| Author | Message | ||
| Mjcmcook Registered user Username: Mjcmcook Post Number: 154 Registered: 2-2011 |
~Deb~ Thank-you for taking the time to share these 'links' with us~ I especially related to the two written by Albert Mohler~ His response to leaders of the Emergent Church movement is "spot on"! | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 2122 Registered: 7-2007 |
Jackob; I don't know if the I.D. people in the documentary were atheists or what. That wasn't my point. My point was that the theroy made up by Darwin was unreliable. The film isn't even from a Christian point of view - just one from the point of view that there's a God. Ric_b; here's something to consider. Animals eat each other in this life. In the future life they won't.  | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1218 Registered: 7-2004  |
Asurprise, Are there other sources of death besides being eaten? On a separate note, are you sure that the prophetic imagery of the wolf dwelling with the lamb is meant as a literal description of how they will interact or is it prophetic imagery signifying the peace that was promised to Israel? Certainly it might be a literal description, but I know I couldn't insist that it is absolutely, certainly meant to be a literal description of the relationship between animals. And that is an example of the reason that I think we need to allow some space of tolerance in this overall topic. I'm not trying to argue that the view is wrong, simply that it may not be the only reasonable way of reading and believing the Biblical passages. | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 631 Registered: 7-2005 |
How these two articles relate to the questions brought up? People here argued for an old earth and animal death before the fall. Nobody, nobody denied the reality of Adam's fall into sin, the historicity of Adam and the fact that the entire human race descended from him. Mohler's articles deal with the denial of a real human fall, the historicity of Adam and Eve and the descending of the entire human race from this pair. Completely irrelevant to the topic. Gabriel | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1220 Registered: 7-2004 |
Thanks you Gabriel. I composed a lengthy post making just that point only to have it disappear into cyberspace. There are viewpoints that deny the Gospel. But not everyone who disagrees with a 6 literal day creation is denying the creation and fall of Adam and Eve. | ||
| Martinc Registered user Username: Martinc Post Number: 249 Registered: 9-2006 |
Gabriel--precisely. Is it possible to question either a young earth or suggest death before sin, without destroying faith in Christ, the gospel, or the Bible? Apparently not. Many YEC Christians have made great contributions that we all have been blessed by, but we don't have to accept everything. I don't question Adam and Eve as real people who disobeyed God, or Adam's individual fall from sin. And none of us here are "Emergent Church" as far I can tell. The Bible is quite clear on all those points, repeatedly. Also, you raised a good question about Dembski, who catches flack from both secular Darwinists ("ID is just a creationism in a cheap tuxedo") and from YEC's (He's using the Bible to promote evolution). Again, the dark heart of Darwinism is not its long periods of time or animal death. The real threat is to God's supremacy as Creator, for the essence of Darwinism is naturalism--nature has no need of God, and neither do we. RicB: The image there in Isaiah is very poetic, and it could also be literally fulfilled. However, we are not forced to conclude from that prophecy that it also describes Eden. Why do we assume that the New Earth is Paradise Restored? The new and original earths are not identical, for the New is a truly new creation. Chris--good point. Both Galileo and Copernicus challenged religious teachings, not by a new scriptural interpretation, but with observation in Galileo's case, and with mathematics in Copernicus's case. Both men also believed the Bible, and knew that men's interpretations were not identical with what scriptural actually teaches. Like you said, love and grace allowing different interpretations is the better way. Deb--The article by Jason Lisle on "Anisotropic-Synchrony-Convention" is rather complex, and requires some understanding of geometry, physics, and Einstein's relativity theory. I think I can safely say that very few people understand what Lisle is saying, but many will heartily recommend it for reading. How do we know it's a good model? Should I take Dr. Lisle's word for it because he agrees with Ken Ham, and, because he has a PhD from a secular university (Like many other YEC experts)? Also please note that Lisle's model depends heavily on the theories of Einstein, who never believed in the Bible or a young universe. Can he show any experimental evidence or make any predictions to support his model? | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 12970 Registered: 12-2003  |
