C
caseypayne1980
Guest
1. Yes
2. Young
2. Young
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
G
Guest
Guest
1. Are you a Christian? YES
2. Do you believe in a young or old earth? IF YOU SIMPLY MEAN THE AGE OF THE EARTH'S EXISTENCE, OLD.
2. Do you believe in a young or old earth? IF YOU SIMPLY MEAN THE AGE OF THE EARTH'S EXISTENCE, OLD.
N
Newkid00
Guest
1.Yes
2.Old
2.Old
S
Silverchild79
Guest
Yes
Older then most christian think, the earth is AT LEAST 12,500 years old IMO, and possibly as old as 5 billion years
Older then most christian think, the earth is AT LEAST 12,500 years old IMO, and possibly as old as 5 billion years
L
LittleNipper
Guest
Khristeeanos said:
1. Yes, I'm a born-again Christian
2. 6000 years is hardly young. GOD created a ecologically established environment at the dawn of CREATION. I imagine that to be approximately, 6000 years ago.
L
LittleNipper
Guest
The Barbarian said:
How old is GOD? Is the Universe perhaps GOD's way of demonstrating HIS eternal character?
C
Cheryl
Guest
1. Are you a Christian?
2. Do you believe in a young or old earth?
1. Yes!
2. young
:B-fly: Cheryl
2. Do you believe in a young or old earth?
1. Yes!
2. young
:B-fly: Cheryl
C
Cheryl
Guest
Yes i posted twice, but i just wanted to say i am a Christian saved by His grace. & I know in my heart that the earth is at least 6 thousand yrs maybe entering its 7 thousand.
I'll never believe in a big bang, unless you want to say that is what He sounds like.
:B-fly:
I'll never believe in a big bang, unless you want to say that is what He sounds like.
:B-fly:
E
Esther I.
Guest
Yes
Old,i belive that there was something previous to the voidnes,genesis is about the creation of the earth as we know it now&creation of us humans,but God started His creation previous,the report dos not start at the very begining of Gods creation,but at the stage relevant to us
Old,i belive that there was something previous to the voidnes,genesis is about the creation of the earth as we know it now&creation of us humans,but God started His creation previous,the report dos not start at the very begining of Gods creation,but at the stage relevant to us
M
MrVersatile48
Guest
http://www.crosswalk.com/pastors/11552410/
Worldviews: God Explains it All
Dr. Paul Dean
What do you believe and why do you believe it?
Such a question is basic to our very existence and all people must answer it in some way whether consciously or unconsciously.
To answer the question unconsciously is both to answer it and to ignore it at the same time.
To ignore the question is to answer it along these lines, “I only believe what I feel like believing at any given moment.â€Â
In other words, this individual has no coherent philosophical grid by which he approaches life in general except that he acts merely upon circumstantial feelings. This individual will live with philosophical inconsistencies and contradictions within his own mind without really caring or perhaps even knowing such to be the case.
Some take a more thoughtful approach and attempt to develop some sort of belief system.
In other words, they know what they believe and are often very committed to those beliefs. Yet, they are not so different from those who ignore the question, though they may conceive themselves as being different by virtue of the fact that they at least answer the first half of the question: what do you believe?
They are not so different because setting forth what one believes is not enough.
What one believes is irrelevant if he does not know why he believes it. If one does not know why he believes something then he is his own authority and has relegated himself to a position of relativism, or, to put it more aptly, arbitrariness. That is, he is philosophically uncertain about anything because he has no ground for what he believes.
He simply believes it because he believes it.
Others are more thoughtful still. Not only have they answered the first half of the question, but they have wrestled with the second half as well.
These individuals know what they believe and offer some justification for it. In other words, they have attempted to answer the question: why do you believe it?
They have consciously committed themselves to a particular worldview. Of course, those who ignore the question and those who answer only the first half have committed themselves to their respective worldviews to be sure.
The difference between those individuals and the one who wrestles with the “why†question is that the former are unconsciously committed to their worldviews and the latter is consciously committed to his worldview. The latter is attempting to make some sense out of his world.
There is yet another category to be brought forth momentarily.
The concept of “worldview†must be dealt with first. A “worldview†quite obviously has to do with the way a person looks at the world. In one sense, it is the totality of what one believes.
