Jump to content

sagz4Christ

Senior Member
  • Posts

    511
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by sagz4Christ

  1. brother Lekcit; I must admit to being baffled at your response to my post earlier. I was quite confused. I think you and I are saying essentially the same thing. My post was directed to the arguement that said it would be inpossible for Adam to name all those animals. the arguement was based on flawed logic and gross assumptions. Yes, the [incorrect] interpretation of Scripture is one of the leading problems with the church today. Yes, we need to test ideas about the meaning of certain passages against other passages to see if they are wanting. Nowhere did I add anything to the interpretation of the passages in Genesis. I think you know that, and I don't think you were trying to insinuate that I was. You must forgive me, I am confused with the bolded part of my quote of your post. I don't remember you ever *showing* other than just saying it in another post how the language clearly justifies a 24 hour day. NOT THAT I DON'T BELIEVE IT! With God, ALL things are possible. Yes, even the creation of the whole known universe. Anyway, I would like to hear what you have to say about the text/language that supports a 24 hour day. Until then; ~in Christ -- 4 Christ
  2. you would do well to learn what the word, "L-O-V-E" means. As a matter of fact, I never tried speaking from knowledge. I quite plainly spoke in generalities as you can see with all my "maybe" sentences. I have nothing to prove to you or anyone. I merely asked for some information I could check your post against. I didn't want you saying things without having something to back it up. So the whole saving face thing, you can leave that with the grade school arguements. you simply needed to give me a name, a link, a book title, a science paper, or anything. there really was no need to slap those *immature* thoughts into your post. Thanks for showing your age. As Elisha said, I no longer have anything to say to you. ~in Christ
  3. Maybe they ignored the evidence because it wasn't conclusive? Or maybe the scientists that *discovered* this information did so by using bad science? Who knows, there could be a dozen reasons why this is rejected. To say it is because the ones that found this are Christians is assuming too much. Maybe a link to this information will help us all decide on our own what information you are even talking about. I for one have never even heard of this. ~in Christ
  4. Hello. I have vowed to myself not to get involved with public discussions like this again after what happened with Fovezer. However, I want to do my friend SA a favor and stay current with the discussions going on here. For his sake as well as mine. I could not, however go without commenting on some things I find wrong with the conclusions of this post. While I refuse to get into discussions with anyone over whether the earth is young or old, the logic of this particular post is flawed. I wish to point out why. While the whole article is long, and there is alot of information in it, I am going to limit myself to only discussing the conclusions laid out by the very poster of this article. These are the conclusions as laid out by the poster: First I would like to point out that Adam was indeed human. I would also like to point out that it is presumptuous to assume how much time he would like to spend with each animal "admiring God's creation" as it were. There is zero evidence he did this. And it is illogical to assume anything. Remember, Adam did the naming, and viewing BEFORE the fall. Before sin crept into creation [by man], everything was perfect. I would point out that God hiimself would take walks with Adam through the garden. The text speaks of the intimate times God and Adam shared. Following this thought, time is almost of no effect either, for in the New Testament, we learn that 1000 years is as a day to the Lord and a day is as 1000 years. God is outside time. It is fair to assume that since God and Adam spent so much time together, then Adam was also. At least while in the garden. (Remember after the fall, is when years are added to the lives of humans). So the time taken by Adam to name even every single type of creature would not really matter. *As a side note of thought, there was something in this post that stated something like this: "animals lined themselves up for Adam." I admit this is incredibly paraphrased and probably butchered massively. For that I apologize, but I see no reason not to believe this. If the Lord can bring animals in male/female pairs to Noah, line them up and get them on the boat, why can't He do the same for Adam, while he was naming them? There is no indication as far as I can remember where it said Adam HAD to remember the names he gave the animals. And if there is, why do you have to allow time to do it? The arguement I laid down aside, could not Adam have had a perfect memory? After all, the garden was paradise. The fourth conclusion is false for the following reason. There is no indication