Martin--very, very good point about our assumption that the New Earth is Paradise Restored. I'm pretty certain that idea has become part of our modern, English-speaking "collective unconscious" (I'm really not endorsing Jung's theory... ) because of Milton's epic poems, "Paradise Lost" and "Paradise Restored"—which EGW is known to have read and quoted. There is absolutely nothing biblical to suggest that God will give us "Eden Restored". Peter speaks of the elements melting with fervent heat, of heaven and earth disappearing. Revelation says the heavens are rolled back...nothing as we know it remains. If the universe was created as a "system", and if heaven and earth are destroyed, melted away, and a new heaven and earth are created—there is no reason to suppose that the new will be like what God originally created. Creation has never been melted and destroyed since God made it; the fact that Scripture says it will be suggests to me that something singular and unique will happen. We can't possibly determine what the "new" will really be like except for the promises (that are mostly not physical but are assuring us that God Himself will dwell with us) that Scripture makes. Colleen | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 2124 Registered: 7-2007 |
Another thing to consider is Heaven wouldn't be paradise if your pets died. God promised to wipe away all tears from our eyes. I believe we should take the Bible literally unless it's obviously figurative. Such as where it says that God covers us with his wings and where a horn speaks, etc... | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1221 Registered: 7-2004 |
Asurprise, you are defining doctrine based on your emotions discussing pets. Does the Bible even say that you will have pets on the new earth? You are correct about a bias towards taking Scripture literally, but prophetic images are, by their very nature, symbolic. It may be literally true, but it isn't reasonable to insist that a prophetic image of any type must be literal. | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 2125 Registered: 7-2007 |
When Isaiah said that Jesus would be born of a virgin, was that symbolic? Those verses about the animals are just as clear. The only reason Scientists who don't believe in God say that it took billions of years for people to exist, is because they DON'T believe in miracles, so they don't believe that God created." They have no other way to explain creation except to say that it took billions of years - and even then, it's a pretty stupid theroy. | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 2126 Registered: 7-2007 |
Curious how the devil works. he uses some truth to get people to buy the lie (every cult has something they believe that's true) and then when people learn that they've believed a lie and get freed from it, he gets people to disbelieve the same truth that he used to get them to believe the lie in the first place. | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1222 Registered: 7-2004 |
Asurprise, You are simply incorrect when you compare a statement about the birth of the Messiah with prophetic imagery about a peaceful kingdom promised to Israel. Was the promised land literally flowing with milk and honey? Should we conclude that there were rivers of milk and "water"falls of honey? Of course not. My issue is not with whether or not God created. My issue is with taking a viewpoint that isn't even fully compatible with Scripture (see for instance the discussion about what is said in Ge 1 vs Gen 2) and then using one set of conclusions (a set that denies at least part of Scripture) in order to be judgmental towards what should be seen as fellow beleivers. | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1223 Registered: 7-2004 |
Asurprise, I am going to say this in the most loving way I can as a brother in Christ. You appear to have a serious anger problem that leads you to personally attack your brothers and sisters in Christ whenever they do not perfectly agree with you. This is not the fruit of the Spirit. I would encourage you to spend time in prayer over this repeated behavior. It isn't hard to translate your veiled insults and accusations, because it happens every time someone strongly disagrees with you. "Curious how the devil works. he uses some truth to get (you) to buy the lie (every cult has something they believe that's true) and then when (you) learn that (you've) believed a lie and get freed from it, he gets (you) to disbelieve the same truth that he used to get (you) to believe the lie in the first place." It is hurtful to others when you start accusing them of following the devil's lies. And it is hurtful to your witness of Christ when people see you resorting to personal attacks and insults when a discussion doesn't go your way. Frankly I am dumbfounded that posts calling for increasing our tolerance of other people's viewpoints would lead to personal attacks from multiple posters. | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 2127 Registered: 7-2007 |
When I was in public school in the 6th grade, I answered a test question where it was asking the age of the earth. I put down 6000 years and the teacher marked it wrong. | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1224 Registered: 7-2004 |
I'd insist that the teacher "prove" it beyond any doubt. The science of surrounding the start of the universe, of our planet, and of human life involve nearly as much "faith" as Christians must have in the Bible. If they would at least acknowledge that these are theories rather than facts, I would feel a little better about it. | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 2128 Registered: 7-2007 |
