What was the first living thing like according to evolutionists

[MarkNigro]

 

 

 

 

 

But grouping theistic evolution with atheistic evolution is itself deceitful. 

 

 

Atheistic origin science is easily proven false. Yet it is taught in the schools.

 

The theistic origin science group then has their theory of origins being taught as true. That BTW is against the establishment clause of the US constitution.

 

So atheistic origin science and its methods are taught. When creationist refute atheistic origin science, theistic origin science jumps to the rescue claiming God or whatever could have done it that way. But the methods of atheistic origin science become the starting point for discussion of the nature of God or whatever.

 

In reality it is atheistic origin science versus theistic origin science first.

 

Once atheistic origin science is refuted, the determination of the nature of God or whatever cannot start with the methods and conclusions of atheistic origin science.

 

As to what is judgmental or not is in the eye of the beholder. In a discussion you can insult or judge me all you want. I dod not care and I do not use that as part of the debate,

 

In fact from Debate 101 rules - whenever the facts and truth are against you try anything else.

 

Trying to turn the discussion into claims of someone being judgmental proves atheistic origin science is false.

 

You should watch Inherit the Wind.

 

It is one of the most judgmental, poisoning of the well movie  ever produced. Evolutionist used the most blatant indoctrinating techniques.

 

 

=o( It is certainly not my intention to insult or judge you.  With respect your statement that 'trying to turn the discussion into claims of someone being judgemental proves atheistic origin science is false', is again not a true statement.  It's like this;  'I hereby declare that I have a bottle of cream soda and you a narfspat!'  My calling you a narfsplat may be rude and is almost certainly untrue as to my knowledge no such thing exists.  However, you not being a narfsplat does not disprove that I have a bottle of cream soda.  You see?

 

Also, there is no such thing as atheistic origin science.  The term does not exist within the vocabulary of scientific discourse.

 

I termed it . 

 

It happens to be what is an entire approach to origin science. Without God origin science is atheistic origin science. 

 

If you want to gain an ally for atheistic origin science do not call it that. Then those that believe in some form of theistic origin science can be fooled into supporting atheistic origin science.

 

It is just one more con job.

 

Also as to names, atheistic origin science does not get to name it self. It is named by what it believes, atheistic origin science.

 

As an example anti-abortionist are against what they believe is child murder. They are anti- child murder.

 

Now those for abortion would never call themselves pro- child murder or even pro-abortion.

 

They label themselves pro-choice and the other side is anti-choice.

 

 

The purpose of developing a discourse (an agreed form and vocabulary for communicating ideas specific to a given field of study) within any given field of study is so that people from all walks of life who are working in the field can come together and understand what on earth each other is talking about.  If you rename things willynilly just for yourself, then use that vocabulary when talking to other people within that discipline, they have no hope of knowing what on earth you're on about.  I am rather certain that the only people likely to accept your new terminology are people within your particular branch of your particular religion.  When you agree together to use that new terminology and set for yourselves your own standards of proof you have together created a new discourse, and so a new discipline which only others who are like minded with you will understand - one that is theologically based, not scientifically based, and one which will make it impossible for the two fields to discuss anything together.

 

We are developing a discourse ( not one sided) 

 

atheistic origin science is the name of origins without God.

 

 

I do not agree to that term, it excludes all of those who believe evolution was the tool of the Creator, and is therefore a misrepresentation of the theory.  Also, any honest examination of Creationism as a theory must examine ALL the creation stories.  The question does not become did God create all life by speaking it into being over a period of time as outlined in Genesis, it should also include all the creation stories of every religion that's ever existed whether monotheistic or polytheistic.  Otherwise it should be called Genesis Theory.  At which point it reveals itself as being entirely Bible based, not science based.  Which is not to say that the Bible either is or is not true, but rather it is a philosophical work, not a scientific work.  This further invalidates the assertion that creationism is a science.

 

It is simple logic.

 

For origin science there are 2 mutually exclusive kinds: atheistic and theistic.

 

Then theistic breaks down into various kinds.

 

Of course creation is a science.

 

Science is knowledge. It looks for truth.

 

The truth is God created all things.

