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!

  • Are you 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/

  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

  • Looking to grow in the word of God more?

    See our Bible Studies and Devotionals sections in Christian Growth

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

  • 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

[_ Old Earth _] What is your opinion?

True or false? The interpretation of evidence from the fossil record depends on the w

  • True

    Votes: 6 60.0%
  • False

    Votes: 4 40.0%

  • Total voters
    10
  • Poll closed .
I'm just wondering why you're reluctant to simply say "yes, I'm a Christian."

"Yes, I follow Christ." = "Yes, I am a Christian." I guess I shouldn't have expected you to get what I was saying. Anyways...

How do you know whether a passage is to be taken as figurative or not?

This depends on a few things. Firstly, Jesus said the Spirit will guide us into all truth. He will teach us all things. 1 Cor 2 states that it is the Spirit who reveals the mysteries to us, who searches all things, even the deep things of God. This passage also states, again, that it is the Holy Spirit who teaches by spiritually discerning and comparing spiritual with spiritual. 1 John 2:28 also teaches that it is that Anointing that is in us who teaches us all things, "who is truth, and is no lie..."

Secondly, context, context, context. Cultural context, grammatical context, etc. An example of grammatical context, Hebrew scholars to my knowledge, both Christian and non-Christian, agree that certain words coupled with other words mean one thing, while without these words they mean another. One example is the argument about the trinity from several passages in the OT. An example for cultural context is the vast amount of the Levitical law that was to distinguish Israel, God's chosen people, from the nations around them. Also with all of this, is your question of figurative language, metaphors, etc.

Lastly, at least for now, is that any and every tiny detail is or has been debated and I'm of the opinion that the main reason for the differing views is that we tend to ignore the Author's intentions and stuff as we read His book. This is my opinion, but I lean heavily upon as He wrote it, He knows what He meant by it, and for EVERY account written in those pages He not only was an eyewitness but was never once affected or influenced by them as we tend to be.


So! I apologize for the length, I'm sure it'll bite me later, however...I'd like to hear from you. What is your answer for your question?
 
This depends on a few things. Firstly, Jesus said the Spirit will guide us into all truth. He will teach us all things. 1 Cor 2 states that it is the Spirit who reveals the mysteries to us, who searches all things, even the deep things of God. This passage also states, again, that it is the Holy Spirit who teaches by spiritually discerning and comparing spiritual with spiritual. 1 John 2:28 also teaches that it is that Anointing that is in us who teaches us all things, "who is truth, and is no lie..."

The problem is, Jonathan Wells, a minister of the Unification Church thinks God (in the person of Rev. Myung Son Moon, who thinks he's an improvement on Jesus) told him to "destroy evolution." Everyone has a different idea about what the Spirit says.

Secondly, context, context, context. Cultural context, grammatical context, etc. An example of grammatical context, Hebrew scholars to my knowledge, both Christian and non-Christian, agree that certain words coupled with other words mean one thing, while without these words they mean another. One example is the argument about the trinity from several passages in the OT. An example for cultural context is the vast amount of the Levitical law that was to distinguish Israel, God's chosen people, from the nations around them. Also with all of this, is your question of figurative language, metaphors, etc.

The problem here, is that authorities differ on many things. And always have. Even ancient Jewish scholars differed on whether or not Genesis is a literal history.

Lastly, at least for now, is that any and every tiny detail is or has been debated and I'm of the opinion that the main reason for the differing views is that we tend to ignore the Author's intentions and stuff as we read His book. This is my opinion, but I lean heavily upon as He wrote it, He knows what He meant by it, and for EVERY account written in those pages He not only was an eyewitness but was never once affected or influenced by them as we tend to be.

Everyone thinks he's reading it as it He wrote it.

So! I apologize for the length, I'm sure it'll bite me later, however...I'd like to hear from you. What is your answer for your question?

I incline to St. Augustine's idea that if God's word and nature seem to be at odds, we have misunderstood one or both of them. In general, one should test a passage as a literal depiction, unless it is logically absurd, like mornings and evenings with no Sun to have them, or is absurd in the context like Jesus sorting real sheep and real goats at judgement.