Ric_b; revealing the method of the devil is not an accusation. I wasn't putting any certain person in that place at all. Why would you take offense at that and accuse me of attacking you? Why don't you take things in a gentle spirit instead of getting offended and trying to pound the other person to the ground? You promote tolerance, but you get offended if anyone disagrees with you. | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1225 Registered: 7-2004 |
Asurprise, Your innocent act isn't fooling people. Your statement about the methods used by the devil was directed at the current conversation. I take offense because the most recent current conversation was between you and I, establishing the context for your remarks. You must be projecting the offense over disagreement, assuming that the anger and offense you feel is felt by everyone else. Not a single comment that I posted had any personal element accusing another poster either by name or by the vague, but still personal attack using "some people"; at least not until you shifted, once again, from discussing the issues to discussing how some people are being led by the devil. If asking you to provide Scripture in context that prove your claims is "pounding you into the ground"' then I am guilty as charged. Time after time. And your are correct that I am not particularly tolerant of dogmatic claims based on emotions and opinions yet unsupported by Biblical reference. | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1226 Registered: 7-2004 |
Asurprise, I am going to breakdown your posts with the specifics of what each one said. Then I'll await your reply. I notice that in post 2128 you didn't deny that the post was about me, you only said that you weren't "putting any certain person in that place at all". All that this says is that you were intentionally vague about who the intended "some people" referred to initially and that you still don't want to reveal their identity. And that you aren't ready to say that the some people was in fact intended for me. Let's look at who the "some people" could be. "Curious how the devil works. he uses some truth to get people to buy the lie (every cult has something they believe that's true)" So the "some people" of your accusation have to be someone who joined a cult. It seems a reasonable assumption that the cult in question, given the nature of this board, would be SDAism. "and then when people learn that they've believed a lie and get freed from it," OK, so the "some people" reference refers not only to people who had been in a cult at one point but it also refers to people who have left the cult that they were in. Given the nature of this forum it seems highly likely that the intended reference is a former Adventist. It certainly is an atheist, they weren't in a cult and left it. It isn't referring to scientists who disagree with YEC, again they weren't in a cult and then left it. It isn't referring to those who are in the Emergent Church, there is no in and back out again constant that would define them. So it seems that you are accusing some subset of your fellow former adventists of being led by the devil. Colleen was the last post before our exchange, but I highly doubt you were referring to her with your comments. I guess that leaves a few other possibilities besides me (Martin, Chris, Gabriel, Jeremy and Deb have been active on this thread to, so it could have been any or all of us.) But the bottom line is that you are making very insulting comments about your brothers and sisters here, but are being vague about which specific brothers and sisters. | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1227 Registered: 7-2004 |
Asurpise, Next I will examine who you were interacting with on this thread over the past 2 days before making this inflammatory comment. It is possible that the comment wasn't directed to anyone you were interacting with, but that doesn't seem like the most obvious explanantion. Post 2121 a quick comment to Jim, followed by a lengthy reply to me Post 2122 comments to Gabriel and to me Post 2124 not specifically addressed to me but the topic was the one that you and I were discussing Post 2125 clearly addressed to me Post 2126 addressed to some undetermined former SDA or multiple former SDAs Given all of the evidence, I don't think it is unreasonable to conclude that I was the former Adventist target of your remarks. | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 2129 Registered: 7-2007 |
Ric; I have a good friend with whom I was discussing the thread. I remembered something from months or years ago - I don't remember which - where it seemed that a poster (not you) didn't want to believe anything that Ellen White had said. Most things she said were false, but she got a few things correct because she plagiarized real Christians. My friend said: "it's amazing the tactics of the enemy; how he uses the truth to get people to believe a lie, and then when they discover the lie, he uses the lie to get people to disbelieve the truth." She also said; "the worst lie is the one that's almost true." When she said that, I decided that would be a good thing to post. She was talking about cults in general, having no idea who had interacted on the thread. So you can see, it had NOTHING to do with you. I did not write this in anger. It seems to me that you have anger issues. You take offense so easily. How can people discuss anything when someone gets offended so easily? The same thing happened on the thread "The Rapture" with you when River said something totally innocent. "...first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." Matthew 7:5 |