that Adam had to spend any extra time with the animals during the naming process than he did to figure out none of them matched him in stature or ability or thought. It is interesting to note however, that while the serpent was talking to Eve, she wasn't at all alarmed by conversation. Maybe Adam had conversations with all the animals? No way to tell conclusively, but interesting to think about none the less. The rest of the conclusions all base the arguement around time. This is a fallacy for the very reasons I laid out above. I would like to expand alittle on why we cannot assume either a literal 6 24 hour day OR millions of years. The first reason is that it is just not in the text. Whatever the time frame was for a day in the first chapters of Genesis cannot be determined. There is evidence both ways. Some is strong, some is weak. I personally don't think it really MATTERS at all how long it took God to creating our world, or us. All I know is that He did. We must not forget that we are also talking about a situation we know nothing about. "A sinless world." This is a world dominated by the fallen nature of man. It is a world destined for destruction on the last day. The garden was not set up like that, or with that in mind. Remember the serpent having a conversation with Eve? The garden was paradise. It was intended to be perfect. Only AFTER the fall of man did everything start decaying. Only AFTER the fall of man did man start aging. I have run out of time, I will get to the second set of conclusions when I have the time. Thanks for letting me join. ~in Christ
  5. ok. I have been mulling this thing over and over in my mind. To be honest, these types of discussions are what drove me away from the boards in the first place. I am heart-broken to see that they are still going on. I don't know what prompted me to come back right now; maybe it was to check up on my friends -- you know -- see how they are doing. Maybe it was to see if things had changed. Maybe it was some sick fascination with frustration I have with people that try to "discuss" "topics of great and vital importance." Whatever the reason was, I came back. I don't plan on staying, but just to let people see a balanced view of things, I am compelled to write. I read the passage in Deuteronomy. Here it is for everyone to see: Note the order of events: 1. A man takes a wife. 2. He "goes into her." Point 1: I see here that first the man has married, and then consumated the marriage by having sex. Now, starting in verse 22. Point 1: Here, we have a man that is taking a woman that is already "married." Both parties are to die because it was consentual. Point 2: It is interesting to note that betrothal/engagement seems to be just about as important as marriage itself. I just wonder on the side if we take our engagements to be as serious. This is another topic for another discussion. But at our text again: We have here two situations with the same person, "a virgin who is bethrothed to a husband." One situation has her in the city having sex with another man. Note what happens to THEM BOTH when people find out: They get stoned to death. Now let us see what happens when the same situation is found in the countyside: The man is forced to pay a fine to the woman's father and marry her. If we read on, we see that the REASON he is forced to marry her is because he has soiled her name. Her name is soiled because of the actions of this man, not her. It is the reason niether of them die. He is forced to marry and given no future opprotunity for divorce. It is an honor thing...not a "becoming one flesh" thing. If it were because of the one flesh thing, then they would be forced to marry no matter where the offense took place. Whether in the city or the country. This is not what we find in the passage. I would like to ask where you get the idea that sex outside the confines of marriage constitues marriage in the eyes of God. I see it no where in the passages of this or any other Scripture. You mentioned Adam and Eve. I would like to point out that God intened/betrothed Eve to Adam even before she was created. Then I would like ot point out that God introduced/married them after was created, and Adam knew what He had done by speaking what he did. "Bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh." Let us look closer at the account of man and woman being created. Genesis chapter 2 Note the following order of events: 1. God created man in His own image 2. God created woman in His own image. 3. THEN God blessed them and said "be fruitful and multiply..." 4. Then sudue the earth. 5. Then have dominion over every living thing that moves on the earth. Point of interest. First He created, then He blessed/married, THEN He said "multiply." But that isn't all ... let us go on: Genesis chapter 2 Here we get a glimpse of the "bethrothal" step. It is found that God wanted to make a helper comparible to him. Now we skip a bit to get to the good stuff ... Genesis chapter 2 Can you guess the order of events in this section? Pretty well laid out isn't it? 1. Adam fell asleep. 