[Guest]

.... Creationism as a theory must examine ALL the creation stories.  The question does not become did God create all life by speaking it into being over a period of time as outlined in Genesis, it should also include all the creation stories of every religion that's ever existed whether monotheistic or polytheistic.  Otherwise it should be called Genesis Theory.  At which point it reveals itself as being entirely Bible based, not science based.  Which is not to say that the Bible either is or is not true, but rather it is a philosophical work, not a scientific work.  This further invalidates the assertion that creationism is a science.

 

~

 

Beloved

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. Hebrews 11:3

 

Either One Will Believe Or One Will Not

But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. Hebrews 11:6

 

But Please Don't Mix The Poison In With The Truth

And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: Ephesians 3:9

 

It's Not Good For The Children

But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Mark 10:14

 

You See

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 119:160

 

~

 

Be Blessed Beloved Daughter Of The KING

 

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:

The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:

The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

 

And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them. Numbers 6:24-27

 

Love, Your Brother Joe

[TsukinoRei]

 

.... Creationism as a theory must examine ALL the creation stories.  The question does not become did God create all life by speaking it into being over a period of time as outlined in Genesis, it should also include all the creation stories of every religion that's ever existed whether monotheistic or polytheistic.  Otherwise it should be called Genesis Theory.  At which point it reveals itself as being entirely Bible based, not science based.  Which is not to say that the Bible either is or is not true, but rather it is a philosophical work, not a scientific work.  This further invalidates the assertion that creationism is a science.

 

~

 

Beloved

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. Hebrews 11:3

 

Either One Will Believe Or One Will Not

But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. Hebrews 11:6

 

But Please Don't Mix The Poison In With The Truth

And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: Ephesians 3:9

 

It's Not Good For The Children

But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Mark 10:14

 

You See

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 119:160

 

~

 

Be Blessed Beloved Daughter Of The KING

 

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:

The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:

The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

 

And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them. Numbers 6:24-27

 

Love, Your Brother Joe

 

 

Yes, you see?  That is my point. Why work so hard to turn the Bible into a document of science rather than of Faith?  If we insist on treating Genesis as a science textbook then it is no longer set apart but becomes just another theory to be lumped in with all the other theories out there.  Science doesn't start with a conclusion and then work to prove it.  Science observes the way things work, looks at all the ideas and theories and plays with them and tests them and isn't afraid to go down the wrong path just to see where it leads and what it might teach us about the right path!  If creationism is science then it too would be expected to hop down all the rabbit holes to see what's there, it doesn't do that because it isn't science, it's theology and a very specific theological doctrine at that.   Why not call it what it is?  

Edited August 13, 2013 by TsukinoRei

[TsukinoRei]

 

 

 

 

 

 

But grouping theistic evolution with atheistic evolution is itself deceitful. 

 

 

Atheistic origin science is easily proven false. Yet it is taught in the schools.

 

The theistic origin science group then has their theory of origins being taught as true. That BTW is against the establishment clause of the US constitution.

 

So atheistic origin science and its methods are taught. When creationist refute atheistic origin science, theistic origin science jumps to the rescue claiming God or whatever could have done it that way. But the methods of atheistic origin science become the starting point for discussion of the nature of God or whatever.

 

In reality it is atheistic origin science versus theistic origin science first.

 

Once atheistic origin science is refuted, the determination of the nature of God or whatever cannot start with the methods and conclusions of atheistic origin science.

 

As to what is judgmental or not is in the eye of the beholder. In a discussion you can insult or judge me all you want. I dod not care and I do not use that as part of the debate,

 

In fact from Debate 101 rules - whenever the facts and truth are against you try anything else.

 

Trying to turn the discussion into claims of someone being judgmental proves atheistic origin science is false.

 

You should watch Inherit the Wind.

 

It is one of the most judgmental, poisoning of the well movie  ever produced. Evolutionist used the most blatant indoctrinating techniques.

