'not really a Christian'

[Twilight]

Since it seems some apparently have the addled notion that one cannot be a scientist and a Christian neutrino de-materialization process.

From the perspective of the latest physical theories, Christianity is not a mere religion, but an experimentally testable science.

1st paragraph.

Not at all, no one is saying that.

I am challenging Christians who think they have to reconcile the bible with athiestic dogma, and place the athiestic dogma first, because they have been sold it as "science"...

Problem with the second paragraph, is that most of the science that we think is "proven" is theoretical at best.

Basing a belief system on athiestically motivated theoretical science and trying to marry that to the bible is extremely dangerous.

One starts acceptepting there are things such as "dark matter" for instance, when there is no evidence for such a thing...

[Twilight]

I think the gnostics were the first Christians and that Christianity came out of Alexandria through the international trade unions such as pre-masonic groups blended with messianic Jewish philosophers.

Despite all historical evidence to the contrary...?

But let me guess...

The "bible" isn't historical evidence?

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

I note you have sidestepped both of my queries Cardw.

You seem to claim to be a champion against false Christian claims, but you do not seem to think that you have to defend your points...

I gave a list of hundreds of examples. They are self explanatory. They are the defense of my point that the Bible is NOT internally consistent. The claim of Bible prophecy is in no way a proof of god.

Why not pick "one" of your evidences so it can be examined Cardw?

A link to a load of spurious claims is not "evidence"...

Do you have a favourite that you like to present to Christians to shake their faith?

[Twilight]

When I examine this both from my deeper self and from my intellectual self I clearly have to admit that I don't know. And from this commitment to rigorous honesty, a value I got from science, there is no description or word, even the word god, that I can give to something I clearly have no way of knowing.

I think many people go through these stages and as we know more and encounter more life we awaken to the realization that we know very little. At first its frightening and more than a little disturbing. But, for me, acceptance opened up a shift in who I was and life is considerably lighter.

So your own biased viewpoint is the test of "absolute truth"?

You present your experience as something enlightened, when it appears purely egocentric to me.

Why?

A desire to rule oneself, causes one to reject God.

A desire to place ones life experience as the standard of truth, can lead one to reject the authority of God, in place of their own..

That is what came across in your post above.

That most basic of sinful desires:

"Ye shall be as gods..."

God has no place in the heart of a man who is too busy being god himself.

[Bravus]

Now please answer the question.

[Twilight]

From 3 pages ago:

Originally Posted By: Bravus

Try taking just the set of prophecies relating to the Second Coming occurring before those present died. They're right there in the Bible, and the link Rich provided showed chapter and verse. What further defense is required. The Bible prophesied something would happen, and it did not. What more is there to say [in defense]?

Edit: For your further convenience, here's the link: http://faithskeptic.50megs.com/prophecies.htm

And here is just one of the specific prophecies and scriptures:

Quote:

Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Jesus states that all the signs marking the end of the world in Matthew 24 would be fulfilled before his generation ended. That generation ended 2000 years ago, and the world has not come to an end, neither has all those signs been fulfilled.

And you think that this is a great argument?

Clearly Jesus' words had a dual application in this text.

Unless you think Jesus got it wrong Bravus?

Is this the best you can do to bolster Cardw's attempt to dissuade people from the faith?

[Bravus]

You have made the claim that the Bible's record of fulfilled prophecies is evidence for its veracity. In this instance, a prophecy is not fulfilled. It is on the basis of *your* claims that this brings the veracity of the Bible into disrepute.

Now please [stop casting aspersions at my faith and character as a diversion and] answer the question.

[Bravus]

On the Big Bang theory and evidence, if you'd read at all carefully you'd have seen that they described dark matter and dark energy in their *explanation* but did not, at all, use it as *evidence*. The evidence was as I've described it - what is it, 5 times now?

Your choosing not to actually make the effort to read the evidence I provide does not constitute me failing to provide evidence.

I consider the question on gravity, the Big Bang and the origin of the universe closed, and won't be further pandering to your wilful ignorance on that subject.

[Twilight]

You have made the claim that the Bible's record of fulfilled prophecies is evidence for its veracity. In this instance, a prophecy is not fulfilled. It is on the basis of *your* claims that this brings the veracity of the Bible into disrepute.

Now please [stop casting aspersions at my faith and character as a diversion and] answer the question.

I have answered your question.

The prophecy had a dual application.

