RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

theo_book -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (4/11/2008 9:42:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Oh come on! Now you pretend to know what motivates people to get married? To beget children? What motivates God to make creatures?

I don't mind suggestions as to what "might" motivate God, but to suggest you know what does AND WHAT DOESNOT stretches it a bit.

And while it is true we are "invited guests," it is not as spectators, but as participants.


So let me get this straight; you speculate lonliness, I speculate love, and I am the one pretending.



o.k. I'll accept that as a fair assessment. Sorry!



theo_book -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (4/12/2008 7:11:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

And please tell us what was your perspective in which you declared "God is not old."


A heavenly one.


Sorry! I thought it might be a doctrinal perspective. Because you stated it as a matter of doctrine on post #50.

quote:

original: Juhd
If God ‘always was’ as orthodox Christianity holds, then He could never be ‘young’. Indeed, He could never be ‘old’.



DonnyPauling -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (4/12/2008 4:21:58 PM)

I don't know why it's so hard to see that Genesis 1:1 describes evolution. Science and religion are not in conflict. Science is simply beginning to explain how God created earth. The "days" in Genesis were not literal 24 hour periods. They were "ages" (read this article).

Let's compare evolution with creation in Genesis, shall we?

In Genesis,

* there is a "big bang" when everything is spoken into existence... one second it's not there, the next it is.
* on earth, water separates from land, less complex creatures are created, more complex creatures are created, etc etc... finally man is created.

That's pretty much what evolution teaches as well. Where's the conflict?



DanJames -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (4/12/2008 6:29:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DonnyPauling

I don't know why it's so hard to see that Genesis 1:1 describes evolution. Science and religion are not in conflict. Science is simply beginning to explain how God created earth. The "days" in Genesis were not literal 24 hour periods. They were "ages" (read this article).

Let's compare evolution with creation in Genesis, shall we?

In Genesis,

* there is a "big bang" when everything is spoken into existence... one second it's not there, the next it is.
* on earth, water separates from land, less complex creatures are created, more complex creatures are created, etc etc... finally man is created.

That's pretty much what evolution teaches as well. Where's the conflict?


Did you just go through all the threads and post this? Let's keep it to one thread. Here's a response



theo_book -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (4/12/2008 7:45:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DonnyPauling

I don't know why it's so hard to see that Genesis 1:1 describes evolution. Science and religion are not in conflict. Science is simply beginning to explain how God created earth. The "days" in Genesis were not literal 24 hour periods. They were "ages" (read this article).

Let's compare evolution with creation in Genesis, shall we?

In Genesis,

* there is a "big bang" when everything is spoken into existence... one second it's not there, the next it is.
* on earth, water separates from land, less complex creatures are created, more complex creatures are created, etc etc... finally man is created.

That's pretty much what evolution teaches as well. Where's the conflict?


The bible does not leave out science. It enhances it. "Doth not nature teach you..." is an invitation to search for God in nature itself.

Science leaves out God, It fights him. And why? Because man does not want a moral reason for being. They want to be their own guide as to what's right between men.



drj11 -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (4/12/2008 11:59:10 PM)

quote:


Science leaves out God, It fights him. And why? Because man does not want a moral reason for being. They want to be their own guide as to what's right between men.


I hear this so often, I usually skim over it and leave it unchallenged, but there is not much out there that is more false than saying science fights God, and does so for the purpose of not having to live 'by his morals'. Science studies natural phenomena and presupposes natural causation because that is the most useful framework for learning the mechanics of the universe. That most definitely is not 'fighting god'... We just cant study God with microscopes, or telescopes. The second science started assuming 'God did it' for everything we don't know, thats the second it stops being useful to us. Morals and ethics from various religions and philosophies all help provide a moral framework for science...



drmark -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (4/13/2008 12:41:38 AM)

quote:

Science studies natural phenomena and presupposes natural causation because that is the most useful framework for learning the mechanics of the universe.
Nope, drj11! Science studies natural phenomena and presupposes that these phenomena are ordered, rational, and discoverable. Indeed, this is the only useful framework for learning the mechanics of the universe. Real scientists understand that rational order and discoverability only result from creation by an Intelligent Maker, not from random, unguided, purposeless causes!



theo_book -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (4/13/2008 7:55:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drj11

quote:


Science leaves out God, It fights him. And why? Because man does not want a moral reason for being. They want to be their own guide as to what's right between men.