 

 

=o( It is certainly not my intention to insult or judge you.  With respect your statement that 'trying to turn the discussion into claims of someone being judgemental proves atheistic origin science is false', is again not a true statement.  It's like this;  'I hereby declare that I have a bottle of cream soda and you a narfspat!'  My calling you a narfsplat may be rude and is almost certainly untrue as to my knowledge no such thing exists.  However, you not being a narfsplat does not disprove that I have a bottle of cream soda.  You see?

 

Also, there is no such thing as atheistic origin science.  The term does not exist within the vocabulary of scientific discourse.

 

I termed it . 

 

It happens to be what is an entire approach to origin science. Without God origin science is atheistic origin science. 

 

If you want to gain an ally for atheistic origin science do not call it that. Then those that believe in some form of theistic origin science can be fooled into supporting atheistic origin science.

 

It is just one more con job.

 

Also as to names, atheistic origin science does not get to name it self. It is named by what it believes, atheistic origin science.

 

As an example anti-abortionist are against what they believe is child murder. They are anti- child murder.

 

Now those for abortion would never call themselves pro- child murder or even pro-abortion.

 

They label themselves pro-choice and the other side is anti-choice.

 

 

The purpose of developing a discourse (an agreed form and vocabulary for communicating ideas specific to a given field of study) within any given field of study is so that people from all walks of life who are working in the field can come together and understand what on earth each other is talking about.  If you rename things willynilly just for yourself, then use that vocabulary when talking to other people within that discipline, they have no hope of knowing what on earth you're on about.  I am rather certain that the only people likely to accept your new terminology are people within your particular branch of your particular religion.  When you agree together to use that new terminology and set for yourselves your own standards of proof you have together created a new discourse, and so a new discipline which only others who are like minded with you will understand - one that is theologically based, not scientifically based, and one which will make it impossible for the two fields to discuss anything together.

 

We are developing a discourse ( not one sided) 

 

atheistic origin science is the name of origins without God.

 

 

I do not agree to that term, it excludes all of those who believe evolution was the tool of the Creator, and is therefore a misrepresentation of the theory.  Also, any honest examination of Creationism as a theory must examine ALL the creation stories.  The question does not become did God create all life by speaking it into being over a period of time as outlined in Genesis, it should also include all the creation stories of every religion that's ever existed whether monotheistic or polytheistic.  Otherwise it should be called Genesis Theory.  At which point it reveals itself as being entirely Bible based, not science based.  Which is not to say that the Bible either is or is not true, but rather it is a philosophical work, not a scientific work.  This further invalidates the assertion that creationism is a science.

 

It is simple logic.

 

For origin science there are 2 mutually exclusive kinds: atheistic and theistic.

 

Then theistic breaks down into various kinds.

 

Of course creation is a science.

 

Science is knowledge. It looks for truth.

 

The truth is God created all things.

 

 

Science is theories and experimentation, it is exploration.  Philosophy looks for truth.  (btw, I feel like we're digging down to our more basic premises now, this is pretty cool!)

Edited August 13, 2013 by TsukinoRei

[MarkNigro]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But grouping theistic evolution with atheistic evolution is itself deceitful. 

 

 

Atheistic origin science is easily proven false. Yet it is taught in the schools.

 

The theistic origin science group then has their theory of origins being taught as true. That BTW is against the establishment clause of the US constitution.

 

So atheistic origin science and its methods are taught. When creationist refute atheistic origin science, theistic origin science jumps to the rescue claiming God or whatever could have done it that way. But the methods of atheistic origin science become the starting point for discussion of the nature of God or whatever.

 

In reality it is atheistic origin science versus theistic origin science first.

 

Once atheistic origin science is refuted, the determination of the nature of God or whatever cannot start with the methods and conclusions of atheistic origin science.

 

As to what is judgmental or not is in the eye of the beholder. In a discussion you can insult or judge me all you want. I dod not care and I do not use that as part of the debate,

 

In fact from Debate 101 rules - whenever the facts and truth are against you try anything else.

 

Trying to turn the discussion into claims of someone being judgmental proves atheistic origin science is false.

 

You should watch Inherit the Wind.

 

It is one of the most judgmental, poisoning of the well movie  ever produced. Evolutionist used the most blatant indoctrinating techniques.

