-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I'd very much like to see proof of this. Let's hope there's more proof for it than for the giant human skeletons that were supposedly found.
The sun standing still is only from the perspective of man. In order for the sun to appear to stand still in the sky would require the halting of the earth's rotation. To me this really adds to the incredible nature of the event. How do you explain the earth halting its rotational pattern without suffering the impact of the sudden collapse of gravitational forces. If the earth were to suddenly and immediately stop on its axis, everything on the surface would be flung into space, all land masses would collide resulting in catastrophic global seismic disruption and massive land tsunamis. This was most certainly not a natural event but a supernatural one. What this shows us is that creation is not ultimately governed by natural law but by the power of God who can suspend the laws of physics that regulate earth's movements and still keep everything in its place. To me, this was one of the most incredible events since the beginning of creation itself.
1) Random mutations are not a creative force.
2) Random mutations cannot create a left bird wing nor a matching right bird wing. Random mutations cannot create a left eye nor a matching right eye.
3) Random mutations could never have formed male and female instantly and simultaneously in the same generation and thus preserved the species.
4) A random universe would never prosecute for justice. If a perpetrator of injustice never got caught while still alive, then injustice would have no consequences. Mercy and justice are key attributes of the drama of existence.
5) While the universe is recognized to have attributes of length, width, height and time, why is there no similar recognition for intelligence, emotion and willfulness?
6) Non-life has never generated life. Species have never spawned any type of offspring but their same species. Life spawns life. Like spawns like.
7) Beauty and orderliness have been spawned by Beauty and Orderliness. Sin and death came about by corruption of the original beauty and order.
8) Jesus turned water into wine and walked on water. Jesus multiplied a few loaves and fishes to feed a multitude of over 5000 people. There is more in which to believe than random causation.
2) Random mutations cannot create a left bird wing nor a matching right bird wing. Random mutations cannot create a left eye nor a matching right eye.
3) Random mutations could never have formed male and female instantly and simultaneously in the same generation and thus preserved the species.
4) A random universe would never prosecute for justice. If a perpetrator of injustice never got caught while still alive, then injustice would have no consequences. Mercy and justice are key attributes of the drama of existence.
5) While the universe is recognized to have attributes of length, width, height and time, why is there no similar recognition for intelligence, emotion and willfulness?
6) Non-life has never generated life. Species have never spawned any type of offspring but their same species. Life spawns life. Like spawns like.
7) Beauty and orderliness have been spawned by Beauty and Orderliness. Sin and death came about by corruption of the original beauty and order.
8) Jesus turned water into wine and walked on water. Jesus multiplied a few loaves and fishes to feed a multitude of over 5000 people. There is more in which to believe than random causation.
And how do you suppose this will be possible when you and I see reality from two conflicting epistomoloies? You see the natural sciences as the root of all usable knowledge. I see scripture as the surface for of an absolute intelligence and I regard it as the single authoritative representation of true knowledge.
Well, I'm sorry, but those are some pretty weak Christians, if you ask me. They certainly didn't have strong faith in Jesus. And you know WHY they fell away? They've been taught that if they don't "take God at His word," literally and completely, then they DON'T have faith, they CAN'T be Christians, and that they would be backslidden, rebellious scum of the excommunicated (I use that term as a hyperbole). I personally know a man who rejected Christianity all together because he went on an internship to Japan, and questioned eternal hell for those who haven't heard - and he thought since he MUST accept that doctrine to be a "good, Bible-believing Christian," then he just said "Aw, screw the whole thing then." What is worse - demanding someone to believe a meaningless, side doctrine, or them leaving the faith over it? Teaching that one must accept every very verse literally and exactly a certain way IS a stumbling block, in and of itself. It causes those in a stage of doubt and questioning to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Faith is about things unseen. You can't scientifically prove that praying is beneficial - you do it because you have faith that it will be. You can't prove the existence of angels - you have faith that they exist, because it is written. What we are SUPPOSED to be talking about in this thread is the evidence for YEC or OEC that is TANGIBLE and TESTABLE - another words, scientific. I separate what I believe by faith from the tangible things that I agree with unbelievers on.
