence, either.

 

 

I haven't seen you or anyone else show that the Bible is wrong. 

 

Nothing will convince you as long as you don't give a crap about evidence and truth.

 

 

As to islam and the quaran it doesn't much to see that this is nothing but heresy, and a nationalistic religion bent on the destruction of all other peoples.  It has nothing in common with the Bible.

 

Stranger

 

That's easy to say when you've been indoctrinated as a Christian. If you were raised Muslim, then you'd have faith in the Koran and consider the Bible to be the one that's wrong.

 

By the way, the Old Testament had a lot of divinely sanctioned slaughter in it. The Israelites were commanded to wipe out Canaanites. The OT God was bloodthirsty, just like Allah in the Koran.

 

 

[LogicalFallacy]

 

The Bible declares itself to be the Word of God.  I believe it.  I need no evidence.

.

.

.

As to islam and the quaran it doesn't (take) much to see that this is nothing but heresy, and a nationalistic religion bent on the destruction of all other peoples.  It has nothing in common with the Bible.

 

So does the Quran. Muslims also believe it without requiring evidence. Tell me how I, as an outsider, tell the difference between two religions proclaiming to be the absolute truth, and neither of them have any evidence to back up their claim. Going back to your claim of faith - Muslims also have faith. This is why I ask how can faith be a reliable pathway to truth?

 

You are uneducated and ignorant in matters of religion, and I can state that quite confidently based on your posts thus far. Islam is built off the foundation of the Old Testament, like Christianity is. They also proclaim Abraham as their father, and Moses as a prophet, and they even hold Jesus as a prophet. Islam and Christianity and Judaism are all offshoots of the same root.

 

Islam, a nationalistic religion bent on destruction... yes... because their base is the Torah, and in the Torah a group of peoples are said to have been commanded by God to go destroy the Canaanites, Midienites, Philistines. The men, woman, children, and cattle. Judaism is a nationalistic religion that was founded on the premise of wiping out all local races in the name of their god Yahweh.

 

 

You can do you gymnastics with 'theory' all you want.  It is still a theory.   The Bible is not a theory.  It declares itself as truth as it is the Word of God..  You don't have to believe it.  Just understand the difference. 

 

You don't understand what a scientific theory is, even after explanation, worse you don't want to understand.

 

 

 The gap theory existed before any scientific disputes.   But it was used by  some to explain scientific disputes.

 

Wrong, very wrong. "Gap creationism became increasingly attractive near the end of the 18th century and first half of the 19th century, because the newly established science of geology had determined that the Earth was far older than common interpretations of Genesis and the Bible-based flood geology would allow." (Wikipedia)

 

This from a Christian source opposed to gap theory: "There have been many attempts over the years to harmonize the Genesis account of creation with accepted geology (and its teaching of billions of years for the age of the Earth), such as “theistic evolution” and “progressive creation.”

The gap theory was another significant attempt by Christian theologians to reconcile the time scale of world history found in Genesis with the popular belief that geologists provide “undeniable” evidence that the world is exceedingly old (billions of years)."  http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c003.html

 

So gap theory DID NOT exist before scientific disputes with the bible, it was proposed in response to the disputes.

 

 

I haven't seen you or anyone else show that the Bible is wrong.  

 

You have, but you refuse to even consider that you might be wrong. We have demonstrated unequivocally that you are largely ignorant of the subject matter, and wish to remain so, and proud of your ignorance by your own admission "I don't need evidence".

 

Your arguments have been shown to be wrong in every post on this site to the point that your responses have become essentially, you don't care, you don't need evidence, you just believe.

[★ Citsonga ★]

 

Not eating from any tree is not addressed.

 

Stranger

 

So, you're not sure that they wouldn't have died anyway if they hadn't eaten from the Tree of Knowledge?

 

That's what it looks like since you were responding to this:

 

 

If death was the result of eating from the Tree of Knowledge, but Adam & Eve would've lived forever if they'd eaten from the Tree of Life, then what would've happened if they had not eaten from either magical tree? Would they have lived forever because of not eating from the Tree of Knowledge or would they have died because of not eating from the Tree of Life?

 

[★ Citsonga ★]

 

Satan has many names in Scripture.

 

Show me one place in the Bible that says that Lucifer is a name for Satan.

 

 

As I said, the prophets are prophets.  They see things both future and in the past.  It is common in Scripture.  

 

Oh, there's no disputing that the Bible has a lot of claims of prophecy. However, there are also tons of problems with it. NT writers were notorious for taking OT quotes completely out of context in order to fabricate prophetic fulfillments.

 

 

No one is disregarding context.   

 

You've done it here multiple times by insisting that passages that make no mention whatsoever of Satan are about him, even when the context CLEARLY SPECIFIES that it's about SOMEONE ELSE. You also took references to death as "spiritual death" even when there was NOTHING in the context suggesting that.

 

Also, even the NT writers did it many times with the OT, ripping things completely out of context.

