Animal Description

[nebula]

Given this motive, it would be strange that I have posted over 30 times and yet I'm still to write anything that challenges the existence of God, or people's faith in him. So far, I have stayed off traditional apologetics completely, and focussed my time and energy completely on science (and especially the age of the earth) which has nothing whatsoever to do with the existence of God.

If I may.

I believe there are two reasons for this misunderstanding.

1) Choosing the title of "Athiest" as part of your username (this to others implies an agenda, whether you meant it or not).

2) Christians are human, and as such are prone to weakness. People in general do not like having their beliefs challenged (even so-called "open-minded" people react negatively to the challenge that an open mind is not always a good thing). Likewise, when people cannot respond to an reasonable argument against their belief with a likewise reasonable defense, they get defensive and sometimes use off-topic attacks as a means of that defense. Again, this is a normal human reaction, and unless one has been educated about this tendancy and trained to chose an alternative reaction (which rarely happens, unfortunately), this type of cycle continues.

Please forgive my brothers and sisters here for their lack of awareness in this area.

(P.S. I only know of this because I've had to deal with chronic depression, and in reading some material about overcomming, the stuff about defense mechanisms was a part of that. So, I have been learning.)

[nebula]

My brothers like Cerran love to hear your view and agree with you, but when pressed I think have to admit they don't mesh with Christianity.

No, just how tradition has interpreted Gen. 1 to be. As I have said elsewhere, Gen 1 is about revealing God, not about revealing the Earth, and as such is not subject to the regs of scientific interpretation (goodness, trying to confine God to science! ) - which is about the Earth. Besides, viewing, interpreting, and explaining events from a scientific viewpoint did not exist until only a few centuries ago, which is mellenia after the Genesis account was written!

And BTW - who are you calling a brother?

[Guest mscoville]

If I'm coming off angry I'm sorry. I'm not angry, that's not how I feel, and I don't mean to post in that fashion. I ask Atheist to forgive me and any Brothers or Sisters who have seen that in my posts.

I love even our Atheist friend and I only wish to see him come to Christ. I can't convince him based on Science. I see that he's got that wrapped up. His knowledge is vast I'm sure due to careful and complete study of the current thoughts in Science. I do want him to come to a saving knowledge of Christ and I am praying for him. I see the science as a stumbling block to him. I'm sad that he hasn't had those spiritual experiences that reach beyond such things and strengthen and create faith. The weekend is family time for me so I won't be posting for a few days. I wanted to get this out to you especially Atheist so you know that I'm not angry and I'm sorry if you've thought that or felt like I was after you in some fashion. I think we should however have an ethics thread. Or maybe we've already beaten those ideas to death.

In my opinion God created Good, he is the source of Good and through the historic teachings of Christianity including the Bible I see a foundation for my beliefs in Objective truth. I (think) see also that without a foundation of truth in that manner, the human race is lost to subjective "values" that contain no real value except what each individual desires to fuse into them. With no intrinsic values there is no reason to respect any of those individual choices. God Bless you all and Sorry again if I have offended.

Christ's peace,

Martin

[nebula]

I can't convince him based on Science. I see that he's got that wrapped up. His knowledge is vast I'm sure due to careful and complete study of the current thoughts in Science. I do want him to come to a saving knowledge of Christ and I am praying for him. I see the science as a stumbling block to him. I'm sad that he hasn't had those spiritual experiences that reach beyond such things and strengthen and create faith.

As a studier of science, I am not so sure that we need to "outprove" science in order to "prove" God.

Remember, Jesus never argued anyone into the Kingdom. He presented Himself and offered some pointers (to put it one way), but after that left the person to decide.

I heard the testimony of one man who had complete confidence in himself and his abilities and knowledge. It took his family going out of control in his life and falling apart - something very special to him that he could not control - to bring him to his knees. His cry to God may have been a desperation of no other options, but it brought him to a revelation of God. The revelation of God is evidence that needs to be seen and experienced. Trying to argue and convince with philosophy? Well, I heard J.R.R. Tolkein led C.S. Lewis to the Lord that way - but these men are exceptions to the rule, I do believe! :oww:

[nebula]

Interesting.