Well, at the Council of Nicaea, the canon was chosen by a vote. Simply because a majority of people there chose them, that makes them inspired (if you want to use the truth-is-not-popular argument)? How come Christians deciding what we believe are exempt from having biases and agendas, but Christians today are accused of that if they do the very same thing (being selective)?
The bold part: That is a faith issue. You believe that by faith. And that's fine. However, I tend believe that if Christians are sinners as well, and tainted by sin (this includes Gospel writers, OT writers, etc) then that would influence their ability to understand the Holy Spirit fully and accurately. I believe learning about God is a progressive thing, that didn't stop with the book of Revelation. So, yes, learning about God will be a life-long process for me - I likely will never close the case on most of my doctrines. But isn't that how it should be? Isn't humility in part about realizing you probably don't know everything, and could be prone to MISUNDERSTANDING what you think you already know (like the religious leaders of Jesus' day not understanding the Scriptures)? I believe we're bad people, not just based on Scripture, but EVIDENCE: wars, disputes, abuse, violence, tyranny, etc. I don't exempt ANYONE from acting with bias when it comes to political and religious issues, because we're all the same.
Faith is about things unseen. You can't scientifically prove that praying is beneficial - you do it because you have faith that it will be. You can't prove the existence of angels - you have faith that they exist, because it is written. What we are SUPPOSED to be talking about in this thread is the evidence for YEC or OEC that is TANGIBLE and TESTABLE - another words, scientific. I separate what I believe by faith from the tangible things that I agree with unbelievers on.
Well, at the Council of Nicaea, the canon was chosen by a vote. Simply because a majority of people there chose them, that makes them inspired (if you want to use the truth-is-not-popular argument)? How come Christians deciding what we believe are exempt from having biases and agendas, but Christians today are accused of that if they do the very same thing (being selective)?
The bold part: That is a faith issue. You believe that by faith. And that's fine. However, I tend believe that if Christians are sinners as well, and tainted by sin (this includes Gospel writers, OT writers, etc) then that would influence their ability to understand the Holy Spirit fully and accurately. I believe learning about God is a progressive thing, that didn't stop with the book of Revelation. So, yes, learning about God will be a life-long process for me - I likely will never close the case on most of my doctrines. But isn't that how it should be? Isn't humility in part about realizing you probably don't know everything, and could be prone to MISUNDERSTANDING what you think you already know (like the religious leaders of Jesus' day not understanding the Scriptures)? I believe we're bad people, not just based on Scripture, but EVIDENCE: wars, disputes, abuse, violence, tyranny, etc. I don't exempt ANYONE from acting with bias when it comes to political and religious issues, because we're all the same.
oldhermit, I like you. You are certainly well-read, and I'm sure you've come to your conclusions with a lot of thought. But I don't want to get into a fundamental debate about the Bible being infallible, inspired with errors, etc.
But yes, I do feel that way, because I feel the anicents wrote in such a way as to express what knowledge/beliefs they had. I believe that we, as English-speaking Westerners, would because of our own culture and sentiments, likely miss what Moses or the author of Genesis had in his mind when he wrote the Creation account. I believe it is impossible to know what the bible-writers meant to convey in their writings fully and accurately.
But yes, I do feel that way, because I feel the anicents wrote in such a way as to express what knowledge/beliefs they had. I believe that we, as English-speaking Westerners, would because of our own culture and sentiments, likely miss what Moses or the author of Genesis had in his mind when he wrote the Creation account. I believe it is impossible to know what the bible-writers meant to convey in their writings fully and accurately.
You really do not understand the Bible at all. Since you claim to seek "A NEW, different perspective? Learn something new," would you be willing to take a look at the triadic perspective of reality through the lens of scripture? I promise, you will see things you have NEVER seen anywhere else. Or is this prospect something that frightens you?