So there is no inconsistency.

Why are you arguing the atheistic corner Bravus?

I also asked you if you beleive Jesus had it wrong.

As you seem to be triumphantly claiming that this is the case...

[Twilight]

On the Big Bang theory and evidence, if you'd read at all carefully you'd have seen that they described dark matter and dark energy in their *explanation* but did not, at all, use it as *evidence*. The evidence was as I've described it - what is it, 5 times now?

Your choosing not to actually make the effort to read the evidence I provide does not constitute me failing to provide evidence.

I consider the question on gravity, the Big Bang and the origin of the universe closed, and won't be further pandering to your wilful ignorance on that subject.

So you can "prove" the Big Bang happened Bravus, based on background radiation.

So how do you know that the Galaxies were not formed instantly.

The reason I ask,is that unless I am mistaken the Hubble telescope, when pointed in that general direction of the assumed centre of the universe, fully expecting to see the formation of Galaxies, only found fully formed Galaxies.

Now there is some "eyewitness" evidence.

How do you reconcile the failed predictions of the Big Bang being observable with the Hubble, and your insistance that the Big Bang happened the way athiesm wants to insist it happened?

Why is it that in so recent scientific history, the early formation of the universe could not be observed when it was expected to be observed.

Let me guess, we need more time to prove athiestic science to be true...?

My point is, and I maintain that the athiests do not know, and neither do you when you buy into their science falsely so called.

[Bravus]

Read the whole chapter. Look at all the things that Adventists apply to the Second Coming and the End Times in that chapter. Then look at the text again. It says all these signs and things will happen while those listening were still alive. Your explanation is too facile.

The question is a serious one, and deserves serious attention. If I recall correctly, it was you who suggested the idea of an entire new thread in the Theology section devoted to deep study of these issues. Yet you're not willing to offer more than a throw-away line that explains nothing.

I don't really need to defend my own faith and motivations, but I will, just to try to clear the decks for some focused discussion on the issues. I'm a believer who believes that a strong faith can withstand questions and challenges, and that it's a weak faith that flees from questions and refuses to face up to them. I'm a believer who has many atheist friends to whom I try to give a credible, consistent account of my faith: and that means taking serious questions seriously, not just attacking and damning people.

Now, please answer the question.

[Bravus]

Let me help. Here's an example of a serious attempt at addressing this passage. Agree with his conclusions or not, this is someone who recognises a serious issue and puts in the effort to formulate a serious response:

http://www.thingstocome.org/whatgen.htm

[LifeHiscost]

Originally Posted By: LifeHiscost

little magical tricks

I believe Herod was looking for this also.

You mean this. I agree.

Blessings!

[LifeHiscost]

Hmm... do you want me to present you with unbiased and irrefutable evidence for existence of God? I think my point was that our faith/belief is not based on external evidence, but rather on trust in a Book that really provides very little of it.

Which statement reveals how you relate to it(the Word) as opposed to the truthfulness of it(the Word).

"But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him." Hebrews 11:6 NKJV

"So He humbled you, allowed you to hunger, and fed you with manna which you did not know nor did your fathers know, that He might make you know that man shall not live by bread alone; but man lives by every word that proceeds from the mouth of the LORD."Deut 8:3 NKJV

" Now when the tempter came to Him, he said, “If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.”

But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’" Matthew 4:3-5 NKJV

Regards!

[LifeHiscost]

So you answer is to assume something about someone that isn't to your liking?

You are exhibiting the behavior that cardw finds so contradicting. You are suppling the fuel for his disdain.

I would suggest Twilight is merely making effort to reach someone that the Word cannot reach without Divine intervention.

And may I suggest, disdain is not a gift of the Spirit, although it is enforced by a spirit.

"But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

1 Corinthians 2:14 NKJV

"Jesus looked at them intently and said, “Humanly speaking, it is impossible. But with God everything is possible.”"Matthew 19:26 NLT

Regards!

[LifeHiscost]

The Bible prophesied something that did not in fact occur.

Certain prophetic utterances are based upon the continuation of overt antagonism to God, such as the judgment against Ninevah, or perhaps some other criteria that may be known only to God.

Only someone who considers themselves close to being an equal to God would demand that God explain Himself in His decisions. It is His grace alone that continues to give mercy to those who walk around with the evidence of His existence in their own bodies, yet refuse to yield submission as a petulant child to a parent when they are refused the fulfillment of their misguided demands, as was evident in the case of Cain.

