• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Creationists, please provide evidence

painted wolf

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
jbug said:
Matters of spirituality are personal. I apply the scientific method for my own pursuit of truth. The principles are sound. You must be objective and isolate out all potential influences. When a passage is read you need to keep in mind how many variant readings those words can accommodate and find ways to rule errant ones out in order to pin down which one is solid. Every jot must count.
Click to expand...
My point exactly... science is objective while religion is subjective.

Which is why science can't use it and can't interpret the Bible.... it's not objective.

There have been a lot of inventors and/or scientists killed by people with vested interests. Also, there have been a lot of people's research thrown to the wolves due to vested interests. The principles are the same in both environments. The reason being is that human nature is the same.
Click to expand...
"Thrown to the wolves" is not quite the same as burned at the stake. Nor is one person killing another out of greed the same as a holocaust or crusade.

But I agree about our basal nature.... just not institutional natures.

wa:do
 
rusra02

rusra02

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
jbug said:
There is an Adam for each cycle of creation. This planet has hosted many cycles of creation. Adam is a societal body, not just a person. It is a "living" body that attains the goal of individual liberty "under God". It is a golden age society that achieves a level of prosperity even better than we now enjoy.

The USA is the closest approximation to it but this was just the "dry land" precursor that allows for the higher order creation to come to pass. The best is yet to come.

The USA was actually the setting for the Garden of Eden and Adam did come forth, but the USA rejected, persecuted and drove them out. Adam was the first "living" soul in his day. All had gone to apostasy and none had the level of "life" comparable to what Adam attained to. He came as the Father to teach us all things and to establish the Kingdom of God that Jesus said to pray for the coming of. His "breath of life" was the same that Jesus gave to His disciples as recorded in John 20:22. He laid His hands on their heads, breathed upon them and said unto them "receive ye the Holy Ghost". This is what distinguished Adam as the first "living" man. He was surrounded by zombies. All Adams come forth this way. Those who join in with Him and His Bride also receive the "breath of life" and become a part of their body. This is why Eve is called the "mother of all living" because in the same ordinance to become a member of Jesus Christ's church you receive the "breath of life". It is done exactly the same way that Jesus did it with exactly the same authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood. This is the time of man's spiritual resurrection. He passes from spiritual death to spiritual life in that the Holy Ghost literally dwells within him. Separation from God (Holy Ghost is 3rd member of the Godhead) is spiritual death so reunion with God is spiritual resurrection. The resurrection Christians are looking for has been available to them for almost 200 years now because Adam and His Bride came and are yet here, only He and His Bride are now in a fallen state awaiting their redemption. They are soon to suffer a scourge and judgment that will cleanse their bodies of the forbidden fruit they have partaken of that they should not have permitted to enter in.

The creation account in Genesis is NOT about the origin of the species of humans upon this planet. It is the account of the creation of the Kingdom of God as it goes between disorganization and full organization with human kind as the dust flecks it is made from. All of that cosmic sounding stuff is just metaphor intended to speak literally and explicitly of what I just mentioned above. You won't understand the Bible in a simple and literal manner until you learn to decode it along the lines as I have suggested. I have merely given a tiny tip of a massive iceberg of information. The rest is up to you to decipher. Until you do so, please stop making a mockery of things.
Click to expand...

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but none of what you said has support in the Bible.
 
K

kylixguru

Well-Known Member
rusra02 said:
Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but none of what you said has support in the Bible.
Click to expand...
None of it has support in your interpretation of the Bible, which is likely fantasy and fables taking metaphors as the literal meaning instead of decoding them properly.

I happen to know for a fact the things I have spoken of are precisely and literally what the Bible prophesies.

If you took every jot seriously and applied all of the metaphoric constructs it provides, the Bible makes perfect sense just as I have indicated.
 
rusra02

rusra02

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
jarofthoughts said:
Seeing as the Bible is evidence of nothing but the the fact that the Bible exists, what is your evidence for this claim?
Click to expand...