2. God took a rib from him and made Eve. This is the important thing we need to see: 3. God brought her to Adam. This is the "marriage ceremony" if you will. 4. Adam "gave his vows" Now in verse 24 there is an important and very interesting note: What is the reason a man shall leave his mother and father? Because he had sex with a female? That is not the intended meaning in these verses. He leaves because he has gotten married. Then and only then is the married "consumated" by "becoming one flesh." There are a few lessons we can glean from these sections of Scripture. 1. God has intended for man a "suitible helper." You could also say that He has someine picked out for you already. He can certainly intend Suzy down the street for Dimitious living in Moscow. 2. To have sex outside the confines of marriage is to "cheat" on your future partner ... whomever that person is. This is the afront to God Hiimself, and the reason premarital sex is not permitted in Scripture. 3. "Becoming one flesh" involves soo much more than having sex, it would take another thread in itself to discuss all the implications. A short version would be to say that it involves becoming one spirit, having the same focus and being committed without question to each other. Your whole body has to work together to survive just as marriage partners have to work together for the marriage to survive. This is the short idea of what "becoming one flesh" signifies. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Though I can appreciate your time and effort in the study you done on the matter; and though I can certainly agree that we as Christians NEED to pay attention to our purity; I cannot agree with you that the first person I had "consentual sex" with is now my wife. It doesn't add up. By rights, and as is laid out in Deuteronomy, we both needed to be stoned in the city. But thank GOD that He has forgiven me of my past and cleansed my slate and given me a new nature so I can serve Christ with all my heart. This is why I disagree with you on your conclusion. And for the record: I know a thing or two about exegesis and hermeneutics. It is the simple art of paying attention to what you are reading. There are some things you got completely correct in your study. As a matter of fact, there are alot of things right. I just want to show you that your conclusion is wrong. Just as people can read Hebrews and James and come to the conclusion that our salvation is conditional. They do great studies, but draw the wrong conslusions from the evidence. Incidentially, scientists also draw the wrong conclusions when they say there is no evidence for the existense of God. This isn't an attack on you, or your faith. It is, as I stated at the beginning, an opprotunity to give a balanced view on the subject at hand. Sorry this is so long. ~serving Christ in faith
  6. i have a question to all involved....... Does anyone REALLY think this is edifying? Or is it more divisive? What can be accomplished by continuing this discussion? It has been my observation that topics like this only serve one function... That is to add more weight to an already burdonsome task as trying to uphold our responsibilities toward Christ. The posters of such posts, more often than not, post out of genuine (albeit misplaced) concern due to an error in interpretation of the Word of God. It is evident that this person will not be persuaded from thier position. I must admit, I do not know anything about this subject; I haven't studied it in depth; but what I DO know is that Scripture cannot contradict itself. Whatever the outcome of a PERSONAL study on this subject, we must keep a few things in mind... 1. We are not professional theologians. 2. We are all weak minded and can be easily swayed by whatever sounds good, or true. 3. We need more than a concordance and a *little voice in our head* to understand the Word correctly. However, no matter how harsh this may sound to you, I do have something I want you to take away from this whole thing ... Whether this topic was started out of genuine concern for the holiness of God's people, or a blatent attempt to derail some of God's children or lead them astray, God's Will WILL be accomplished, and HE will be glorified. I suggest leaving this topic alone...nothing productive can come from it. ~serving Christ in faith
  7. I heard it from J Vernon McGee first..... me too!
  8. And you absolutely could be right.... :il: Excpet if you recall...Daniel didn't die, and the three didn't burn because they were being obedient to God. Besides the fact that they were prepared to die for thier faith/beliefs. If we remember what Jonah was doing on the water for the fish to eat him anyway....(running from his responsibility.....not being obidient...and living in sin against God)...it lends a great deal of credit to the idea that he was dead. Either way...it doesn't change the fact that Christ is risen, and we can find forgiveness of sin and redemption through faith in His finished work on the cross! Glory be to God in the highest ~serving Christ in faith!