And, of course, if a literal reading contradicts what is known about the world, then one has to do some work to figure out which one we have wrong.
 
You struggle - Darwinism is not science - Darwinism is atheism - I reject atheism and Darwinism -
Darwinism is an attempt to make sense of certain observable data, which is a part of what science does. Atheism is a worldview, which is quite different from Darwinism, and hence it is an error to equate the two.

zeke said:
you try to embrace a form of Darwinism that is non-biblical and non-scientific.
Are you saying that there is a biblical form of Darwinism? That is what your statement implies yet it would completely contradict your previous statement that "Darwinism is atheism."

zeke said:
Darwin easily snookered you my friend - learn from your mistakes. Darwin's theory was never meant to be compatible with a Creator. Darwin's purpose from the get-go was to eliminate God and give atheism its own “creation myth".
The Darwinian revolution was not merely the replacement of one scientific theory by another, as had been the scientific revolutions in the physical sciences, but rather the replacement of a world view, in which the supernatural was accepted as a normal and relevant explanatory principle, by a new world view in which there was no room for supernatural forces. ~ Ernst Mayr
Surprise - Darwinism leaves no room for supernatural forces - where does that leave you?
You are clearly misrepresenting what is stated in the quote, which may not even be true itself, and it doesn't support your point.
 
Darwinism is an attempt to make sense of certain observable data, which is a part of what science does. Atheism is a worldview, which is quite different from Darwinism, and hence it is an error to equate the two.
Debatable point my friend - classical Darwinism (a worldview) is naturalistic atheism.
 
You are clearly misrepresenting what is stated in the quote, which may not even be true itself, and it doesn't support your point.

There is no misrepresentation. What part of the Darwinian revolution being a new world view in which there is no room for supernatural forces are you not understanding?
 
The problem is, Jonathan Wells, a minister of the Unification Church thinks God (in the person of Rev. Myung Son Moon, who thinks he's an improvement on Jesus) told him to "destroy evolution." Everyone has a different idea about what the Spirit says.

I'll be very honest with you, this is an extremely bad example to point out. I don't necessarily see why you would quote such a man when it is very apparent that he is not speaking in the Spirit. Just seems to be conflicting with your point is all.

Regardless, I do agree with your point that everyone has a different idea of what the Spirit says. For example, you point out the words of St. Augustine:

I incline to St. Augustine's idea that if God's word and nature seem to be at odds, we have misunderstood one or both of them.

I'll touch on this more in a second, but equating nature and the Word of God is a dangerous idea for two reasons. Romans 8:18-23 states:
18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.
19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

Notice it says, the creature was made subject to vanity and is also in the bondage of corruption. The whole creation groans and travails in pain together.

I could point out the specifics of the curse in Genesis 3 and many passages in the Psalms regarding this, but I know you see what I'm saying.

Second, according to the Apostle John Jesus is the Word, just as He is truth, right? So equating nature with the Word can be borderline idolatrous if we're not careful.

The problem here, is that authorities differ on many things. And always have. Even ancient Jewish scholars differed on whether or not Genesis is a literal history.

Agree 100%, and they missed the Messiah for this type of thing, too. An example we should lean on, is it?

Everyone thinks he's reading it as it He wrote it.

I can agree with this too, but can I ask you something? Do you spend more time in nature and science as you do in the Word? Are you more consumed with what God has to say through His inspired Word than with a corrupted, cursed and fallen world that is in waiting for redemption along with us?

I incline to St. Augustine's idea that if God's word and nature seem to be at odds, we have misunderstood one or both of them.

Please tell me that you aren't telling me that you interpret the Word of God through a man, even a highly esteemed man such as him? Peter and Paul both warned about this multiple times and instead encouraged believers to search and study the Word for themselves. Keep in mind that St. Augustine and all of the believers who are held in high regard, including the Apostles are just men and should be subject to the Word of God and the Spirit just as you and I treat each other.