I hear this so often, I usually skim over it and leave it unchallenged, but there is not much out there that is more false than saying science fights God, and does so for the purpose of not having to live 'by his morals'. Science studies natural phenomena and presupposes natural causation because that is the most useful framework for learning the mechanics of the universe. That most definitely is not 'fighting god'... We just cant study God with microscopes, or telescopes. The second science started assuming 'God did it' for everything we don't know, thats the second it stops being useful to us. Morals and ethics from various religions and philosophies all help provide a moral framework for science...


My apology. It must then be "natural selection" or "survival of the fittest" that says there is no God, and attacks christmas and Christianity in the school systems throughout the u.s.

Since Madeliine Maureen O'Haire forced her "there is no God" onto the schools, there has been a running fight and it most certainly HAS BEEN SCIENTISTS that took up her part.

And it most certainly has been the issue of morality that feeds the nay-sayers. They do not like the limitations of no-free-sex; no abortions; no homosexuality; and etc. required by the "there is a God" society.



drmark -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (4/13/2008 9:04:50 AM)

quote:

And it most certainly has been the issue of morality that feeds the nay-sayers. They do not like the limitations of no-free-sex; no abortions; no homosexuality; and etc. required by the "there is a God" society.
Actually, moral limitations are required by one's personal conscience once a person truly admits "there is a God" greater than her/himself. That's why pure atheism, if it even exists, is a most lonely belief system.



theo_book -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (4/13/2008 10:08:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

And it most certainly has been the issue of morality that feeds the nay-sayers. They do not like the limitations of no-free-sex; no abortions; no homosexuality; and etc. required by the "there is a God" society.
Actually, moral limitations are required by one's personal conscience once a person truly admits "there is a God" greater than her/himself. That's why pure atheism, if it even exists, is a most lonely belief system.


I do not think we are in disagreement, but I would word it differently to say that as we are in God's image created, we are in God's image morally compassed.

Imorallity is a missing of the true reading of our God given compass.



essentialsaltes -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (4/13/2008 10:47:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

Actually, moral limitations are required by one's personal conscience once a person truly admits "there is a God" greater than her/himself. That's why pure atheism, if it even exists, is a most lonely belief system.


Why does a personal conscience require theism? My conscience seems to be fully functional without any recognition of a higher power.



drj11 -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (4/13/2008 11:04:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: theo_book

quote:

ORIGINAL: drj11

quote:


Science leaves out God, It fights him. And why? Because man does not want a moral reason for being. They want to be their own guide as to what's right between men.


I hear this so often, I usually skim over it and leave it unchallenged, but there is not much out there that is more false than saying science fights God, and does so for the purpose of not having to live 'by his morals'. Science studies natural phenomena and presupposes natural causation because that is the most useful framework for learning the mechanics of the universe. That most definitely is not 'fighting god'... We just cant study God with microscopes, or telescopes. The second science started assuming 'God did it' for everything we don't know, thats the second it stops being useful to us. Morals and ethics from various religions and philosophies all help provide a moral framework for science...


My apology. It must then be "natural selection" or "survival of the fittest" that says there is no God, and attacks christmas and Christianity in the school systems throughout the u.s.

Since Madeliine Maureen O'Haire forced her "there is no God" onto the schools, there has been a running fight and it most certainly HAS BEEN SCIENTISTS that took up her part.

And it most certainly has been the issue of morality that feeds the nay-sayers. They do not like the limitations of no-free-sex; no abortions; no homosexuality; and etc. required by the "there is a God" society.


