Spirituality
23 Jul 15
03 Aug 15
Originally posted by CalJustWhat don't you understand about the videos?
RJH, here's a challenge, one meant seriously and in good faith.
Pick any ONE subject from any ONE of your myriad videos and let's seriously discuss it.
In my experience, when I challenge any issue in your videos, like the one in your "Evidence if a young earth" and "Noahs ark" threads, you just ignore it or answer by posting ANOTHER, usually totally i ...[text shortened]... ge that there is merit in your case and say I am wrong.
How about it? It's August, after all!
04 Aug 15
Originally posted by whodeyI like,"Science is merely the study of the material universe". "Creation is what lies beyond the known material universe and what set it in motion" works also but I'd change known to knowable. So how to combine the two?
Science is merely the study of the material universe.
Creation is what lies beyond the known material universe and what set it in motion........
Merely study the material universe and Creation knows what lies beyond? This works well for Creationism and/or science, I think, but where does that leave Creation Science in your opinion?
Also, I'm still waiting to hear a Creationist view of the Creationism represented on this website please: http://www.oldearth.org/
It seems hard to justify,"Theory in crisis" when most evangelical colleges teach evolution. The oldearth.org site claims Creation Science is harming Creationism. Is it harming Creationism? Is it turning it's mislead youth away, when they go off to college and find out the truth about a theory in not so much of a crisis, but more like just annoyed?
To be fair, oldearth.org doesn't blame Creation Science but young earth creation. I think they missed this point. Young earth creation is not the problem. The beliefs they hold, they can hold. Just don't go around redefining things like science and then saying, "Science", when others hearing think you mean the other science. The one with all the scientists.
Is perhaps Creationism a religion in crisis?
04 Aug 15
Originally posted by JerryHThe old earth creationists mean well by trying to compromise the word of God. However, they don't realize that that leads many astray from the truth of scripture. We YECs refuse to compromise the truth of the Holy Spirit inspired scriptures on this important issue. 😏
I like,"Science is merely the study of the material universe". "Creation is what lies beyond the known material universe and what set it in motion" works also but I'd change known to knowable. So how to combine the two?
Merely study the material universe and Creation knows what lies beyond? This works well for Creationism and/or science, I think, but where ...[text shortened]... other science. The one with all the scientists.
Is perhaps Creationism a religion in crisis?
HalleluYaH !!! Praise the LORD! Holy! Holy! Holy!
05 Aug 15
Originally posted by RJHindsHow is competent reading a compromise?
The old earth creationists mean well by trying to compromise the word of God.
I think, rather, that creationists have compromised any truth offered by Scripture by layering cultural assumptions less than 200 years old over the top of the text. These cultural assumptions say a lot about a peculiar subculture of quasi-believers, but they do not reflect any of the worlds of the ancient Jews nor the early Christians.
05 Aug 15
Originally posted by WulebgrYou have the free will to have a different opinion from the truth. 😏
How is competent reading a compromise?
I think, rather, that creationists have compromised any truth offered by Scripture by layering cultural assumptions less than 200 years old over the top of the text. These cultural assumptions say a lot about a peculiar subculture of quasi-believers, but they do not reflect any of the worlds of the ancient Jews nor the early Christians.
05 Aug 15
Originally posted by RJHindsSo do you. Now, give me back my lollipop.
You have the free will to have a different opinion from the truth.
If you would like to discuss the merits of anachronistic literalism vs. reading ancient texts in the light of ancient history, we can have a rational discussion.
Otherwise. Give me back my lollipop.
05 Aug 15
Originally posted by WulebgrI don't have your lollipop, and i would much rather discuss creation science and the stupidity of the theory of evilution.
So do you. Now, give me back my lollipop.
If you would like to discuss the merits of anachronistic literalism vs. reading ancient texts in the light of ancient history, we can have a rational discussion.
Otherwise. Give me back my lollipop.
05 Aug 15
Originally posted by JerryHIs it possible to believe in creation, but not believe the Bible?
Creationism is the doctrine in which the pronouncements of the Holy Bible are sacred beliefs held without question.
It is possible to believe the Bible wholly, but not fall into the literalism that enables young earth Creationism. Indeed, there are many Christians who find no conflict between their religious faith and science.
05 Aug 15
Originally posted by WulebgrSure, I believe in creation all right, the whole universe was created, how I don't know but it seems to have happened about 14 billion years ago.
Is it possible to believe in creation, but not believe the Bible?
It is possible to believe the Bible wholly, but not fall into the literalism that enables young earth Creationism. Indeed, there are many Christians who find no conflict between their religious faith and science.
My guess is this universe is the result of the equivalent of a high school physics experiment and when this universe winds down, the student will be graded on its creation. Kind of like the student blows up this bubble from a tiny blob and being a multi-dimensional student, it can 'blow' into the tiny blob and that is our universe about to be made which we see as the big bang.
It might even end in the big BAM when the instructor says, NO GOOD KID, try again and hits the bubble with a BIG hammer.