Just curious, you believe Jesus was born from a virgin and was literally resurrected from the dead right?

To be very honest with you Barbarian, I have looked into your posts and I understand that you are very knowledgeable in your scientific fields. This is excellent, Brother! Also, don't get me wrong, hold whatever views you want, notice I'm not challenging you on scientific views. My poll wasn't directed towards you specifically. However, after reading through some of your posts, I've become rather curious as to exactly what is in your heart regarding God and His Word. Would you agree that there is definitely a clear note of arrogance and sarcasm in how you respond to those who challenge evolution and those who uphold it, such as Zeke?

Just a side note, I'm not intending to offend or accuse, just an observation. With forums being highly impersonal and all, there isn't a way for any of us to know who you really are or are really like. We can't watch you live anything out and none of us can know, save through the Spirit, what is actually going on in your heart or how you really respond to those who lovingly or even unlovingly rebuke you before the Lord. Having said this, all I will say is fruits, Brother, fruits.
 
Barbarian observes:
As you learned, dogmatic atheists share an agenda with creationists to make science opposed to God.

You still don't get it - Darwinian lore is not science - it is a godless woldview based on naturalism.

As you learned, that's false. Darwin even thought God created the first organisms.

Provine is what is sometimes referred to as a fundy atheist.
Provine, like Dawkins is a militant atheist who understands evolution quite well...

But, as you admitted, you have no way of knowing, since you have never learned what the theory is.

Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented. ~ William Provine

As you saw, Glenn Morton gave testimony to the number of YE creationists who lost their faith because of the things they were taught by YEers. Provine offers no evidence for the same reason you don't.

Darwin rejected God and the faith of Christ long before he checked out.

Well, let's see what he actually wrote:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved. Darwin, last sentence of The Origin of Species

You lose again.
 
Barbarian observes:
The problem is, Jonathan Wells, a minister of the Unification Church thinks God (in the person of Rev. Myung Son Moon, who thinks he's an improvement on Jesus) told him to "destroy evolution." Everyone has a different idea about what the Spirit says.

I'll be very honest with you, this is an extremely bad example to point out.

I believe he is as sincere as you are in his ID faith. The problem is, everyone thinks the Spirit is guiding him right.

Regardless, I do agree with your point that everyone has a different idea of what the Spirit says. For example, you point out the words of St. Augustine:

Barbarian observes:
I incline to St. Augustine's idea that if God's word and nature seem to be at odds, we have misunderstood one or both of them.

I'll touch on this more in a second, but equating nature and the Word of God is a dangerous idea for two reasons.

I don't see how you think that's equating the word of God with nature. It is rather what St. Paul wrote:

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

Second, according to the Apostle John Jesus is the Word, just as He is truth, right? So equating nature with the Word can be borderline idolatrous if we're not careful.

I think St. Paul had it right. Don't you?

Barbarian observes:
The problem here, is that authorities differ on many things. And always have. Even ancient Jewish scholars differed on whether or not Genesis is a literal history.

Agree 100%, and they missed the Messiah for this type of thing, too. An example we should lean on, is it?

We should learn a little humility from it. And keep in mind we can be wrong.

Everyone thinks he's reading it as it He wrote it.

I can agree with this too, but can I ask you something? Do you spend more time in nature and science as you do in the Word?

I make a living at science, so I spend a lot of time with it. But I've got two Bibles on my desk, and links to two online on my computer. So I find time with His word. That's why you're as likely to see a Biblical reference as a research paper in my replies here.

Are you more consumed with what God has to say through His inspired Word than with a corrupted, cursed and fallen world that is in waiting for redemption along with us?

The world is very good. God said so, and never changed that. It is man who is fallen.

Please tell me that you aren't telling me that you interpret the Word of God through a man, even a highly esteemed man such as him?

I merely note that there is much I can learn from Augustine. He was capable of being wrong, but he is more often right.

Just curious, you believe Jesus was born from a virgin and was literally resurrected from the dead right?