  9. Hey Cat. What Henry is saying here is no that the church was tolerating it on a legal or spiritual level up front; but that through thier lack of action to discipline the wayward parisioner -- excommunication or openly disapproving of what this person was doing -- it caused them to share in the sin that was being openly committed in the church. If you would...read 1 Corinthians 5. It talks about just this very thing. I know about this because I just got done teaching a bible study on this very thing. It has HUGE implications. The question you asked at the beginning of this thread, "How much sin should the church tolerate?" The answer is quite simply.....absolutely none. Any open sin we see in the church should be dealt with swiftly and decidedly. Does that mean that everytime any one of us sins, we should excommunicate ourselves? By no means, for then there would be no church left! What we DO need to stand against and ANY and ALL OPEN sin we find in anyone that names the name of Christ. Noe, we all know that anyone that says they are a Christian ins't necessarily one. The real Christians are represented by thier works and attitudes. But that doesn't stop us from holding those that name the name of Christ accountable for thier actions. Matthew 18 lays out a brief description of the steps of church discipline. Various places throughout the New Testament go into greater detail and give examples of this being carried out. It is what made the church strong and vibrant in the early days of Christianity. Consequently, it is the lack of this that makes the church today crippled and without influence in todays society. I have the outline of my study for anyone that would like a bit of guidance through 1 Corinthians 5. It is in Works format...but if there is enough interest...I can load it to my website so everyone can read it. I have Scripture references and such in there too. I hope this hepled alittle bit with your answer Cat........ And it is nice to see you are still here and still kicking! ~serving Christ in faith
  10. I would like to know where you got all this information. What authors have you read? What study did you do? Who helped guide you in this? Thank you
  11. Fovezer, Hello, friend! Sorry it takes me a few days to respond to you and add anything new to our talks, but life is moving forward if I am on these boards or spending it with my wife. I choose to spend as much time with her as I can!! I am sure you understand. I also wanted to give you a few days to research Philip Johnson. I noticed you didn't mention Michael Behe. I am sure you know him as one of the forerunners for the work he has done in molecular biology. I think it was him that coined the phrase "Intelligent Design." But to the best of my knowledge, him (Michael Behe), Philip Johnson, and a man named Lee Strobel are the most well respected scientists/lawyers/journalists that argue for Creation. Actually, they argue against evolution (Michael and Johnson) and Strobel has written two books, "A case for Faith," and "A case for Christ." I highly recommend those two books. Strobel was a legal editor for the Chicago Tribune. He recieved a Masters in Law at Yale. I would like to continue our talks with discussions on some of the work these gentlemen have done and continue to do. It may be a few days before I get back here, but as always, you are free to email me if you have something for me that can't wait. As before, I will only respond to messages that are dealing with the topics we are talking about. Feel free to respond to anyone you wish, but I can only follow one conversation at a time, and the time I have is precious to me. That time would be best spent staying on track. I look forward to picking up our talks. I truely enjoy them, as I enjoy listening to what you have to say. Until the next time.... ~serving Christ by faith
  12. Amen, brother. Our very lives are supposed to draw out people, or convict them of sin (which is a very good reason worldly people tend to hate Christians so much.....especially those who KNOW the truth because they study it. I constantly pray that the Lord would use my life to bring Him glory from other people....and keep me low in the meantime.....not puffed up. I didn't hear about that study, but it doesn't suprise me. What happens when someone is hurt, and hates being addicted to.....say.....drinking, but you can use ANY sin....and he meets someone that says they are a Christian...but they are stooped in the very thing that is oppressing the hurt person!! how can they minister?? What truth do they know? What truth do they live? How effective for Christ are they? How much do they LOVE Him?? What makes that Christian different than anyone else? I better stop now before I get going on a rampage. Likemindedness, brother....of the same mind. Amen. ~serving Christ
  13. I agree with Blood Stained Soul. There really is no need to study other religions. The most effective way for a person to spot a counterfeit $100 bill is to know what the real thing looks like. We should not be worried about what other religions teach and instead, focus our energies on the study of God and His Word. Then, when the time comes, we will be able to witness to a person where they are, with the TRUTH. In love and knowledge. Amen Blood Stained Soul, and thanks for the story. ~serving Christ by faith