 

 

=o( It is certainly not my intention to insult or judge you.  With respect your statement that 'trying to turn the discussion into claims of someone being judgemental proves atheistic origin science is false', is again not a true statement.  It's like this;  'I hereby declare that I have a bottle of cream soda and you a narfspat!'  My calling you a narfsplat may be rude and is almost certainly untrue as to my knowledge no such thing exists.  However, you not being a narfsplat does not disprove that I have a bottle of cream soda.  You see?

 

Also, there is no such thing as atheistic origin science.  The term does not exist within the vocabulary of scientific discourse.

 

I termed it . 

 

It happens to be what is an entire approach to origin science. Without God origin science is atheistic origin science. 

 

If you want to gain an ally for atheistic origin science do not call it that. Then those that believe in some form of theistic origin science can be fooled into supporting atheistic origin science.

 

It is just one more con job.

 

Also as to names, atheistic origin science does not get to name it self. It is named by what it believes, atheistic origin science.

 

As an example anti-abortionist are against what they believe is child murder. They are anti- child murder.

 

Now those for abortion would never call themselves pro- child murder or even pro-abortion.

 

They label themselves pro-choice and the other side is anti-choice.

 

 

The purpose of developing a discourse (an agreed form and vocabulary for communicating ideas specific to a given field of study) within any given field of study is so that people from all walks of life who are working in the field can come together and understand what on earth each other is talking about.  If you rename things willynilly just for yourself, then use that vocabulary when talking to other people within that discipline, they have no hope of knowing what on earth you're on about.  I am rather certain that the only people likely to accept your new terminology are people within your particular branch of your particular religion.  When you agree together to use that new terminology and set for yourselves your own standards of proof you have together created a new discourse, and so a new discipline which only others who are like minded with you will understand - one that is theologically based, not scientifically based, and one which will make it impossible for the two fields to discuss anything together.

 

We are developing a discourse ( not one sided) 

 

atheistic origin science is the name of origins without God.

 

 

I do not agree to that term, it excludes all of those who believe evolution was the tool of the Creator, and is therefore a misrepresentation of the theory.  Also, any honest examination of Creationism as a theory must examine ALL the creation stories.  The question does not become did God create all life by speaking it into being over a period of time as outlined in Genesis, it should also include all the creation stories of every religion that's ever existed whether monotheistic or polytheistic.  Otherwise it should be called Genesis Theory.  At which point it reveals itself as being entirely Bible based, not science based.  Which is not to say that the Bible either is or is not true, but rather it is a philosophical work, not a scientific work.  This further invalidates the assertion that creationism is a science.

 

It is simple logic.

 

For origin science there are 2 mutually exclusive kinds: atheistic and theistic.

 

Then theistic breaks down into various kinds.

 

Of course creation is a science.

 

Science is knowledge. It looks for truth.

 

The truth is God created all things.

 

 

Science is theories and experimentation, it is exploration.  Philosophy looks for truth.  (btw, I feel like we're digging down to our more basic premises now, this is pretty cool!)

 

But nothing from origin science was observed. Nor has any of it been recreated.

[TsukinoRei]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But grouping theistic evolution with atheistic evolution is itself deceitful. 

 

 

Atheistic origin science is easily proven false. Yet it is taught in the schools.

 

The theistic origin science group then has their theory of origins being taught as true. That BTW is against the establishment clause of the US constitution.

 

So atheistic origin science and its methods are taught. When creationist refute atheistic origin science, theistic origin science jumps to the rescue claiming God or whatever could have done it that way. But the methods of atheistic origin science become the starting point for discussion of the nature of God or whatever.

 

In reality it is atheistic origin science versus theistic origin science first.

 

Once atheistic origin science is refuted, the determination of the nature of God or whatever cannot start with the methods and conclusions of atheistic origin science.

 

As to what is judgmental or not is in the eye of the beholder. In a discussion you can insult or judge me all you want. I dod not care and I do not use that as part of the debate,

 

In fact from Debate 101 rules - whenever the facts and truth are against you try anything else.

 

Trying to turn the discussion into claims of someone being judgmental proves atheistic origin science is false.

 

You should watch Inherit the Wind.