The Bible, completed almost 2000 years ago, makes the claim that it is inspired by God. (2 Timothy 3:16,17) This book is the only reliable source of information about God, including his name, his purpose, and proof of his Godship.
The Bible has withstood the test of time and countless attacks, both intellectual and violent. It provides convincing proof of what we cannot see.
In short, you are wrong in saying the Bible is evidence of nothing. It contains solid evidence that it is God's word and is the truth. (John 17:17)
 
K

kylixguru

Well-Known Member
painted wolf said:
My point exactly... science is objective while religion is subjective.
Click to expand...
Science deals with external realities.
Spirituality deals with internal realities.
The principles to isolate out and describe truths in both domains happen to be the same. The difference being that which the scientists conclude upon is impersonal while that which the spiritualists conclude upon is personal. Truths exist in both domains.

painted wolf said:
Which is why science can't use it and can't interpret the Bible.... it's not objective.
Click to expand...
The Bible can be analyzed in an objective manner just the same as an archeological dig in Troy can be analyzed. Knowing the truth of what the Bible's message is has a greater amount of relevancy than most all scientific research. The problem is people have not applied the same rigor and discipline in evaluating and understanding it as they have many other things of much lesser import.
 
Skwim

Skwim

Veteran Member
rusra02 said:
The Bible, completed almost 2000 years ago, makes the claim that it is inspired by God. (2 Timothy 3:16,17) This book is the only reliable source of information about God, including his name, his purpose, and proof of his Godship.
The Bible has withstood the test of time and countless attacks, both intellectual and violent. It provides convincing proof of what we cannot see.
In short, you are wrong in saying the Bible is evidence of nothing. It contains solid evidence that it is God's word and is the truth. (John 17:17)
Click to expand...
Good grief, are you actually asserting the self-validating argument? If that's the case then listen up.
I am god because I say I'm god; and as god I direct you to send me $1,000.00.
​
 
painted wolf

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
jbug said:
Science deals with external realities.
Spirituality deals with internal realities.
The principles to isolate out and describe truths in both domains happen to be the same. The difference being that which the scientists conclude upon is impersonal while that which the spiritualists conclude upon is personal. Truths exist in both domains.
Click to expand...
No disagreement... but because of these differences science and religion are not able to be explored in the same manner. Even, if they are explored with the same rigor.

The Bible can be analyzed in an objective manner just the same as an archeological dig in Troy can be analyzed. Knowing the truth of what the Bible's message is has a greater amount of relevancy than most all scientific research. The problem is people have not applied the same rigor and discipline in evaluating and understanding it as they have many other things of much lesser import.
Click to expand...
How does one objectively analyze a metaphor... surely the point is how you interpret it?
Such interpretation is a subjective process, not an objective one.

wa:do
 
K

kylixguru

Well-Known Member
painted wolf said:
No disagreement... but because of these differences science and religion are not able to be explored in the same manner. Even, if they are explored with the same rigor.

How does one objectively analyze a metaphor... surely the point is how you interpret it?
Such interpretation is a subjective process, not an objective one.

wa:do
Click to expand...
Not exactly. There is an explicit meaning that can be assembled. Some things can be partial matches but they still need to be ruled out.
 
Gunfingers

Gunfingers

Happiness Incarnate
I'd just like to say I think it's adorable that you think you've found a single, objective proof to the bible that runs completely contrary to the literal words. I'd love a hit of whatever you're on.
 
K

kylixguru

Well-Known Member
Gunfingers said:
I'd just like to say I think it's adorable that you think you've found a single, objective proof to the bible that runs completely contrary to the literal words. I'd love a hit of whatever you're on.
Click to expand...
If you are referring to my comments the only thing my understanding runs contrary to is people's interpretations. I only use literal constructs the Bible provides for itself. Therefore, my manner of deciphering things is taking its words literally where others fail to do so.
 
diosangpastol

diosangpastol

Dios - ang - Pastol
On 9 December 1944 Lewis wrote to Acworth: ‘I can’t have made my position clear. I am not either attacking or defending Evolution. I believe that Christianity can still be believed, even if Evolution is true. This is where you and I differ. Thinking as I do, I can’t help regarding your advice (that I henceforth include arguments against Evolution in all my Christian apologetics) as a temptation to fight the battle on what is really a false issue: and also on terrain very unsuitable for the only weapon I have.’12

http://creation.com/cs-lewis-and-evolution

Later though, he began to question evolution. He, in fact changed his stance but he certainly did question both sides of the argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top