  14. Scaramallion, While I cannot say I understand your thoughts on this subject, I certainly can appreciate where you are coming from. Hello, my name is sagz and I have a friend I am talking to about athiesm and Christianity. Actually, we are, or WERE talking about creation verse evolution, but a ton of subjects have been and will be breeched along the way of our discussion. You are welcome to join in and contribute. I know it can seem pretty hostile when talking to Christians about what they believe, but in the spirit if kindness, I would ask that EVERYONE involved exhibit alittle more tolerance of others views. You see, it is what our Lord wants from us who call ourselves Christians. It is called "long-suffering," or "patience." It is also what everyone demands us Christians have for other beliefs. "Tolerance." It is, sadly, the last thing most have for the Christian beliefs though. I would love to talk further with you and find out what you believe the way you do, what gripes you have against the God of the Bible, and anything else you may have questions about. But I can only do that if you are willing to join me in a civilized discussion of facts and life. I hope to see you around for awhile. Fovezer can tell you more about me if you wish to know from anther source how I operate. Until then, peace...... ~serving Christ in faith
  15. My. my, my! Fovezer!! I see you have been busy while I have been away! I haven't read everything posted here, just a few things at the beginning of this thread and a few things at the end. I DID notice you hold a PhD in evolutionary Biology. Impressive. I have a secret for you, my friend. *i don't even have a college education........yet* Please don't say anything to ANYONE!! People think that I am intelligent....I kinda like that feeling! Anyway. It is great knowing where you are coming from. How have you been? I see you have been answering and talking about the very same things you were before I left. I see that pretty much zero ground has been gained by way of direction in this coversation. I have a question for you. Do you know a fellow named Philip Johnson? I know you know Michael Behe. I am almost certain how you feel about them, but I would like to ask anyway, just for the sake of conversation. Anyway, I am glad I am back and that YOU are still here! This means that we can continue our discussion!!!!! YAAAHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! ~serving Christ in faith
  16. Rev. 5 7He came and took the scroll from the right hand of him who sat on the throne. 8And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. 9And they sang a new song: "You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation. 10You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth." 11Then I looked and heard the voice of many angels, numbering thousands upon thousands, and ten thousand times ten thousand. They encircled the throne and the living creatures and the elders. 12In a loud voice they sang: "Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise!" 13Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, singing: "To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!" 14The four living creatures said, "Amen," and the elders fell down and worshiped.
  17. Fovezer, I am terribly sorry about not being here the past few weeks. I don't remember if I told you or not, but I got married on the 20th of December and have been trying to get situated at my new home ever since. I am getting a computer built for me as a wedding gift, so as soon as I get that, and get hooked up with internet, I will be beack in full force to continue our discussions. I hope you are still interested in seeing this through because I am. I hope you haven't been beaten up too bad while I have been away! I am very happy to see you still posting, that's for sure! Anyway, I may have some time in a few days to get back with you, but feel free to email me anytime you like for any reason at all. ~serving Christ in faith
  18. I would like to hear how Christ fits in to this "plan" of salvation. Then I would love to hear your interpretation of Rev 20:15.
  19. I think you know me well enough now that I am going to assume you know what I am going to bring up about this section! LOL!! So...in your theory, energy is eternal....but if it is eternal...then...who is there ever an absence of it? One more question about this...and we shall move on...... Are we living in a virtual universe? What exactly IS a virtual particle? My understanding is that it is a particle that is only around for a VERY small amount of time. Like nanoseconds. How then, do we get "real" matter from virtual? Especially if it only lasts a miniscule amount of time? And if all the particles in the universe were crammed inside a space no bigger than this, " . " , would it really matter since they are virtual anyway? Where would the pressure come from to cause the "Big Bang?" I am not questioning virtual particles, I am trying to reason out the theory that energy is eternal. It doesn't make any sense to me. Especially when we both agree that the universe isn't eternal. How could something that makes up the core of the physical universe be? It is most emphatically closed/finite. There is a beginning and an end. Astronomy has shown this time and again. The universe is slowly grinding to a halt. That must mean it had a starting point some time in the past. I believe we CAN know something about what was before the BB. But it is going to take other means than emperical to learn. Ok. I just wanted to be sure. I didn't know there were that many theories out there about this subject! Wow. It just goes to show what kind of imagination we humans have, eh? Anyway, just as in Christianity, there are at least three theories about the end time events (the catching up in the sky of all the saints; armageddon; etc.), only one can be the correct view. Just because someone quotes Scripture does not mean they use it correctly either. And in a trial, the