I find it hard to believe you don't know it's offensive to ask a Christian something like that. Maybe it's an issue in your church, but it's not questioned in mine.

To be very honest with you Barbarian, I have looked into your posts and I understand that you are very knowledgeable in your scientific fields.

It's a living. And it's a lot of fun. BTW, if you understand nature a little, it will enhance your faith in Him. There have been moments, on the shore of a pond, with the Sun going down, and the system shifting to night patterns, when I have apprehended those "invisible things clearly seen", and became transfixed by the majesty and greatness of a God Who could make all of it happen with a few simple rules. I feel sorry for those who can't get to that place.

This is excellent, Brother! Also, don't get me wrong, hold whatever views you want, notice I'm not challenging you on scientific views. My poll wasn't directed towards you specifically. However, after reading through some of your posts, I've become rather curious as to exactly what is in your heart regarding God and His Word.

I suppose we all do our best. I work on the beam in my eye, mostly. Keeps me out of trouble, you know?

Would you agree that there is definitely a clear note of arrogance and sarcasm in how you respond to those who challenge evolution and those who uphold it, such as Zeke?

Most people think I'm more patient with Zeke than he deserves. But I am a very patient guy. On the other hand, I am blunt as a rock. So I might come off as more sarcastic than I intend. Trust me on this; I have great respect for the management here, and I hold back. If I gave Zeke the full treatment, you would know the difference.
 
As you learned, that's false. Darwin even thought God created the first organisms.
Darwin abandoned God and toyed with the notion of life arising via naturalism from his "warm little pond". You are missing the boat and you are not keeping up.

But, as you admitted, you have no way of knowing, since you have never learned what the theory is.
We all know the obvious problems with the ToE and Darwinism goes well beyond the ToE - it is atheism in a new dress.

Provine offers no evidence for the same reason you don't.
Provine knows what you are afraid to admit...
Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented. ~ William Provine
You have been sold a bill of goods - cash it in.
 
Most people think I'm more patient with Zeke than he deserves. But I am a very patient guy. On the other hand, I am blunt as a rock.
And your Darwinian notions are like a rock sinking in the warm little pond".

If I gave Zeke the full treatment, you would know the difference.
Lol - what is the 'full treatment"?
 
Don't be bitter, Zeke. Just admit that Darwin wrote in his book that God created the first living things.

It's right there, and you've been shown it repeatedly.

No point in denying it.
 
Don't be bitter, Zeke. Just admit that Darwin wrote in his book that God created the first living things.

It's right there, and you've been shown it repeatedly.

No point in denying it.
Oh, I am not bitter at all - just amused at your continuing dilemma and I don't deny anything Darwin presented but the the facts remain - he denied God and died an agnostic atheist. His naturalistic evolution was designed to eliminate God but God is still here with us. Surprise.
Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent. ~ William Provine
What is that "full treatment"?
 
Oh, I am not bitter at all

I see the denial. But your behavior is more convincing.

You were surprised to learn that Darwin thought God created the first living things.

But you'll get over it.
 
You were surprised to learn that Darwin thought God created the first living things.
Stalin said he was from the politburo and was given all power to enrich lives but it wasn't true - he slaughtered millions. You remain out of touch with the real world - in the real world where most of us dwell "scholars are coming to the conclusion that Darwin was in fact an atheist well before the publication of Origin." Surprise. Your dancing remains amusing.
Many scholars are coming to the conclusion that Darwin was in fact an atheist well before the publication of Origin. Howard Gruber stated, “The material gives clear evidence for Darwin’s realization during this period that his ideas were indeed materialistic, tending toward atheism, and therefore dangerous.†Stephen Jay Gould likewise said, “The notebooks prove that, Darwin was interested in philosophy and aware of its implications. He knew that the primary feature distinguishing his theory from all other evolutionary doctrines was its uncompromising philosophical materialism...