Christians dont seem to like those morals either. They partake just as much as anyone else, and in some cases even more. Abortions included.



drj11 -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (4/13/2008 11:19:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark
Nope, drj11! Science studies natural phenomena and presupposes that these phenomena are ordered, rational, and discoverable.


Uhh, ok....

quote:


Indeed, this is the only useful framework for learning the mechanics of the universe. Real scientists understand that rational order and discoverability only result from creation by an Intelligent Maker, not from random, unguided, purposeless causes!


Science merely restricts itself to the things it is capable of studying. Who says random, unguided purposeless causes caused anything? Evolution doesnt really do that, and neither does science. Science says nothing on the existence or non-existence of a 'guide' or intelligent maker in natural processes, whether its God or something else.

A real scientist understands that even if a process can be shown to have natural causation, it doesn't disprove God. Thats something many people here seem to misunderstand. Showing that life has a common ancestor, that it evolves, that the universe is old along with the earth doesn't disprove God in the slightest. It simply disproves your literalist beliefs. It means you were wrong about God, not that he doesn't exist.



theo_book -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (4/13/2008 11:22:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

Actually, moral limitations are required by one's personal conscience once a person truly admits "there is a God" greater than her/himself. That's why pure atheism, if it even exists, is a most lonely belief system.


Why does a personal conscience require theism? My conscience seems to be fully functional without any recognition of a higher power.


Even the blind have a conscience.



theo_book -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (4/13/2008 11:27:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drj11

Christians dont seem to like those morals either. They partake just as much as anyone else, and in some cases even more. Abortions included.


Before I could possibly respond to that I would first need to see your sources for your quantifying process. How do you know how many Christians abort their unborn?

Secondly, I would need to see you define what your concept of a "Christian" would be.

And thirdly, I would need to see you source for your quantifying process as to how many non-Christians abort their young.

In other words, your statements are just a tad too self-serving generalizations.



drj11 -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (4/13/2008 11:32:53 AM)

Here's some abortion stats for you:

http://www.cbrinfo.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

quote:


Who's having abortions (religion)?

Women identifying themselves as Protestants obtain 37.4% of all abortions in the U.S.; Catholic women account for 31.3%, Jewish women account for 1.3%, and women with no religious affiliation obtain 23.7% of all abortions. 18% of all abortions are performed on women who identify themselves as "Born-again/Evangelical".


18% of abortions are from those who are non-religious. The rest are overwhelmingly Christian

There's also been other studies going all the way back to the 40's and 50's showing that rates of pre-marital sex were about the same back then as they are today, with Christians generally only having lower rates by a couple %. But it was still above 80% who had pre-marital sex, regularly. I'll see if I can find it.



theo_book -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (4/13/2008 2:43:07 PM)

I think the difference between us is that you probably define a Christian as one who claims to be one.

I define a Christian as one whom Jesus would claim in accord with the teaching of scripture as to what makes one a Christian.

In other words, calling one's self a Christian is not the standard I would use.

Here's another statistic "47% of all abortions are performed on women who have had at least one previous abortion.



drj11 -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (4/13/2008 7:44:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: theo_book

I think the difference between us is that you probably define a Christian as one who claims to be one.

I define a Christian as one whom Jesus would claim in accord with the teaching of scripture as to what makes one a Christian.

In other words, calling one's self a Christian is not the standard I would use.

Here's another statistic "47% of all abortions are performed on women who have had at least one previous abortion.


Yea, but how else can you quantify that? Any Christian will tell you, everyone is a sinner. Is there some sort of 'sin metric' to determine if someone who self-identifies as Christian isnt really a Christian? What stats like this tell you, isnt that Christians are bad people etc etc. It tells you that religion has no bearing what-so-ever on how 'moral' or good a person is. God is not the final and only source of morality.