lawyers try to get the judge or jury to believe their "version" of the truth. Does that mean the truth has changed? No! It just means it gets "lost in the mud." Five theories, eh? I know where I am casting MY vote! I see. Can energy produce itself? Of course something has to create it. Whether by the absence of energy giving way to virtual particles or by way of the Creation of God, it has to come from somewhere. If energy could produce, or even REproduce itself, then there would be no need for a 2nd LoT to begin with. It has an end. THat means it HAS to have a start. What or Who started it? I said before, I believe we CAN know something about what it was like before. We can know something about the immaterial thing that was before the BB because to say we can't, is to fall back and rely solely on emperical means to prove something outside of the principles boundaries. I have discussed this earlier. I didn't get too far into depth though, as it seemed we agreed empericisim (verifiability principle) was only reliable within its boundaries. For our own benefit and that of others that may happen to be reading, let me restate what I said earlier.... There was a question put to you (not in these words, but with the same idea conveyed) that went like this: "Why do scientists believe that emperical evidence is worth anything?" You stated something that sounded like this: "Because they've tested it over and over and found it reliable." I would say this.....Reliable within it's boundaries, yes. But they can't give emperical evidence for their belief in the reliability of emperical evidence. If they did, they would be arguing in circles. I took the rest from a post of mine farther above in this topic. So my question to you, I suppose would have to be, "Can you actually know anything about immaterial things? This is an AWSOME response!! I wonder if you would be willing to read something for me. There is something that speaks directly to this, but it is found in Scripture. I will post a link to the passage and you can decide to tell me if you read it or not. It would be good for someone else maybe, if you decide not to read (which I fully understand, given your view on the Book). *Awww shucks!* Then, by your own permission, I will pray that God will do what He needs to do to help you see the reality of His existence! Don't get upset, dear friend, you said that very thing just a few seconds ago! Here is the link I promised: Link 1 Link 2 Link 3 (may require the Book of Jonah to be read) Ok, OK! I gave more than one link! I couldn't resist. There are others, but these jumped out at me. Again, please, no offense is intended by these links. There are merely for your curiosity as to what Scripture has to say about what you are asking for as it pertains to "evidence," or "signs." ~serving Christ in faith
  20. Jake, All is not going well, my friend. Too long to get into right now. As to the eternal topic between us........ Let's start here: Matthew 25:1-13 (NASB) Virgins Greek: Parthenos {par-then'-os} Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine Definitions: 1. a virgin 1a. a marriageable maiden 1b. a woman who has never had sexual intercourse with a man 1c. one's marriageable daughter 2. a man who has abstained from all uncleanness and whoredom attendant on idolatry, and so has kept his chastity 2a. one who has never had intercourse with women ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- It seems that Christ is refering to definition #2 in this passage, as this is the only time in Matthew this word is used except for Matt. 1:23 where the term is refering to Mary, and then it is defined as 1b. So, as to our text, this person who is refered to as a virgin is one who has lived a life of abstainance from all uncleanness and whoredom attendant on idolatry, and so has kept their chastity. Does this nesseccarily imply that we are talking about a Christian? What about one who lives a good life, but does not have Christ as Lord and Savior? Do you know anyone who by all outward appearances lives a more "righteous" life than any Christian you know? Is that man or woman entitled to heaven? There are a few Scriptures that bear witness to this passage; One is Matthew 13:3-9 Which seed can we surmise are the Christians? Another one is this: 2 Peter 2:18-22 What are the similarities in these two sections of Scripture? Can you see a relationship between the two? I wonder who the seeds are that could be compared to the dog and the sow... This is caused by the misunderstanding that when I say disobedient I am refering to "willfull" disobedience. I am not refering to such. If someone is sinning, and feels no compunction whatsoever about his/her/ sin, then there is great cause to worry, for that person may not really have Christ in his heart. This person may never have been saved in the first place. There is another parable that speaks to what I am trying to say... Matthew 22:11-13 Is this not a picture of those that are trying to get to heaven with their OWN righteousness instead of the what God intended for them to come? The man is dressed in his OWN clothes. Not those prescribed by the King. Notice what that man had to say? Nothing! He knew he got caught for trying to get in without the proper attire. What is, by the way, the proper attire for this wedding feast? Why, it is none other than the righteousness of "CHRIST." HE is our justification to our Father. It is HIS righteousness we must be wearing in order to receive eternal life. He is the only one that fits the bill for the requirements of God. And how do we get to wear that robe of righteousness? Those clothes with which all Christians are garbbed?