In the remaining (postautobiography) years of Darwin’s life, he did not, as some claim, rediscover his Christian faith or even his belief in God. As mentioned earlier, Aveling and Buchner, two militant atheists, visited Darwin in 1881, one year before his death. Darwin at one point asked his guests, “Why do you call yourselves atheists, and say there is no God?†Aveling explained that they did not say there was no God; rather, that because there was no evidence of deity, they were unable to believe in the idea of God and were therefore without God. Darwin agreed fully with their position, but chose a different word for it: “I am with you in thought, but I should prefer the word Agnostic to the word Atheist.†(Is Darwinism Atheistic? By: Bill Johnson)
 
Okay, hold on a second.

I incline to St. Augustine's idea that if God's word and nature seem to be at odds, we have misunderstood one or both of them.

Just curious, you believe Jesus was born from a virgin and was literally resurrected from the dead right?

I apologize if I offended you, but please look at these two quotes for just a second. Is it natural for anyone to be born of a virgin or to be raised from the dead? Are miracles in general natural? Do you see the conflicting views you've presented to me? I do not believe for a second that you are conflicted or that you deny these very basic tenets of our faith. Since we're on the subject, are you implying by saying:

I find it hard to believe you don't know it's offensive to ask a Christian something like that. Maybe it's an issue in your church, but it's not questioned in mine.

that a true believer in Christ can have doubts regarding these things? Surely even the Corinthians of Paul's day doubted this and we see Paul's response being strong direction, however not a declaration that they've not yet been saved due to this.

Regardless, I have no doubts on this. You assume the worst very easily, Brother.

Next point, "Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable."

Let me broaden this real quick:
"18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"

My point in doing this is to point out two things.
The text specifically states that what "is revealed" is the wrath of God against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, what is "clearly seen" are the invisible things of Him, even His eternal power and Godhead. Also, it states that the things that may be known of God is manifest in men and that God has showed these things to us.
Second thing, is it stated that creation is not fallen in any way? Let me phrase it this way, are Christians the only "good people" out there? I mean are we the only people who do anything beneficial towards other people, for the environment, or in any other thing? Let's assume what you say is true:

The world is very good. God said so, and never changed that. It is man who is fallen.

The text says that "that which may be known of God is manifest in them." Did you know that God said in Genesis 1:26 and 27, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."? Can you look at even the most evil of people such as maybe Hitler and see a remnant of this "made in the image of God" thing? If you can't, how about someone like Opera or Ghondi? My point is that all of creation, man included according to these verses, declares these things of God - from His wrath and justice to His invisible attributes such as His eternal power and Godhead.

You don't agree with this, I know that. However, I'll use it anyways. The flood which wiped out "man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air," shows the wrath of God against "the wickedness of man." A simple Google search can show all of us just how many examples in creation there are of showing the trinity, the power, the wisdom, the gospel, and so even the people of unreached tribes and people groups are without excuse when at the judgment.

Rather than to continue to go in circles, Brother, I'm pulling out of this conversation. I've said everything I've been led to say, and in due time whatever the Spirit is trying to do through this will happen. Praise the King!


So, what kind of work do you do? I'm not a scientist at all, but learning from creation is fascinating to me. Anyways, I just hang garage doors. Any wife or kids?
 
I apologize if I offended you, but please look at these two quotes for just a second. Is it natural for anyone to be born of a virgin or to be raised from the dead? Are miracles in general natural?

Miracles are not contrary to nature, but only contrary to what we know about nature - St. Augustine

But of course, science never has denied that miracles exist.

Do you see the conflicting views you've presented to me?

Christians have understood why these aren't conflicting for over 1500 years.

Since we're on the subject, are you implying by saying:

I find it hard to believe you don't know it's offensive to ask a Christian something like that. Maybe it's an issue in your church, but it's not questioned in mine.

that a true believer in Christ can have doubts regarding these things?

Not in my church, they don't.

Next point, "Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable."

Let me broaden this real quick:
"18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"

My point in doing this is to point out two things.
The text specifically states that what "is revealed" is the wrath of God against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, what is "clearly seen" are the invisible things of Him, even His eternal power and Godhead.

