Conquer Club

I would like to say also that, examining the world and trying to work out the rules (which uchiro thinks will inevitably bring us to a realization of the existence of god) is, um, exactly what science does, and so far without coming to that conclusion.

universalchiro wrote:

tzor wrote:

universalchiro wrote:My brother in Christ, when do you start to take the Bible literally? And by what measuring standard determines when to take the Bible literally?
Troy

The first thing to understand is the attitude of the Ethiopian Eunuch who even when reading the Old Testament needed someone to help explain it to him. Now that someone is the Pillar and Bulwark of truth, the "Church" (the Christian Community) guided by the Holy Spirit. It is one thing to say that the Bible is truth and contains truth and another thing to say that every sentence in the Bible is the literal truth. Just as Jesus used parables in his teachings, the Old Testament contains a variety of writing styles. These styles have to be seen in the context of the times and cultures they were written in.

So when do you take passages literally? Typically when God speaks directly one should take that literally. In the new Testament when Jesus speaks directly (and especially when he starts with "Amen, Amen") one should probably start taking Him literally. (But not in general; when Jesus mentions the mustard seed being the smallest of seeds, He does not mean that there does not exist, in the entire world, any seed smaller than a mustard seed. He means that this seed was the smallest that they knew of. He is setting up an example of faith and the important thing is that from the very small seed comes a gigantic tree.)

The real key is what is the message of the passage; how is that message delivered and what information is important to the passage as opposed to what information is symbolic to the passage or what information is based on the writers point of view. Then you need to know the style of the writing in the passage. Looking at the footnotes of a good Bible helps.

Let me be more clear. I'm asking specifically what verse in the Bible is the 1st verse you take literally & by what standard is that verse chosen as the 1st verse? Such as if you pick Joshua 2:15 as the first verse in the Bible that you switch from figurative reading to a literal reading. & why not the verse before it (vs 14).
That's what I'm asking, a specific verse. Thanks

Still waiting for answer.

Viceroy63 wrote:One of those stages would be to accept that Humans evolved out of stones and mud rather than to accept the simple truth that God created us.

lolololol, your own bible states that your deity made humans out of dust.

Genesis 2:7 Then the Lord God formed a man[a] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

waauw wrote:

Viceroy63 wrote:One of those stages would be to accept that Humans evolved out of stones and mud rather than to accept the simple truth that God created us.

lolololol, your own bible states that your deity made humans out of dust.

Genesis 2:7 Then the Lord God formed a man[a] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Thank You! That is absolutely correct. Man was created from the dirt of the ground and God breathed the breath of life into the nostril or lungs of man. This story tells the fact that man is a specially crafted creation and that God placed thoughts into the creation of mankind. The short version is that Man is a created being by the very hands and life giving force of God and not that Man evolved over millenniums from the hydrogen rich atmosphere in a primordial soups of methane and ammonia that in no way could support life as we know it in the first place!

And then it was also an "accident" as well?

Which is more ridiculous to believe?

crispybits wrote:

Viceroy63 wrote:

crispybits wrote:

Viceroy63 wrote:So it is a choice that people make to accept the truth or to deny it, and Gods judgment will be just and fair and even merciful.

This combination has always confused me.

Justice is the state where people get what they deserve for their actions

Mercy is the state where people get shown leniency for bad behaviour (i.e. they don't get what they deserve for their actions)

Thw two are incompatible. It's like saying God will show both interest and apathy.

Ahhh! But that is exactly what it is all about.

We as human beings like to think that we are basically good people with such good potentials within our hearts when in fact we are evil, filthy and vile creatures worthy of death and not life. But what we deserve has already been received at the hands of the Lord for us in our place.

Christ; as God in the flesh, went in our place to suffer that which we deserve. Because He is God, he could die in the place of all of His creation. And because he was not worthy of death, Death had no hold on him and 3 days later (The only sign that He would give us that he is God in the flesh), He simply rose again from death. From non-existence.

It's as if you commit a crime worthy of death but the judge sets you free and in your place the judge goes off to be executed instead. In this case the Judge is Jesus. The requirements of justice have been met and mercy given towards one who did not deserve mercy.

So when God grants mercy to those who deserve none it is because Jesus Christ paid for our sins the death penalty that we deserve. But this is not something that is given to all humans even though it covers all human sins. But only repentant humans receive this gift of life or mercy from the deserved death penalty hanging over the scum bags that is humanity.

So in judgement to dish out the death penalty in the lake of fire to those who choose not to believe the evidence of God, is just. And to repentant believers in God's Christ, He is merciful. The fact that the death penalty is also an eternal death and not an eternal life in a state of suffering and turmoil in a supposed "Hell" is also merciful.