In another sense, it is the lens through which a person views the world or ultimate reality. It consists of one’s presuppositions or assumptions about the nature of our world.
A worldview is made up of those presuppositions that individuals believe without evidence or outside support; they are merely taken for granted or on faith.
Then there are those presuppositions or beliefs that persons hold to based on some kind of rationale. A person will always speak from his particular worldview whether he is conscious he is doing so or not, whether he is consistent or not, or whether he has determined to do so or not.
Everyone brings his worldview to the marketplace of ideas.
To pick up on the opening question once again is to put these issues in sharper focus. It is not difficult to see that the individual who has ignored the question has no ground for what he believes. And, it is perhaps quite clear that the one who has only set forth what he believes without asking why he believes it has no ground for what he believes either.
And yet, it is also true that the one who has answered both sides of the question, the one who knows what he believes and why, has no rational, philosophical ground for what he believes if he holds to any worldview other than a biblical worldview.
In other words, the one who does not presuppose the God of the bible has no ground for believing what he believes about anything. He has relegated himself to a life of intellectual futility and philosophical inconsistency.
By way of example, one committed to an evolutionary/naturalist worldview must live with philosophical contradictions.
He conceives of the universe as a box. The only things that exist are those things within the box. One may not go outside of the box to search for answers to anything or to explain anything. There is only the physical universe in which we live. There is nothing metaphysical. Thus, he says there is no God.
Yet, there are a number of things that he cannot justify on his worldview.
He presupposes laws of logic to engage in scientific method or have a conversation, etc...
But laws of logic are immaterial, that is, metaphysical and cannot be justified on his worldview.
He cannot justify concepts like honesty on his worldview though he presupposes those concepts in the reporting of data or in formulating hypotheses or theories, etc.
He violates his own worldview by presupposing the uniformity of nature though he says the origin of the universe was a random chance accident.
He posits a natural law that says matter and energy cannot come from nothing yet he says just that: the universe came from nothing.
He posits a natural law that says that life cannot come from non-life yet in the beginning life did in fact come from non-life says he.
On an evolutionary worldview, we are but an accident with no real purpose for being here. On that worldview, values mean nothing and there is no life after death.
Evolutionists do indeed attempt to inject meaning into our existence. But, they have no justification for doing so on their worldview.
Let me take it a step further. The evolutionist says there is no God.
The question must be put to him, “how do you know there is no God?â€Â
On his worldview, one of observation and data, he does not know. He has not searched every corner of the universe. He has limited knowledge and limited investigative ability.
He posits a statement of absolute fact concerning the existence of God but he is relegated to a position of complete uncertainty on his worldview. He cannot justify his claim...
http://www.crosswalk.com/pastors/11552410/ - 2 more pages there
Ian
Worldviews: God Explains it All
Dr. Paul Dean
What do you believe and why do you believe it?
Such a question is basic to our very existence and all people must answer it in some way whether consciously or unconsciously.
To answer the question unconsciously is both to answer it and to ignore it at the same time.
To ignore the question is to answer it along these lines, “I only believe what I feel like believing at any given moment.â€Â
In other words, this individual has no coherent philosophical grid by which he approaches life in general except that he acts merely upon circumstantial feelings. This individual will live with philosophical inconsistencies and contradictions within his own mind without really caring or perhaps even knowing such to be the case.
Some take a more thoughtful approach and attempt to develop some sort of belief system.
In other words, they know what they believe and are often very committed to those beliefs. Yet, they are not so different from those who ignore the question, though they may conceive themselves as being different by virtue of the fact that they at least answer the first half of the question: what do you believe?
They are not so different because setting forth what one believes is not enough.
What one believes is irrelevant if he does not know why he believes it. If one does not know why he believes something then he is his own authority and has relegated himself to a position of relativism, or, to put it more aptly, arbitrariness. That is, he is philosophically uncertain about anything because he has no ground for what he believes.
He simply believes it because he believes it.
Others are more thoughtful still. Not only have they answered the first half of the question, but they have wrestled with the second half as well.
These individuals know what they believe and offer some justification for it. In other words, they have attempted to answer the question: why do you believe it?
They have consciously committed themselves to a particular worldview. Of course, those who ignore the question and those who answer only the first half have committed themselves to their respective worldviews to be sure.