 

 

As to the 6 day re-creation, all was good.  As I said, there must have been death when the earth was placed in it's condition in (Gen. 1:2)

 

Stranger

 

So, death was good?

 

[★ Citsonga ★]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[★ Citsonga ★]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[★ Citsonga ★]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[★ Citsonga ★]

Sorry about the repeated posts. My phone was acting up. I wiped out the content of the duplicated posts, but if a moderator would like to delete those posts, that would be great.

 

[Stranger]

 

 

Stranger,

 

We cannot show you that the Bible is wrong because to do that we would need evidence.

 

But you declare that you don't need any evidence to believe that that Bible is the word of God.

 

So, if you don't need any evidence to believe, why would you need any evidence to disbelieve?

 

I don't.  Because I was not reasoned into being a Christian, and that the Bible is the Word of God, then I cannot be reasoned out.    And my faith that the Bible is the Word of God cannot be taken away.

 

Stranger

[Stranger]

 

 

Sorry Stranger, but the onus is on you (as the claim maker) to justify your claim with evidence.

 

Nobody here is obliged to accept your assertion without evidence, otherwise we would then be doing so on faith.

 

So, I'll ask again.

 

Please cite where you heard that science doesn't know how the universe began.

 

Thank you.

 

 

As I said, science has nothing but 'theories', concerning the origin of the universe.   They don't know.  I don't need anyone else to say it.  

 

Stranger

[Stranger]

 

 

 

What makes you think that there is such a thing as eternal life? On the face of it, it sounds like a complete fairy tale to me.

 

Because Scriptures are clear that there is God, and eternal life in Jesus Christ.

 

Stranger

[Stranger]

 

 

Then is this an official statement from you, Stranger?

 

That you proceed both by faith (without evidence) and you also proceed by evidence?

 

I ask because if you do not ignore the physical world, then you must accept it as evidence, yes?

 

I think my statement was that I do not ignore the physical or spiritual worlds.  The believer comes into new life by faith, and that faith is evidence.  It is just not evidence of a physical nature.   This new life begins with the indwelling Holy Spirit.  That Spirit is evidence.  Not physical, but evidence to the believer.   So, my point here is that it is incorrect to say the believer has no evidence for the faith he has. It is real and he knows it.    But it is of a Spiritual nature.   

 

Evidence for what?

 

Stranger

[Stranger]

 

How do you know they were created mature? Where does it say this in the story? 

 

And this leads to the next obvious question, which is: if God created them as mature adults, why the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Why not just create them with that knowledge? What purpose does it serve to withhold that from man? 

 

You have to assume that they were mature, or else it would be the work of a malevolent God to create an immature being, then punish it and all of the rest of its kind forever for making a decision based on their immaturity. 

 

Your answer of "God did it" is not acceptable to me. It's nothing more than a way to explain away something difficult that we are actually capable of understanding if we put some thought into it. I'm thinking about it, and I'm thinking that they were not mature, clearly unable to understand right and wrong, which I believe is something that a mature person would understand. 

 

 

 

Because they were not born, they were created.  Adam was created a man, and Eve was created a woman.   And then God spoke to them and gave them commandment  and Adam had instructions concerning the garden and he named all the creatures.  (Gen. 1:28-31)   

 

I cannot answer all the why's as to God's creation of man and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.   God did create this way and did place the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden, for His purpose.   This is the way He chose to do it.  

 

I understand my faith is not acceptable to you.   So your 'thinking' leads you to believe God was malevolent.   My faith sees otherwise.

 

Stranger

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Stranger]

 

 

By 'the creation' do you mean only that which we observe to exist or do you mean everything we infer from the evidence to exist?

 

Please think carefully before answering, Stranger!

 

Since you said that you do not ignore physical reality, you've permitted us to use evidence from that reality in our discussions.

 

Physical reality cannot be narrowly defined as only that which we observe, because nobody has observed the core of the Earth - yet from the evidence, we infer that the core exists.

 

Proceed very, very carefully, Stranger!

 

Physical reality is much more than we can directly observe.

 

Here's the question again.

 

By 'the creation' do you mean only that which we observe to exist or do you mean everything we infer from the evidence to exist?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I mean all of creation including heaven.   (Gen. 1:1) "God created the heaven and the earth"

 

But, physical is still physical.  

 

Stranger

[Stranger]

 

 

They way I see it, my life is finite in the past. It had a definite beginning. Why should I think that it will not be finite in the future?

 

Also, you seem to have a habit of "defending" your positive truth claims by asking others to defend their scepticism. This is poor form logically. When you assert something, the burden of proof is on you, not me. You assert that my life is eternal. I want to know why you think this is the case.

 

My opinion is that my life is not eternal, and I believe this because 1) I have no reason to think that it is eternal, 2) as stated above, my life is finite in one dimension and I can't see a reason why it shouldn't be finite in both, 3) I can't think of an example of anything which is eternal, save perhaps for the quantum vacuum, and I don't *know* if that is eternal or not and 4) the notion of eternal life seems, quite literally, like a fairy tale.