I was reading CNN's Science and Technology web page, specifically an article about the Spirit rover, and there was this link:

"The Spirit of Science"

http://www.proofofspirit.com/page/page/740734.htm

"Classical Science is based on physical reality and these physical scientific laws do not allow for the existence of spirit or God.  Consequently there has been a division between science and religion.  However, there is new experimental evidence that spirit or God exists!"

O. Frank

*******************************************************************

Have you ever felt you have to divorce yourself from your faith in God to live in the 'real world' of science and evolutionary principles; that faith in spirit or God is separate from science; that you have to choose between science and spirit or God?

NO MORE!

The science is here, the evidence is here.

Directly from O. Frank: "Let me give you a little secret.  When most people say they don't understand science, what they are really saying is they can't conceptualize science, and don't understand all the big words and math, and it doesn't always have to be that way.  I have worked hard to remove most of the big words and math, and when I need math to explain something I use everyday addition and subtraction type of math only.  As far as conceptualizing science, no one can.  For example, science says that it takes light, traveling at 186,000 miles every second, 4 years to reach Alpha Centauri, the nearest star to earth.  Anybody can learn this simple science fact, but not even the most brilliant scientist can conceptualize the vastness involved in traveling 186,000 miles a second for four years.  So if you give me a chance and look at it as fun, you may learn something wondrous."

BTW, this is an add for a book.

It would be interesting to see what he has to say.

[Guest mscoville]

Neb,

I'm more interested in your reading of Genesis Chapter 1. I'm afraid it's a dead topic on these boards. But I just don't see the evolutionary old earth theory there. It seems cut and dry to me. What are we to do with people like the atheists on the boards here? I'm being serious, should we just say, you should believe in Jesus and then pray for them? Or are we God's hand to help lead them to the Lord. If there are billions of years in Genesis, where did sin come from? The Evolutionary process? Didn't God create that to create us? Doesn't that mean God programed us to sin? Was there an Adam and Eve? Why did Christ die if sin didn't enter the world through one man? Finally where is the science that is going to prove how Christ was raised? The Questions that can't be answered just keep coming. Science is fun, I like reading about it. It's even helpful and beautiful when it's experimental science that's in the here and now, but origins science in my opinion is fraught with problems that go against (in my opinion) what our God told us and I trust him. I'm not saying you don't trust him! Ha, sorry if it sounded like that. God Bless!

~ Martin

[Guest yod]

Hey Martin,

There is a difference between the "old earth" theory and the "evolutionary theory"

Evolutionary theory says bacteria turned into slime turned into protozoa turned into a fish which grew legs and got out of the sea and turned into a bird and turned into a monkey and turned into a man.

Old Earth only says that the word "yom" can be translated into "epochs" instead of a 24 hour day. This in no way says that Adam was evolved. He was a created being in a matter of nanoseconds. Eve took a little longer because she was busy putting on make-up.

[nebula]

I'm more interested in your reading of Genesis Chapter 1.

I do read it. I just have no reason to believe it was written from a scientific viewpoint with the purpose of revealing the mysteries natural world. Can you provide me with substantial evidence to believe otherwise - that the Lord gave us Gen. 1 so that we can know the world better?

But I just don't see the evolutionary old earth theory there. It seems cut and dry to me.

Would you then please enlighten me on how the Earth could be formless and void with darkness over the face of the deep and waters for the Spirit of God to be hovering over before the 6 days of Creation? I have yet to hear someone give an answer without finding a way to make it sound as if the writing were out-of-order.

What are we to do with people like the atheists on the boards here? I'm being serious, should we just say, you should believe in Jesus and then pray for them? Or are we God's hand to help lead them to the Lord.

OK, I would really like to understand how telling them that they are stupid for believing in something other than the Bible is going to make Jesus attractive to them.

If there are billions of years in Genesis, where did sin come from?

That's in Genesis 3, not Genesis 1!

Doesn't that mean God programed us to sin? Was there an Adam and Eve? Why did Christ die if sin didn't enter the world through one man? Finally where is the science that is going to prove how Christ was raised?

My goodness - why are you drawing conclusions I never made? I said I don't believe Gen. 1 is a modern, Westernized scientific account (please don't tell me I have to repeat the reasons why). Why are you assuming I don't believe in miracles? Goodness - I speak in tongues, all right? I know there is no scientific explanation for that, nor am I looking for one. I do not understand why you jumped there. I sure haven't.