 

It is one of the most judgmental, poisoning of the well movie  ever produced. Evolutionist used the most blatant indoctrinating techniques.

 

 

=o( It is certainly not my intention to insult or judge you.  With respect your statement that 'trying to turn the discussion into claims of someone being judgemental proves atheistic origin science is false', is again not a true statement.  It's like this;  'I hereby declare that I have a bottle of cream soda and you a narfspat!'  My calling you a narfsplat may be rude and is almost certainly untrue as to my knowledge no such thing exists.  However, you not being a narfsplat does not disprove that I have a bottle of cream soda.  You see?

 

Also, there is no such thing as atheistic origin science.  The term does not exist within the vocabulary of scientific discourse.

 

I termed it . 

 

It happens to be what is an entire approach to origin science. Without God origin science is atheistic origin science. 

 

If you want to gain an ally for atheistic origin science do not call it that. Then those that believe in some form of theistic origin science can be fooled into supporting atheistic origin science.

 

It is just one more con job.

 

Also as to names, atheistic origin science does not get to name it self. It is named by what it believes, atheistic origin science.

 

As an example anti-abortionist are against what they believe is child murder. They are anti- child murder.

 

Now those for abortion would never call themselves pro- child murder or even pro-abortion.

 

They label themselves pro-choice and the other side is anti-choice.

 

 

The purpose of developing a discourse (an agreed form and vocabulary for communicating ideas specific to a given field of study) within any given field of study is so that people from all walks of life who are working in the field can come together and understand what on earth each other is talking about.  If you rename things willynilly just for yourself, then use that vocabulary when talking to other people within that discipline, they have no hope of knowing what on earth you're on about.  I am rather certain that the only people likely to accept your new terminology are people within your particular branch of your particular religion.  When you agree together to use that new terminology and set for yourselves your own standards of proof you have together created a new discourse, and so a new discipline which only others who are like minded with you will understand - one that is theologically based, not scientifically based, and one which will make it impossible for the two fields to discuss anything together.

 

We are developing a discourse ( not one sided) 

 

atheistic origin science is the name of origins without God.

 

 

I do not agree to that term, it excludes all of those who believe evolution was the tool of the Creator, and is therefore a misrepresentation of the theory.  Also, any honest examination of Creationism as a theory must examine ALL the creation stories.  The question does not become did God create all life by speaking it into being over a period of time as outlined in Genesis, it should also include all the creation stories of every religion that's ever existed whether monotheistic or polytheistic.  Otherwise it should be called Genesis Theory.  At which point it reveals itself as being entirely Bible based, not science based.  Which is not to say that the Bible either is or is not true, but rather it is a philosophical work, not a scientific work.  This further invalidates the assertion that creationism is a science.

 

It is simple logic.

 

For origin science there are 2 mutually exclusive kinds: atheistic and theistic.

 

Then theistic breaks down into various kinds.

 

Of course creation is a science.

 

Science is knowledge. It looks for truth.

 

The truth is God created all things.

 

 

Science is theories and experimentation, it is exploration.  Philosophy looks for truth.  (btw, I feel like we're digging down to our more basic premises now, this is pretty cool!)

 

But nothing from origin science was observed. Nor has any of it been recreated.

 

 

It doesn't need to be observed for their to be theories about it.  Molecules were theorised long before they were observed.  

[Guest]

Yes, you see?  That is my point. Why work so hard to turn the Bible into a document of science rather than of Faith?  If we insist on treating Genesis as a science textbook then it is no longer set apart but becomes just another theory to be lumped in with all the other theories out there.  Science doesn't start with a conclusion and then work to prove it.  Science observes the way things work, looks at all the ideas and theories and plays with them and tests them and isn't afraid to go down the wrong path just to see where it leads and what it might teach us about the right path!  If creationism is science then it too would be expected to hop down all the rabbit holes to see what's there, it doesn't do that because it isn't science, it's theology and a very specific theological doctrine at that.   Why not call it what it is?