  21. It seems to me that we are grasping at straws here, my friend. First, you say that energy "creates" virtual particles. But the very act of creation nesseccitates a use of energy. We cannot have ANYTHING create anything without it using some amount of energy. But even if virtual particles don't use energy, then how do they account for the incredibly high density of matter that caused the Big Bang? It can't be a bunch of non-energy using virtual particles that suddenly appeared and became solid, or gaseous matter that created all there is in the universe. Surely you can't think that. So, since you admit that science doesn't know any of your assumtions for sure, that there is another, just as plausible scenerio for the creation of the universe. And since we don't know what was before the Big Bang (emperically), gives us no reason to throw out the Laws to begin with. We can't throw out the evidence we don't like, and keep other evidence that is just as circumstansial. That is double-mindedness. I know you aren't a double-minded man, so that can't be what you are attempting to do. If that is the case, then what ARE you attempting to accomplish? While I have never heard this, it really is a non-issue. It is only something to create a distraction of the real issue. Does God exist? I would ask though, that you provide some links so I can look into it myself. I will give you an example of a car battery. If you have a fully charged car battery, and leave the car doors closed, the lights off, the key out of the ignition, and the car sitting for a time, what do you find after awhile? I will tell you, for I have done it....you will have a car that doesn't start. Energy depletes. Used or not. It doesn't sit around forever waiting to be used....it moves inexorably to disorder, used or not. Don't ask why....I can't tell you, but the 2nd Law if to answer just that. That is how you misrepresented the Law. You can't use oxygen, because that is a cyclical phenomenon(sp) as we break it down to CO2, and tress and plants resupply the oxygen by using CO2. However, the supplies of both gasses are marching onward to disorder as we speak, for the amount of oxygen needed to create CO2 is substantially more than the amount of CO2 created. And vise versa. It takes more CO2 to create oxygen than the amount of oxygen created. That is how to interpret the Law. I agree that everything starts out with order, but it doesn't order itself. It doesn't start out that way of its own accord. SOMETHING has to PUT everything in order, "in order" for everything to work. We agree then. I am not trying to use the Second Law as a means to show why or what things are ordered. I am using the principle stated in the Law to point in a logical direction to what could have been, and has to be given the confines of the Law itself, the cause of Creation. It points to an immaterial "something" as the introducing force behind matter and energy. That is all. Nothing more, nothing less. In fact, it is what you are doing with quantum mechanics, or quantum physics. You are using the priciples in that feild to point to a possible cause of the universe. It can't be one of them. I have shown why I think quantum physics is not the answer we are looking for, because it negates the amount of matter needed to cause the Big Bang. But again, that is beside the issue. This is a great lead in to my next subject. The three general ways in which we know things. But what I would like to concider for now, is that you are still asking for emperical "evidence" that something cannot happen without a God. This leaves us in the same predicament we are still in; trying to use the scientific principle of verifiability to prove something about an immaterial Being. May I suggest, without sounding holier-than-thou, and without sounding like I am coming down hard on you, that you may not see what you are looking for, because you don't know what you are looking for? Let me try to show you in another way. What kind of things are you looking for? what "evidence" will convince you that God exists? Tell me something, friend -- what would God have to do to prove to you that He exists? You are more than encouraged to hope, my friend! I will pray! (It's what I do. After all, I AM a Christian! ) ~serving Christ in faith
  22. I have been at present, unable to find the whole rhyme. Could you please post the whole thing so I can know what it is? Thanks!
  23. Shouldn't that be read ?? It is pretty much in line with what Arthur said. If Jesus said "Depart from Me workers of iniquity, I never knew you." It would be the same thing as what you quoted: "I don't know you." There is nothing to imply that He ever knew them. That must mean that they were never His to begin with, because Jesus states that He knows ALL of His children. Even the disobidient ones. Just asking a question......
×
×
  • Create New...