 

Everyone dies. This we know. The assertion that death is not the end requires quite a bit of justification. I'll take that justification now, please.

 

(John 3:16, 5:24)

 

Stranger

[Stranger]

 

 

Stranger,

 

Scientific evidence informs us that reality is more than we can observe.

Since you have declared that you do not ignore physical reality and since science investigates only this physical reality, science has nothing to say about anything outside of it remit.  Therefore science cannot be used to say anything meaningful about non-physical events or phenomenon.  But equally, whatever science tells us about physical reality cannot be ignored by you.  You have opened yourself up to scientific evidence about what we can directly observe and also what we infer to exist.

 

This is very tricky territory for Christians.

 

Tread carefully!

 

 

 

  

 

When you say 'more than we can observe' I assume you still mean physical, and not spiritual.

 

I may not ignore what science says about physical reality, but that doesn't mean I need to agree with their conclusions either.  

 

Stranger

[Stranger]

 

 

Sorry Stranger, but you cannot place that restriction on science.

 

Science deals with evidence and with facts.

 

Since you are on record as saying that you do not ignore physical reality, then neither can you ignore scientific evidence and facts.

 

Unless you retract what you said about not ignoring physical reality, you are obliged to accept what science tells us about reality.

 

That is what science's remit is - to inform us about physical reality.

 

And you are now on board with that.

 

The restriction is self-evident.  Science is learning.  Which means it will change its conclusions with time.   

 

I am not obliged to accept what science tells us about the physical world if its conclusions contradict the Bible.   

 

Stranger

[Stranger]

I believe I have replied to several posts twice.  My apologies.  There are quite a few.   

 

Stranger

[Stranger]

 

 

Your ancient myths are still the same old nonsense they've always been. They are unchanged and have not grown truer. Science has progressively grown in truth, and anything in science today that isn't exactly correct is still MUCH closer to truth than those ancient myths.

 

 

Well, yes, the truths in the Bible don't change.  But, the Christian does grow in knowledge of the Bible and God and Christ.

 

Stranger

[disillusioned]

 

 

Because Scriptures are clear that there is God, and eternal life in Jesus Christ.

 

Stranger

 

 

And how do you determine what is and what is not "scripture"?

[Stranger]

 

 

Truth has nothing to fear from honest inquiry. The evidence would support it. The fact that you don't care about evidence demonstrates that you really don't care about truth. All you care about is propping up your preconceived notions.

 

Besides, the Koran declares itself to be the word of God. People believe it. They need no evidence, either.

 

 

Nothing will convince you as long as you don't give a crap about evidence and truth.

 

 

That's easy to say when you've been indoctrinated as a Christian. If you were raised Muslim, then you'd have faith in the Koran and consider the Bible to be the one that's wrong.

 

By the way, the Old Testament had a lot of divinely sanctioned slaughter in it. The Israelites were commanded to wipe out Canaanites. The OT God was bloodthirsty, just like Allah in the Koran.

 

 

 

I see God's hand much more active than that.  If I had been born a muslim and indoctrinated into the muslim faith, I would still have at some point in time, turned to Jesus Christ and be born again.   

 

Indeed, it did.    God was providing a  place for Israel which meant the Canaanites had to go.   And, those times will return in a future day with Jesus Christ during the Millennial reign.  

 

Stranger

[Stranger]

 

 

Show me one place in the Bible that says that Lucifer is a name for Satan.

 

 

Oh, there's no disputing that the Bible has a lot of claims of prophecy. However, there are also tons of problems with it. NT writers were notorious for taking OT quotes completely out of context in order to fabricate prophetic fulfillments.

 

 

You've done it here multiple times by insisting that passages that make no mention whatsoever of Satan are about him, even when the context CLEARLY SPECIFIES that it's about SOMEONE ELSE. You also took references to death as "spiritual death" even when there was NOTHING in the context suggesting that.

 

Also, even the NT writers did it many times with the OT, ripping things completely out of context.

 

 

So, death was good?

 

 

(Is.14:12)

 

Well, as I said, it is common with the prophets to be speaking to some individual but then move from them to a past or future individual.  Not just with Satan but with Christ also.  I cited (Ps.22) as an example.

 

God said 'it was good' pertaining to the six days of creation.   The death that resulted in the condition of the earth in (1:2) was not part of that.   But, as I believe that is a picture of judgement, then I would say death was good, because God brought it about.  

 

Stranger

[Stranger]

 

 

 

And how do you determine what is and what is not "scripture"?

 

Scripture is the thirty nine books of the Old Testament and the twenty seven in the New Testament.

 

Others believers before were involved in the canonizing of Scripture.   

 

Stranger

[disillusioned]

 

 

Scripture is the thirty nine books of the Old Testament and the twenty seven in the New Testament.

 

Others believers before were involved in the canonizing of Scripture.   

 

Stranger

 

And how do you know that those others got it right?