 

 

~

 

Well Yes Indeed Beloved Sister

But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 1 Corinthians 15:20-22

 

The Bible Isn't About Science But About What Really Happened

Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. Genesis 2:1-3

 

And Science Is About The Very Little We Can Observe, Measure And Reproduce

He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end. Ecclesiastes 3:11

 

And Scientism Is Nothing More That A Man-Made Secular Religion

Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen. 1 John 5:21

 

Where Tales Of Evolution Are Offered Up

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Colossians 2:8

 

In Place Of The LORD Jesus

But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8

 

And Of His

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Romans 3:23

 

Redemption Of Sinners

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Romans 6:23

 

~

 

Be Blessed Beloved Daughter Of The KING

 

Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen. Jude 1:24-25

 

Love, Your Brother Joe

[MarkNigro]

The great fall in the last day is because of evolution teaching, not creationism.

 

The issue is one of salvation not because someone is "Christian."

 

As the Holy Bible predicted:

 

 

2 Thessalonians 2:11-12

11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

[TsukinoRei]

 

Yes, you see?  That is my point. Why work so hard to turn the Bible into a document of science rather than of Faith?  If we insist on treating Genesis as a science textbook then it is no longer set apart but becomes just another theory to be lumped in with all the other theories out there.  Science doesn't start with a conclusion and then work to prove it.  Science observes the way things work, looks at all the ideas and theories and plays with them and tests them and isn't afraid to go down the wrong path just to see where it leads and what it might teach us about the right path!  If creationism is science then it too would be expected to hop down all the rabbit holes to see what's there, it doesn't do that because it isn't science, it's theology and a very specific theological doctrine at that.   Why not call it what it is?

 

 

~

 

Well Yes Indeed Beloved Sister

But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 1 Corinthians 15:20-22

 

The Bible Isn't About Science But About What Really Happened

Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. Genesis 2:1-3

 

And Science Is About The Very Little We Can Observe, Measure And Reproduce

He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end. Ecclesiastes 3:11

 

And Scientism Is Nothing More That A Man-Made Secular Religion

Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen. 1 John 5:21

 

Where Tales Of Evolution Are Offered Up

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Colossians 2:8

 

In Place Of The LORD Jesus

But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8

 

And Of His

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Romans 3:23

 

Redemption Of Sinners

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Romans 6:23

 

~

 

Be Blessed Beloved Daughter Of The KING

 

Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen. Jude 1:24-25

 

Love, Your Brother Joe

 

 

I think that's about as much of an accord as we could hope to reach.  \o/ Hurray for accordions!  What do you think of the fields of quantum physics and theoretical physics?  I'm much more interested in physics than in biology, although endocrinology,genetics, and what we're learning about the bodies electrical systems these days is TOTALLY fascinating in a mind boggling sort of way.  I know you were once very involved in the sciences, I don't know if you've maintained your interest?  I'm just curious what areas still hold your interest?  

[Guest]

What do you think of the fields of quantum physics and theoretical physics?  I'm much more interested in physics than in biology, although endocrinology,genetics, and what we're learning about the bodies electrical systems these days is TOTALLY fascinating in a mind boggling sort of way.  I know you were once very involved in the sciences, I don't know if you've maintained your interest?  I'm just curious what areas still hold your interest?  

 

 

All Threads In Outer Court Are Really About Yeshua (Jesus) You See

And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: Ephesians 3:9

 

The outer Court is an area where we allow anyone who wishes to learn more about our belief to ask questions and learn. http://www.worthychristianforums.com/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules

 

~

 

Thank You Dear Sister

Along With Newtonian Physics

I Have Studied Them And I Still Enjoy Them

However I Love The Eternal Truths Of God Far Far More

Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth? It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in: That bringeth the princes to nothing; he maketh the judges of the earth as vanity. Isaiah 40:21-23

 

For Physics (Natural Philosophy) Knows Nothing Of Sinner Man

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Romans 3:23

 

Nor Does It Know About The Love Of God

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Romans 6:23

 

Nor Can It Atone For Offenses

But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. Isaiah 53:5

 

Nor Will It Save

Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, 1 Peter 1:18-20

 

You See

But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8

 

~

 

Be Blessed Beloved Daughter Of The KING

 

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:

The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:

The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

 

And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them. Numbers 6:24-27

 

Love, Your Brother Joe