Actually, if you ever began researching how many of our beliefs come from the actual words of Scripture versus tradition and traditional interpretation, you might find yourself suprised. But that's a whole 'nother thread.

[Guest mscoville]

Howdy Yall,

Old Earth only says that the word "yom" can be translated into "epochs" instead of a 24 hour day. This in no way says that Adam was evolved. He was a created being in a matter of nanoseconds. Eve took a little longer because she was busy putting on make-up.

Why believe that about Adam and Eve if you don't believe the six days of Creation? Yom can be translated in those ways in context, that would be out of context for Genesis one. If I said Day and Night last Friday, you'd think it was a 24 hour day. Not a hundred Billion years. Right? I don't think the multiple translation thing is a real argument here.

I do read it. I just have no reason to believe it was written from a scientific viewpoint with the purpose of revealing the mysteries natural world. Can you provide me with substantial evidence to believe otherwise - that the Lord gave us Gen. 1 so that we can know the world better?

What kind of evidence would help? Neb I always feel like you think I'm angry about this and I want to get out in the open that I just want to discuss it and not have you angry either. I don't think it was written from a scientific viewpoint either. We don't hear anything about the how of the creation. But we do get a timeframe, don't we? It says 6 days. I see nothing about hydrogen or radioactivity or the speed of light, but I see a timeframe that disagrees with what science says on that matter.

Would you then please enlighten me on how the Earth could be formless and void with darkness over the face of the deep and waters for the Spirit of God to be hovering over before the 6 days of Creation? I have yet to hear someone give an answer without finding a way to make it sound as if the writing were out-of-order.

My knee jerk reaction is that I don't see it the way you do, it looks to me as if He created the heavens and the earth on the fist day of creation. Is there a problem with that? He also called forth light on that day. Explain to me better what you mean. I'm not seeing the dilemma.

OK, I would really like to understand how telling them that they are stupid for believing in something other than the Bible is going to make Jesus attractive to them. 

Ha. I totally agree with you. I would never call anyone stupid! Jesus is Jesus, I'd love to talk about Him. But people want to start with Genesis sometimes logically, and I believe in the 6 day theory, am I not also entitled to my opinion, am I stupid for believing it? You don't have to answer that, I know you think I am entitled and aren't so mean as to think I'm stupid (I'm just making a point). I think there is a lot of good creationist science (no I'm not a scientist), and I feel I can trust God's word in all things.

That's in Genesis 3, not Genesis 1!

Yes it is, but why would you believe in Genesis 3 literally and not Genesis 1? My point is that Evolution is a Billion process that goes along with the old earth theory.

Why believe God created Adam from the ground as the first person literally? I'm asking what you believe, not telling you. I want to hear what you position is on Adam and Eve and sin, and how you reconcile that with the Old earth Billions of years theory. Ha, I know that's a lot, but I do want to know. Not to ridicule it, but to understand it, I've not heard anyone put those things together in an intelligent way.

My goodness - why are you drawing conclusions I never made? I said I don't believe Gen. 1 is a modern, Westernized scientific account (please don't tell me I have to repeat the reasons why). Why are you assuming I don't believe in miracles? Goodness - I speak in tongues, all right? I know there is no scientific explanation for that, nor am I looking for one. I do not understand why you jumped there. I sure haven't.

Awesome that you speak in tongues by the way! Love to hear your testimony about that sometime. I'm not drawing conclusions for you. I was asking questions. Ya know????? Trying to get answers. I never said you didn't believe in miracles, I'm just wondering why the 6 days isn't a miracle you believe in, based on the Bible, not on Science! What in the Bible leads you to believe Genesis 1 isn't trustworthy?

I want to reiterate however since I feel bad about it, that I hope you realize I love you Neb and I'm not coming down on you! I want to hear what you have to say. But I want it Biblically I guess.

~ Martin

[nebula]

So, let me see something.

Hey, ScientificAtheist -

I need to ask you some things, if that's all right.

What is your impression of Christianity - based on what you have read from the people here?

What is your impression of Jesus - again based on what has been said on these threads you have participated in?

Thanks!