The difference between those individuals and the one who wrestles with the “why†question is that the former are unconsciously committed to their worldviews and the latter is consciously committed to his worldview. The latter is attempting to make some sense out of his world.
There is yet another category to be brought forth momentarily.
The concept of “worldview†must be dealt with first. A “worldview†quite obviously has to do with the way a person looks at the world. In one sense, it is the totality of what one believes.
In another sense, it is the lens through which a person views the world or ultimate reality. It consists of one’s presuppositions or assumptions about the nature of our world.
A worldview is made up of those presuppositions that individuals believe without evidence or outside support; they are merely taken for granted or on faith.
Then there are those presuppositions or beliefs that persons hold to based on some kind of rationale. A person will always speak from his particular worldview whether he is conscious he is doing so or not, whether he is consistent or not, or whether he has determined to do so or not.
Everyone brings his worldview to the marketplace of ideas.
To pick up on the opening question once again is to put these issues in sharper focus. It is not difficult to see that the individual who has ignored the question has no ground for what he believes. And, it is perhaps quite clear that the one who has only set forth what he believes without asking why he believes it has no ground for what he believes either.
And yet, it is also true that the one who has answered both sides of the question, the one who knows what he believes and why, has no rational, philosophical ground for what he believes if he holds to any worldview other than a biblical worldview.
In other words, the one who does not presuppose the God of the bible has no ground for believing what he believes about anything. He has relegated himself to a life of intellectual futility and philosophical inconsistency.
By way of example, one committed to an evolutionary/naturalist worldview must live with philosophical contradictions.
He conceives of the universe as a box. The only things that exist are those things within the box. One may not go outside of the box to search for answers to anything or to explain anything. There is only the physical universe in which we live. There is nothing metaphysical. Thus, he says there is no God.
Yet, there are a number of things that he cannot justify on his worldview.
He presupposes laws of logic to engage in scientific method or have a conversation, etc...
But laws of logic are immaterial, that is, metaphysical and cannot be justified on his worldview.
He cannot justify concepts like honesty on his worldview though he presupposes those concepts in the reporting of data or in formulating hypotheses or theories, etc.
He violates his own worldview by presupposing the uniformity of nature though he says the origin of the universe was a random chance accident.
He posits a natural law that says matter and energy cannot come from nothing yet he says just that: the universe came from nothing.
He posits a natural law that says that life cannot come from non-life yet in the beginning life did in fact come from non-life says he.
On an evolutionary worldview, we are but an accident with no real purpose for being here. On that worldview, values mean nothing and there is no life after death.
Evolutionists do indeed attempt to inject meaning into our existence. But, they have no justification for doing so on their worldview.
Let me take it a step further. The evolutionist says there is no God.
The question must be put to him, “how do you know there is no God?â€Â
On his worldview, one of observation and data, he does not know. He has not searched every corner of the universe. He has limited knowledge and limited investigative ability.
He posits a statement of absolute fact concerning the existence of God but he is relegated to a position of complete uncertainty on his worldview. He cannot justify his claim...
http://www.crosswalk.com/pastors/11552410/ - 2 more pages there
Ian
T
Ted
Guest
Yes I am a Christian.
The good doctor has made use of some false premises. For instance he says that evolution declares there is no God. This is in fact false. Evolution makes no comment whatsoever on God. It is about the development of life on earth. It does not speak to the origins of life. Nor does it speak to the existence or non-existence of God.
When speaking of the Divine I prefer not to use the term existence but the phrase "the reality of God, Yahweh, Allah, the Great Spirit etc" God is simply beyond human language and conceptualization abilities.
As this is not a thread for real debate I will leave it there.
Shalom
Ted :D
The good doctor has made use of some false premises. For instance he says that evolution declares there is no God. This is in fact false. Evolution makes no comment whatsoever on God. It is about the development of life on earth. It does not speak to the origins of life. Nor does it speak to the existence or non-existence of God.
When speaking of the Divine I prefer not to use the term existence but the phrase "the reality of God, Yahweh, Allah, the Great Spirit etc" God is simply beyond human language and conceptualization abilities.
As this is not a thread for real debate I will leave it there.
Shalom
Ted :D
C
Cheryl
Guest
I don't stock anything on what science says about God or anything about Evolution. Jesus Christ is the Creator as with all parts of the Godhead. Th fact is in the beginning God created the heavens & the earth, good enough for me!
Fact is God said it & that settles it! No debate for me, what others believe, well in the end all will bow before Jesus Christ & say "He is Lord of lords & King of kings. So while others try to disprove Him or try to say He is not real, well then one day what they say or try to believe will come to nothing. He is Lord & Savior, so that is it for me.
Cheryl
Fact is God said it & that settles it! No debate for me, what others believe, well in the end all will bow before Jesus Christ & say "He is Lord of lords & King of kings. So while others try to disprove Him or try to say He is not real, well then one day what they say or try to believe will come to nothing. He is Lord & Savior, so that is it for me.
Cheryl
T
Ted
Guest
Actually science has nothing to say about God. It does not, in reality address the issue. By the same token religious should not be talking against science. Both deal with the same topic but from different perspectives. Science deals with the physical aspects of reality whereas religion deals with the spiritual aspects of reality.
Shalom
Ted :D
Shalom
Ted :D
T
Ted
Guest
Barbarian :D
Now that is humorous.
Shalom
Ted :D
Now that is humorous.
Shalom
Ted :D
C
Cheryl
Guest
Ted said:
Actually I can speak against science, science has done a great deal to dispprove Jesus Christ & God the Father. Science is not a god of any kind in which I need to hold them up in honor.
No what the Bible says is the truth if science agrees that is good, but their words are not agreeable when the shout down the voice of the Bible. In no way are they the golden idol to me, (same token religious should not be talking against science.} Well you must know if Jesus could be here now He would, just look how He talked to the Pharsees! No true Christianity cannot hold the words of science in the same view as God's Word, His Words stands alone!
Why all this talk about science as being anything at all puzzels me, we as Christians ought to hold up the Bible as our proof of every thing.
Cheryl
T
Ted
Guest
Cheryl :D
You are incorrect in your comments. Some individual scientists have made such comments but science is a discipline that does not deal with anything beyond the physical so has nothing whatsoever to say about God.
As far as science not agreeing with the Bible. That is what the research has shown. The Bible is not accurate as an historic or scientific document. It is primarily a religious book that presents profound truths but in metaphorical and midrashic style.
Shalom
Ted :D
You are incorrect in your comments. Some individual scientists have made such comments but science is a discipline that does not deal with anything beyond the physical so has nothing whatsoever to say about God.
As far as science not agreeing with the Bible. That is what the research has shown. The Bible is not accurate as an historic or scientific document. It is primarily a religious book that presents profound truths but in metaphorical and midrashic style.
Shalom
Ted :D
C
Cheryl
Guest
Ted said:
Well Ted everytime I post you go after what ever I say, but no I am not wrong at all, I do have a right to my thoughts on this, If that is how you feel then that is up to you, not for you to tell me what I should think.
In what I've seen first hand of what science say about life & God, God is over it all His word is so!
Cheryl
Drew
Member
I am going to humbly disagree with both Cheryl and Ted.
I think that science gives us faithful information about the world that cannot be rejected simply because of a conflict between its findings and the apparent teachings of Scripture. Classic example: young universe. At a literal reading, the Scriptures might suggest a young universe. Science more or less rules this out. Result: we conclude that the stuff in Genesis 1 is allegorical. The scientific method, properly applied gives us reliable knowledge of the world that helps us interpret the Bible properly.
On the other hand, I disagree that the Scriptures give profound truths that are only true metaphorically (I hope that I have interpreted Ted's ideas correctly) I believe that Jesus rose from the dead physically. I believe that sin is a real physical quantity, that like a kind of virus, has contaminated the very fabric of the physical world. I do not have the time to defend these sweeping claims in this post.
I think that science gives us faithful information about the world that cannot be rejected simply because of a conflict between its findings and the apparent teachings of Scripture. Classic example: young universe. At a literal reading, the Scriptures might suggest a young universe. Science more or less rules this out. Result: we conclude that the stuff in Genesis 1 is allegorical. The scientific method, properly applied gives us reliable knowledge of the world that helps us interpret the Bible properly.
On the other hand, I disagree that the Scriptures give profound truths that are only true metaphorically (I hope that I have interpreted Ted's ideas correctly) I believe that Jesus rose from the dead physically. I believe that sin is a real physical quantity, that like a kind of virus, has contaminated the very fabric of the physical world. I do not have the time to defend these sweeping claims in this post.