A question that has all the earmarks of a desire to know the Truth, is never dismissed by our Father as irrelevant since to know the Truth at the right time is always for the betterment of those He came to save. OTOH to demand of God our expectations be fulfilled or we will not cooperate, will sometimes be answered according to our own misguided petulance, as in the case of king Hezekiah.

Regards!

[LifeHiscost]

He is the cause of the Big Bang, and understands it utterly. The claim that my perspective is atheistic is simply false.

Are you suggesting that "God spoke and it stood fast.", in reality was the "big bang"? As a Christian, do you accept the Bible account of the beginning, as related in Genesis? If so, where is there room in that account for a "big bang"?

[fccool]

Originally Posted By: fccool

Hmm... do you want me to present you with unbiased and irrefutable evidence for existence of God? I think my point was that our faith/belief is not based on external evidence, but rather on trust in a Book that really provides very little of it.

Which statement reveals how you relate to it(the Word) as opposed to the truthfulness of it(the Word).

The truthfulness of it is not based on evidence, but rather on the eternal concepts that are the underlying context. It's one thing reading about miraculous happenings it's another thing to experience these first hand.

Yet, what I notice about your posts is that you like to quote a lot of "evidence" without showing the other side of the issue. I.e.

I will deliver you and this city from the hand of the king of Assyria, and I will defend this city.”’ 7 And this is the sign to you from the LORD, that the LORD will do this thing which He has spoken: 8 Behold, I will bring the shadow on the sundial, which has gone down with the sun on the sundial of Ahaz, ten degrees backward.” So the sun returned ten degrees on the dial by which it had gone down.

22 Then Elijah said to them, "I am the only one of the LORD's prophets left, but Baal has four hundred and fifty prophets. 23 Get two bulls for us. Let them choose one for themselves, and let them cut it into pieces and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. I will prepare the other bull and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. 24 Then you call on the name of your god, and I will call on the name of the LORD. The god who answers by fire—he is God."

Then all the people said, "What you say is good."

[Twilight]

Let me help. Here's an example of a serious attempt at addressing this passage. Agree with his conclusions or not, this is someone who recognises a serious issue and puts in the effort to formulate a serious response:

http://www.thingstocome.org/whatgen.htm

But it is not that complicated Bravus...

If you read the account, there is reference to two experiences.

One of the apostles.

One of the greater body of believers.

As you go through the text that can be plainly seen.

So when Jesus says:

Luk 21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.

It is referring to those parts that are applicable to them, not to the second group.

It is a dual prophecy, therefore there are two streams running through it.

When that simple principle is established (based on the questions asked by the apostles), then the text is easy to understand.

It is only if one insists that all events pertain to the disciples, that it becomes a problem.

Athiests like to argue that point, but it is really no point at all.

Your next major objection to the Christian Prophetic core running through the bible?

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

The Bible prophesied something that did not in fact occur.

Certain prophetic utterances are based upon the continuation of overt antagonism to God, such as the judgment against Ninevah, or perhaps some other criteria that may be known only to God.

Only someone who considers themselves close to being an equal to God would demand that God explain Himself in His decisions. It is His grace alone that continues to give mercy to those who walk around with the evidence of His existence in their own bodies, yet refuse to yield submission as a petulant child to a parent when they are refused the fulfillment of their misguided demands, as was evident in the case of Cain.

A question that has all the earmarks of a desire to know the Truth, is never dismissed by our Father as irrelevant since to know the Truth at the right time is always for the betterment of those He came to save. OTOH to demand of God our expectations be fulfilled or we will not cooperate, will sometimes be answered according to our own misguided petulance, as in the case of king Hezekiah.

Regards!

The Truth has been spoken.

[cardw]

I note you have sidestepped both of my queries Cardw.

You seem to claim to be a champion against false Christian claims, but you do not seem to think that you have to defend your points...

Originally Posted By: cardw

I gave a list of hundreds of examples. They are self explanatory. They are the defense of my point that the Bible is NOT internally consistent. The claim of Bible prophecy is in no way a proof of god.

Why not pick "one" of your evidences so it can be examined Cardw?

A link to a load of spurious claims is not "evidence"...

Do you have a favourite that you like to present to Christians to shake their faith?

Mark, it is pointless to debate against your blanket dismissal of anything you can't explain.