Of course. Paul is talking about seeing His power and majesty in the world. Scripture is not the only way to know about God. Even those who don't know about Him, understand certain things, and this is why they are without excuse if they violate natural law, to which all men are held accountable.

Also, it states that the things that may be known of God is manifest in men and that God has showed these things to us.

Second thing, is it stated that creation is not fallen in any way?

God says it's "very good." I agree.

Let me phrase it this way, are Christians the only "good people" out there?

None of us are truly good. We are all sinners and fall short. But God is merciful. This is why His Son died for us.

I mean are we the only people who do anything beneficial towards other people, for the environment, or in any other thing?

As I said. Natural law. God holds all of us to that, even if a man has never heard the Gospel.

Let's assume what you say is true:
The world is very good. God said so, and never changed that. It is man who is fallen.

The text says that "that which may be known of God is manifest in them." Did you know that God said in Genesis 1:26 and 27, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."?

Jesus says that God is a spirit. And He says a spirit has no body. So we can be assured it's not a physical likeness. We are like God in knowing good and evil, among other things.

Can you look at even the most evil of people such as maybe Hitler and see a remnant of this "made in the image of God" thing?

Hitler was quite kind to animals, which is certainly commendable. When a natural gas explosion in Texas killed most of the children in a school there, he sent a very kind letter of condolence to the town. The banality of evil is something we need to keep in mind. Hitler, in his own mind, likely thought that he was a kind person who had to do hard things.

If you can't, how about someone like Opera or Ghondi?

Even Mother Theresa had doubts at times. None of us is wholly evil; none of us is wholly good.

You don't agree with this, I know that. However, I'll use it anyways. The flood which wiped out "man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air," shows the wrath of God against "the wickedness of man." A simple Google search can show all of us just how many examples in creation there are of showing the trinity, the power, the wisdom, the gospel, and so even the people of unreached tribes and people groups are without excuse when at the judgment.

Remember, it is God's will that none be lost. If he creates a man in North Korea, where it's a crime to even mention Jesus, it would be inconsistent with His intent, if he sent such people to Hell.

Here's a story a missionary told me, told to him by a young man. This young man grew up in North Korea, and never knew religion. But he began to see that something was missing in his life. One day, alone in a field, God touched him and he fell to his knees, giving himself to the unknown God.

Famine caused him to flee in desperation to the South, where he finally realized Who it was that touched him in that field. In your opinion, was he saved when he surrendered his life to God or later when he finally realized Who it was?

Rather than to continue to go in circles, Brother, I'm pulling out of this conversation. I've said everything I've been led to say, and in due time whatever the Spirit is trying to do through this will happen.

As always.

So, what kind of work do you do?

I taught in college for a while, then worked as an ergonomist, analyzing worker motions and stresses, to minimize injuries and maximize output. I retired, got tired of that, and now I'm teaching again.

I'm not a scientist at all, but learning from creation is fascinating to me. Anyways, I just hang garage doors.

I once knew an auto body repairman who had managed to teach himself more biology than most college graduates know. Libraries are free.

Any wife or kids?

Yep.
 
I can understand not wanting to reveal much, so I'll try to keep things impersonal, Barb. Am I correct in assuming you taught/are teaching some sort of science? That seems to be your preferred subject. Oddball question, but have you ever been in any formal debates?
 
My stance is this.

It is true that people do interpret data differntly, but I don't think its necessarily world view. I think its more along the lines of ignorance of the subject matter and authority of the subject.

The fossil record for example. The main differnce here is not the record itself, but the level of education on the matter of the fossil record and the surrounding fields.

A person with even a basic understanding of taxonomy, Theory of Evolution, and the Theory of Inherited Genetics, and then understands how all three of these fields are related under the study of phylogeny will see the fossil record vastly different from a layman.

Considering there are YE Creationists, OE Creationists, Theistic Evolution supporters, Agnostic Evolution Supporters, Atheist Evolution supporters, etc.

It all depends what you read into the subject.
 
Back
Top