I'm pretty sure most Christians from a hundred years ago or so, would simply take a look at the clothes most Christian teens wear today and proclaim they are going straight to hell, no questions asked. Morals may be in part influenced by religion, but religion is more influenced by social morals... Morals dont come from religion or God. Religions morals end up changing and following the ebb and flow of the greater social morals, albeit sometimes more slowly and with resistance. Thankfully, the Bible has enough passages in it to agree with just about any moral structure you want it to agree with, you just have to pick and choose. And thats exactly what happens.



theo_book -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (4/14/2008 7:59:24 AM)

quote:

Thankfully, the Bible has enough passages in it to agree with just about any moral structure you want it to agree with, you just have to pick and choose. And thats exactly what happens.


Where do you see in the scripture, moral justification for sin? Anywhere?



drj11 -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (4/14/2008 12:01:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: theo_book

quote:

Thankfully, the Bible has enough passages in it to agree with just about any moral structure you want it to agree with, you just have to pick and choose. And thats exactly what happens.


Where do you see in the scripture, moral justification for sin? Anywhere?


There are passages giving you instructions how to beat your slaves, passages telling you to stone your kids etc etc. The passage on slaves is partly how the south justified their slavery before the civil war. There's all kinds of evil stuff lurking in there. People today have the good sense to ignore them, or not take them literally because those sorts of things are socially and legally unacceptable.



lpt -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (4/14/2008 12:17:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: theo_book

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

To think otherwise, you would have to explain why, if God has no positive need of man, he would bind himself to a lesser being; put the son of God through shame and disgrace, only to end up where he started; and cause so much pain and suffering in that part of his creature man, that is not submissive and cooperative. If anyone on the board can answer these questions, I for one would like to hear what you have to say, other than "Heresy." It is an honest question.


Love?


But it has already been presented that God in his "aloness" already had perfectness (himself) to love and respond thereunto. Why would he create a worm to love when he had God to love?


For God's sake, theo_book, would you stop the heresy that God has ever been "alone"? He is Triune, ever in perfectly loving community. He has never been "alone." That really is some dangerous heresy you're flirting with.



lpt -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (4/14/2008 12:31:08 PM)

theo_book -- check out what Jesus said in John 17:24:

"Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world."

We see here an example of two Persons of the Godhead practicing loving community. No loneliness there, but perfect love. Before the creation of the world. Yes, it's a mystery how One God could exist in Triune form. But there it is.

God has never been motivated by "loneliness." Ever. That is a heretical doctrine. Please humble yourself and repent of that heresy and just move on.



WesP -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (4/14/2008 1:57:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drj11

quote:

ORIGINAL: theo_book

quote:

Thankfully, the Bible has enough passages in it to agree with just about any moral structure you want it to agree with, you just have to pick and choose. And thats exactly what happens.


Where do you see in the scripture, moral justification for sin? Anywhere?


There are passages giving you instructions how to beat your slaves, passages telling you to stone your kids etc etc. The passage on slaves is partly how the south justified their slavery before the civil war. There's all kinds of evil stuff lurking in there. People today have the good sense to ignore them, or not take them literally because those sorts of things are socially and legally unacceptable.


Actually, you are totally incorrect. There is no directive to do evil in the bible. The fact that you cannot understand the words presented speak volumes. The laws you are referring to in Leviticus were relative to the people and time in which they were necessary. With the coming of Christ, there have been several changes regarding those laws. For your education, go to the One Stop Law thread. Good luck!



cow451 -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (4/16/2008 1:46:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Time keeps on spinning, spinning, spinning into the future...


Oooh, ouch, 70s flash back...


An inaccurate flashback. The literal Miller should be translated as "slipping", not "spinning". We all know that Time cannot spin. Has anyone ever said they enjoyed spinning time with you? Of course not. At any rate, the song still reeks.



WesP -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (4/16/2008 3:24:18 PM)

Good thing I was pretty young then. Makes the "slip" not as embarassing. [:)]



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI