-
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.
R
They want to tailor God to suit world view of evolution.
recently I was amazed that instead of thinking a giant ant came across on a log on a flood scientists in the US came up with the idea that the Giant Ant evolved to adapt to ice age & then came over...
I give you a link to this ministry that scientifically supports creation. You will find answers here. I subscribe to their monthly magazine and am constantly being humbled in Gods amazing creation, through them. Also amazed that the science is there to support creation but scientists of course want to believe they got it all figured out so wont contradict any of the incorrect theories of the last century. ie: the inaccuracy of carbon dating.
Creation Ministries Home Page
Bless your heart as you seek Gods truth. God is bigger than the greatest scientific mind (though they like to think they are
)
recently I was amazed that instead of thinking a giant ant came across on a log on a flood scientists in the US came up with the idea that the Giant Ant evolved to adapt to ice age & then came over...
I give you a link to this ministry that scientifically supports creation. You will find answers here. I subscribe to their monthly magazine and am constantly being humbled in Gods amazing creation, through them. Also amazed that the science is there to support creation but scientists of course want to believe they got it all figured out so wont contradict any of the incorrect theories of the last century. ie: the inaccuracy of carbon dating.
Creation Ministries Home Page
Bless your heart as you seek Gods truth. God is bigger than the greatest scientific mind (though they like to think they are
)
T
Actually, Genesis has been understand as myth since way before anyone knew about evolution. And I myself understood it that way a good decade before I learned about evolution in school.
I have no desire to make God fit into any box. God's too big for any box. God created all boxes. Including evolution.
I have no desire to make God fit into any box. God's too big for any box. God created all boxes. Including evolution.
T
No, and I have responded to this repeatedly.
I believe that it IS written by God. I simply accept that God is capable of speaking in parables and other forms of figurative speech.
Are you saying that because Jesus spoke in parables, you must reject every word that he said, because he must have been lying? Of course not, that would be downright silly.
And that is exactly how silly your assertion is to me. Telling me that I reject Scripture just because I accept it as the myth that God intended it is as silly as saying that Jesus is a liar because he spoke in parables. Yes, you're calling God a liar.
Personally, I wouldn't want to call God a liar.
I believe that it IS written by God. I simply accept that God is capable of speaking in parables and other forms of figurative speech.
Are you saying that because Jesus spoke in parables, you must reject every word that he said, because he must have been lying? Of course not, that would be downright silly.
And that is exactly how silly your assertion is to me. Telling me that I reject Scripture just because I accept it as the myth that God intended it is as silly as saying that Jesus is a liar because he spoke in parables. Yes, you're calling God a liar.
Personally, I wouldn't want to call God a liar.
T
Point taken.
Let's put it this way. I really don't need for you to "prove" that Genesis is supposed to be taken literally. I know that you cannot prove it, and I'm posing it to you to show you that it isn't possible. It's like asking you to prove that 2+2=5. If someone says, "Prove to me that 2+2-5," you would know that person isn't really asking for you to show a math equation, but they are asking a rhetorical question. That is what I was saying.
You believe that Genesis is literal. Fine, go for it. You cannot prove that Genesis is literal, any more than I can prove that it isn't. That's just the way it is.
Hmmm. You seem to care very much what this particular woman says about the Bible. So if I were male, you would accept my words, and you reject it just because I'm female? Talk about sexist!
Gosh, I could, but not in one sitting.... It would take hours to talk about everything I believe pertaining to God. I suppose I could summarize it a little for you.
God is a God of Paradox. On one hand, God is beyond all human understanding; one the other hand, God cares so deeply about each and every one of us, so much that he took on human flesh, became one of us, lived with us, died as one of us, thereby destroying the power of death.
God created everything around us, and yet God continues to create within our lives.
God is immutable, and yet he hears our prayer and is moved by our cries.
The New Testament is a collection of several different writings each with their own purpose.
First, we have four Gospels. The word "Gospel" means "Good News." There are actually dozens, maybe hundreds of gospels, but only four have been codified into our modern Scripture. Three of those, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, are all based on the same source, referred to as "The Q source," which is a list of Jesus' sayings. John was written much later. Each Gospel has its own agenda or focus, and the four taken together is an important key to learning about Jesus, as long as the author's focus is understood, and you're not trying to tie the four gospels into a single story.
Acts is written by the same author as Luke. It tells the story of Paul, and how the message of Jesus began to be spread across the early world.
Then we have several letters. Many of these letters were written by Paul, but not all of them. They show that even the earliest Christians struggled in their walk in Christ. Reading the letters can be misleading, because it's like listening to half of a conversation on a telephone: we only know the answers, and we can only guess at what the questions are that he is responding to. It's important to remember that these letters were written to a certain group of people at a specific time in response to a specific problem. I think the epistles are important lessons for all Christians, but we should be careful not to interpret everything in them as statements for all people for all time, because Paul certainly was not intended to be speaking in that way.
Finally, we have the Revelation of John. A lot of people wrongly think that this John is the same John who was with Jesus while Jesus was alive, but it is not. This John lived much later -- as much as 120 years after Jesus' ascension. This does not diminish its validity at all. In fact, to me, it strengthens it. That Jesus' power was still so strong, 100+ years after he walked the earth, is quite a testament to his power.
Do I believe? Absolutely!
How do I? I cannot begin to answer that question. How do you breathe? It's not something I have ever had to work at.
Why? Because he gave me the gift of faith, so that I could believe in him.
Since I do, this question would be moot, but I'd like to think that any Christian would care if someone was initiating a discussion about Jesus with them, and that person did NOT believe. Wouldn't that be a pretty clear case that maybe, just maybe, God brought this non-believer into your life for a reason?
Woah. So you're telling me you think Jesus is "son of God" only because he was related to Adam through his earthly FATHER, Joseph? So, you don't believe that Jesus was incarnate by the Holy Spirit? You believe his was conceived in "the usual way," and that Joseph was his father? Hmmmm.
No, Luke's genealogy is problematic for many reasons, not the least of which that he doesn't know how to count. More importantly, it outlines JOSEPH'S heritage.
In fact, the miscalculation is a clue. Many stories at the time Luke was written started with genealogies. This one starts with a genealogy, but the reader at once notices that the genealogy is wrong. Luke's audience would have noticed this at once. The writer was doing this on purpose, to point out that Jesus was NOT a child of man, but of God.
Umm, no. Not sure where you're getting that.
No, once again, I believe the Bible, I just don't believe that it is always literal.
You don't believe it is always literal, either. You accept many statements of Jesus as being parable. What you are accusing me of is a ludicrous as me saying, "You think Jesus told parables, therefore you think Jesus is a liar." That's just not the case. And the more you say it, the less sense it makes. I have explained this to you over and over. I don't know how else to explain it. I don't know why you don't understand me.
Yes, you are a very confused individual. You have repeatedly claimed that I lack faith, and repeatedly falsely accused me of not believing in God, despite multiple explanations to the contrary. What will it take to clarify it for you?
Let's put it this way. I really don't need for you to "prove" that Genesis is supposed to be taken literally. I know that you cannot prove it, and I'm posing it to you to show you that it isn't possible. It's like asking you to prove that 2+2=5. If someone says, "Prove to me that 2+2-5," you would know that person isn't really asking for you to show a math equation, but they are asking a rhetorical question. That is what I was saying.
You believe that Genesis is literal. Fine, go for it. You cannot prove that Genesis is literal, any more than I can prove that it isn't. That's just the way it is.
Hmmm. You seem to care very much what this particular woman says about the Bible. So if I were male, you would accept my words, and you reject it just because I'm female? Talk about sexist!
Gosh, I could, but not in one sitting.... It would take hours to talk about everything I believe pertaining to God. I suppose I could summarize it a little for you.
God is a God of Paradox. On one hand, God is beyond all human understanding; one the other hand, God cares so deeply about each and every one of us, so much that he took on human flesh, became one of us, lived with us, died as one of us, thereby destroying the power of death.
God created everything around us, and yet God continues to create within our lives.
God is immutable, and yet he hears our prayer and is moved by our cries.
The New Testament is a collection of several different writings each with their own purpose.
First, we have four Gospels. The word "Gospel" means "Good News." There are actually dozens, maybe hundreds of gospels, but only four have been codified into our modern Scripture. Three of those, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, are all based on the same source, referred to as "The Q source," which is a list of Jesus' sayings. John was written much later. Each Gospel has its own agenda or focus, and the four taken together is an important key to learning about Jesus, as long as the author's focus is understood, and you're not trying to tie the four gospels into a single story.
Acts is written by the same author as Luke. It tells the story of Paul, and how the message of Jesus began to be spread across the early world.
Then we have several letters. Many of these letters were written by Paul, but not all of them. They show that even the earliest Christians struggled in their walk in Christ. Reading the letters can be misleading, because it's like listening to half of a conversation on a telephone: we only know the answers, and we can only guess at what the questions are that he is responding to. It's important to remember that these letters were written to a certain group of people at a specific time in response to a specific problem. I think the epistles are important lessons for all Christians, but we should be careful not to interpret everything in them as statements for all people for all time, because Paul certainly was not intended to be speaking in that way.
Finally, we have the Revelation of John. A lot of people wrongly think that this John is the same John who was with Jesus while Jesus was alive, but it is not. This John lived much later -- as much as 120 years after Jesus' ascension. This does not diminish its validity at all. In fact, to me, it strengthens it. That Jesus' power was still so strong, 100+ years after he walked the earth, is quite a testament to his power.
Do I believe? Absolutely!
How do I? I cannot begin to answer that question. How do you breathe? It's not something I have ever had to work at.
Why? Because he gave me the gift of faith, so that I could believe in him.
Since I do, this question would be moot, but I'd like to think that any Christian would care if someone was initiating a discussion about Jesus with them, and that person did NOT believe. Wouldn't that be a pretty clear case that maybe, just maybe, God brought this non-believer into your life for a reason?
Woah. So you're telling me you think Jesus is "son of God" only because he was related to Adam through his earthly FATHER, Joseph? So, you don't believe that Jesus was incarnate by the Holy Spirit? You believe his was conceived in "the usual way," and that Joseph was his father? Hmmmm.
No, Luke's genealogy is problematic for many reasons, not the least of which that he doesn't know how to count. More importantly, it outlines JOSEPH'S heritage.
In fact, the miscalculation is a clue. Many stories at the time Luke was written started with genealogies. This one starts with a genealogy, but the reader at once notices that the genealogy is wrong. Luke's audience would have noticed this at once. The writer was doing this on purpose, to point out that Jesus was NOT a child of man, but of God.
Umm, no. Not sure where you're getting that.
No, once again, I believe the Bible, I just don't believe that it is always literal.
You don't believe it is always literal, either. You accept many statements of Jesus as being parable. What you are accusing me of is a ludicrous as me saying, "You think Jesus told parables, therefore you think Jesus is a liar." That's just not the case. And the more you say it, the less sense it makes. I have explained this to you over and over. I don't know how else to explain it. I don't know why you don't understand me.
Yes, you are a very confused individual. You have repeatedly claimed that I lack faith, and repeatedly falsely accused me of not believing in God, despite multiple explanations to the contrary. What will it take to clarify it for you?
L
You have not proven anything about what you are saying and I asked you first, now you are trying to turn it around.
Do you believe this verse to be literal or figurative?
Exodus 20:11
(11) For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
If you believe it to be figurative then the rest of the commandments must also be figurative.
Do you believe this verse to be literal or figurative?
Exodus 20:11
(11) For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
If you believe it to be figurative then the rest of the commandments must also be figurative.
T
Figurative.
That does not follow. For example, if someone said, "I love you with a burning hot passion," would that be figurative or literal? Well, the "burning hot passion" part would be figurative. Does that mean that the subject does not love the object, and that he's lying? Of course not. Just because someone is referring to an allegory doesn't mean everything they say is allegory.
A literary allusion to a mythical trope in no means negates or invalidates the comparison. Authors frequently use allusions or comparisons, sometimes to true stories, sometimes to stories that are fiction rather than non. As long as the reader knows the original story, it doesn't matter whether that original story is historical or not.
Have you not ever compared something that happened to you or someone you know in terms of a make-believe event? Like, "Gosh, this is just like that tv show," or, "Hey, that's almost like the movie..." Your audience knows the tv show or movie in reference, so they can understand the comparison. They don't think that you think your life is actually a television show, or that you can't tell the difference between reality and fantasy. They know you're drawing a comparison, and if it's a good comparison, it will make sense to your audience, or will add something to the conversation.
Similarly, the audience of Exodus knows the Creation Story intimately, so they understand that when the author is referring to it, that's what he's talking about, and why. "Hey, even God rested, according to our Creation Myth. That means we should, too." The author is simply referring to the creation myth that he, and his audience, already know is a myth. Saying it is a myth is not saying it isn't "true." It's just not historical. It is most certainly true, far truer than anything science could possibly teach.
That does not follow. For example, if someone said, "I love you with a burning hot passion," would that be figurative or literal? Well, the "burning hot passion" part would be figurative. Does that mean that the subject does not love the object, and that he's lying? Of course not. Just because someone is referring to an allegory doesn't mean everything they say is allegory.
A literary allusion to a mythical trope in no means negates or invalidates the comparison. Authors frequently use allusions or comparisons, sometimes to true stories, sometimes to stories that are fiction rather than non. As long as the reader knows the original story, it doesn't matter whether that original story is historical or not.
Have you not ever compared something that happened to you or someone you know in terms of a make-believe event? Like, "Gosh, this is just like that tv show," or, "Hey, that's almost like the movie..." Your audience knows the tv show or movie in reference, so they can understand the comparison. They don't think that you think your life is actually a television show, or that you can't tell the difference between reality and fantasy. They know you're drawing a comparison, and if it's a good comparison, it will make sense to your audience, or will add something to the conversation.
Similarly, the audience of Exodus knows the Creation Story intimately, so they understand that when the author is referring to it, that's what he's talking about, and why. "Hey, even God rested, according to our Creation Myth. That means we should, too." The author is simply referring to the creation myth that he, and his audience, already know is a myth. Saying it is a myth is not saying it isn't "true." It's just not historical. It is most certainly true, far truer than anything science could possibly teach.
T
It was once. It no longer has that meaning, and hasn't for over a decade.
Yes. Some translations of the bible have even been modernized to this. It's as incorrect grammatically as using "thee" in modern times. Educated people simply do not use that kind of speech.
This just goes to show that you haven't been paying attention to me. That doesn't really surprise me, but I should point out that you are incorrect.
You are wrong. I do believe that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born, and that Jesus' resurrection was literal. As for miracles, I think it's silly to try to "explain them away." Either accept them as miracles or not, but trying to figure out the science behind them is silly. I know people who deny these things and are still Christians, but I am not one of them.
People who love the Lord? Oh, I have read.
Perhaps you've read what the Bible says about people who judge other people wrongly, and usurp God's job.
Ummm ... that's what I said. I guess if you can't even comprehend the simple statements I type in a chat board in your own language, it shouldn't surprise me that you don't comprehend the more complex messages of our Lord when it's been translated from an ancient language.
Actually, I do both, and then some. I study the Bible, I study what some men and women have taught about the Bible, but most importantly, I pray the Bible. I don't just accept what any mortal says about the Holy Scripture, carte blanche. I check it against the Scripture itself, I check it against my heart, and if there is still doubt or confusion, I pray.
Scripture advises us to listen to our elders, and heed the lessons of those who know more than we do. I have done just that. Have you?
I believe. I believe what God says, and I believe any man or woman who agrees with what God says.
I have said this before, so your only excuse for not knowing this is that you did not pay attention to what I have written in the past. I shouldn't be bothered. You ignore what God writes, too, so I guess I should really be honored.
This is one of the first intelligent things you have said so far.
I'm sorry that I was imprecise, and you were right to correct me. What I intended to say was that FOR ME, believing in God was as natural as breathing. I can't explain why or how I do any more than you can explain why or how you breathe.
As for the rest of your post, I have tried different ways of presenting my views, offered many alternate points of view, I have reiterated my beliefs multiple times when you have stated untruths about them, and you just repeat the same old line. You think you know everything and you're right and I'm wrong and that's all there is. It's rather sad that I am willing to accept your point of view but you are unwilling to accept mine, and continue to bear false witness against me.
I will pray for you.
Yes. Some translations of the bible have even been modernized to this. It's as incorrect grammatically as using "thee" in modern times. Educated people simply do not use that kind of speech.
This just goes to show that you haven't been paying attention to me. That doesn't really surprise me, but I should point out that you are incorrect.
You are wrong. I do believe that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born, and that Jesus' resurrection was literal. As for miracles, I think it's silly to try to "explain them away." Either accept them as miracles or not, but trying to figure out the science behind them is silly. I know people who deny these things and are still Christians, but I am not one of them.
People who love the Lord? Oh, I have read.
Perhaps you've read what the Bible says about people who judge other people wrongly, and usurp God's job.
Ummm ... that's what I said. I guess if you can't even comprehend the simple statements I type in a chat board in your own language, it shouldn't surprise me that you don't comprehend the more complex messages of our Lord when it's been translated from an ancient language.
Actually, I do both, and then some. I study the Bible, I study what some men and women have taught about the Bible, but most importantly, I pray the Bible. I don't just accept what any mortal says about the Holy Scripture, carte blanche. I check it against the Scripture itself, I check it against my heart, and if there is still doubt or confusion, I pray.
Scripture advises us to listen to our elders, and heed the lessons of those who know more than we do. I have done just that. Have you?
I believe. I believe what God says, and I believe any man or woman who agrees with what God says.
I have said this before, so your only excuse for not knowing this is that you did not pay attention to what I have written in the past. I shouldn't be bothered. You ignore what God writes, too, so I guess I should really be honored.
This is one of the first intelligent things you have said so far.
I'm sorry that I was imprecise, and you were right to correct me. What I intended to say was that FOR ME, believing in God was as natural as breathing. I can't explain why or how I do any more than you can explain why or how you breathe.
As for the rest of your post, I have tried different ways of presenting my views, offered many alternate points of view, I have reiterated my beliefs multiple times when you have stated untruths about them, and you just repeat the same old line. You think you know everything and you're right and I'm wrong and that's all there is. It's rather sad that I am willing to accept your point of view but you are unwilling to accept mine, and continue to bear false witness against me.
I will pray for you.