It is evident to me that you are following a script. If anything goes outside that script you just repeat the script.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

He is the cause of the Big Bang, and understands it utterly. The claim that my perspective is atheistic is simply false.

Are you suggesting that "God spoke and it stood fast.", in reality was the "big bang"? As a Christian, do you accept the Bible account of the beginning, as related in Genesis? If so, where is there room in that account for a "big bang"?

This is an interesting point.

I for one do not think the bible supports the idea that the universe was created 6000 years ago.

The bible being my authority of course, not athiestic dogma.

How old is the universe?

Only God knows...

But here we have a great example of some inconsistency you have awakened for me Brother.

-------------------

God "creates" the universe with a "Big Bang", unknown millenia ago.

Then He creates man, instantly along with our planet the moon and the Sun (assuming the solar system as well), by "speaking".

Now, God did not use long winded "processes" to create man, but spoke Him into existance in a very short space of time.

God speaking being the operative force.

Now if we know that God spoke and it stood fast, fully complete with no need of any help from "atheistic evolutionary" opinion...

...Why would He need to do any differently when He first created the Universe.

So based on the evidence in the Scripture, that God created mankind instantly, along with all life on this planet, by a process that we could not even begin to comprehend...

...Then God would have very likely used the same process to create the Universe.

A power that we cannot explain, measure or understand, because God has not revealed that.

It is the ultimate arrogance, I feel, for one to think they can explain Gods own Creative Language.

God did not say:

By quantum dark matter, dark energy laws that I have allowed to abound in my universe, I create mans planet and life on it.

No.

He said:

Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

God speaks, it happens.

And no, we do not understand it.

Only the most foolish or most arrogant would claim to even begin to comprehend it.

I can imagine mankind trying to rationaly explain how God made "light".

And God Himself forbid anyone trying to tell everyone else that they know how God did it...

Because that is foolishness that is founded in arrogancy of the worst kind.

God did it.

And we do not know how...

And words like "dark matter" and "dark energy" fully reveal our foolish pride that we could know the very language of Creation...

We have to make up such words to escape the conclusion that God did it and we do not know how...

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

When I examine this both from my deeper self and from my intellectual self I clearly have to admit that I don't know. And from this commitment to rigorous honesty, a value I got from science, there is no description or word, even the word god, that I can give to something I clearly have no way of knowing.

I think many people go through these stages and as we know more and encounter more life we awaken to the realization that we know very little. At first its frightening and more than a little disturbing. But, for me, acceptance opened up a shift in who I was and life is considerably lighter.

So your own biased viewpoint is the test of "absolute truth"?

You present your experience as something enlightened, when it appears purely egocentric to me.

[cardw]

Here is an interesting article on research involving dark energy using a gravitational lens.

Hubble Explores Dark Energy

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: LifeHiscost

Which statement reveals how you relate to it(the Word) as opposed to the truthfulness of it(the Word).

The truthfulness of it is not based on evidence, but rather on the eternal concepts that are the underlying context. It's one thing reading about miraculous happenings it's another thing to experience these first hand.

Yet, what I notice about your posts is that you like to quote a lot of "evidence" without showing the other side of the issue. I.e.

I will deliver you and this city from the hand of the king of Assyria, and I will defend this city.”’ 7 And this is the sign to you from the LORD, that the LORD will do this thing which He has spoken: 8 Behold, I will bring the shadow on the sundial, which has gone down with the sun on the sundial of Ahaz, ten degrees backward.” So the sun returned ten degrees on the dial by which it had gone down.

22 Then Elijah said to them, "I am the only one of the LORD's prophets left, but Baal has four hundred and fifty prophets. 23 Get two bulls for us. Let them choose one for themselves, and let them cut it into pieces and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. I will prepare the other bull and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. 24 Then you call on the name of your god, and I will call on the name of the LORD. The god who answers by fire—he is God."

Then all the people said, "What you say is good."

Jesus did not use your argument.

He used direct evidence.

And no, we are not talking about the miracles as they did not convince that many He was the Messiah.

It was the logical self evident verifiable truth of the scriptures that Jesus built the disciples faith on.

The prophecies concerning Himself:

Luk 24:44 And he said unto them, These [are] the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and [in] the prophets, and [in] the psalms, concerning me.

Luk 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

But note, only those genuinely trying to find truth would receive the prophecies, others would do anything to deny them validity.