That unrepentant humans are simply snuffed out of existence in the lake of fire rather than to be allowed to continue the current state of existence where people all around the world suffer because of sin, is merciful. God is not going to punish people with eternal death in the lake of fire because they choose not to believe; People choose not to believe because humanity is basically evil and deserving of eternal death in the first place.

I don't know how better to explain this at this time. But God is merciful even with the worst of us if only that one would submit to God and believe with all of his heart. If only he turns from the dark side. Jesus then turns to the Father and claims him stating, I died for this one also. I paid for his crime and I declare him free from the death penalty. Both the requirements of Justice and punishment are met and mercy freely distributed to those who God will's.

OK, ignoring the Hitler tangent (because I think you're digging yourself into a hole there and Woodruff and chang are doing fine with handing you a bigger shovel) I'm curious how you define justice and mercy.

You have a person, Joe. Joe has killed another man in a cold blooded, premeditated and painful, torturous way. He has evaded earthly punishment for that crime because the police never found the body and could never prove anything. To me, it would be just that Joe faces the punishment due to him for the murder. I think up until this point we are agreed.

You say that if Joe sincerely repents and accepts God then Jesus (God) has taken Joe's punishment on the cross and Joe can be spared any punishment himself. What is Joe's just punishment (under your rules)? Eternal death. What did Jesus suffer? Temporary death. Therefore Jesus has not suffered Joe's punishment, but rather a lesser punishment.

Even if in a just system punishments could be moved from person to person without breaking the principles of justice (hence my request for how you define justice), Jesus has not suffered Joe's just punishment. To use your courtroom analogy, if a judge sentences Joe to life without parole, and then takes that punishment himself but only serves 3 days in jail and is released, justice has not been properly apportioned. Joe gets away without any punishment at all, while the judge serves a trivial sentence in his place. And that was one hell of a big "if" I started this paragraph with, because punishing Mike for Joe's transgressions seems pretty unjust to me, even if Mike asks for it.

I'll give my definitions again but slighty better worded. Justice is adhering to a set of principles whereby people get what they deserve for their actions/inactions. Mercy is setting aside that same set of principles to allow people to get something different than what they deserve for their actions/inactions out of compassion/love/whatever. It is impossible to be both wholly just and wholly merciful, one must be sacrificed for the other.

"Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap."
-Galatians 6:7

You would be so wrong to think that God does not punish and punish justly and only forgives even a repentant soul. The Holy Bible is filled with examples of how God punishes his People. But it is always for the purpose of repentance. But a bastard son will not any father deal with.

"For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons"
-Hebrews 12:6-8

The fact is that sooner or later we must all step up to the plate and "fess" up and deal with the consequences of our actions. A person who has committed murder and then found Christ the Lord must confess his sin to the authorities and deal with those consequences of his past one way or another; He must pay the time for the crime or he has not really found Christ the Lord or salvation. It is really just that simple.

Does this mean that a person who has accepted the Lord is no longer a sinner? No it does not but he is a new creation "under construction" and his actions from that point on will be guided by the truth of God's word.

"Now the just shall live by faith: but if [any man] draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him."
-Hebrews 10:38

God can only be merciful with what we can not pay and that is the death penalty because God paid that price for us. If Jesus was just another "Joe" (But he must be without sin) then he could possibly only pay the death penalty for one other individual but then He himself must remain dead in the grave or his sacrifice would then be worthless. But the life of God who has lived from eternity (which is a concept that we can not fantham) but regardless, God existed before time existed and is the only reality in the universe, just how does one assign a value on the life of God? God's life is worth all of His own creation put together and then add eternity on top of that; So He can pay the price of all of our crimes if he wants to?

For every infraction of justice a mend must be made. For everything else there's always Master Card. But the life of the Lord, ...Priceless.

Viceroy63 wrote:

waauw wrote:

Viceroy63 wrote:One of those stages would be to accept that Humans evolved out of stones and mud rather than to accept the simple truth that God created us.

lolololol, your own bible states that your deity made humans out of dust.

Genesis 2:7 Then the Lord God formed a man[a] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Thank You! That is absolutely correct. Man was created from the dirt of the ground and God breathed the breath of life into the nostril or lungs of man. This story tells the fact that man is a specially crafted creation and that God placed thoughts into the creation of mankind. The short version is that Man is a created being by the very hands and life giving force of God and not that Man evolved over millenniums from the hydrogen rich atmosphere in a primordial soups of methane and ammonia that in no way could support life as we know it in the first place!

And then it was also an "accident" as well?

Which is more ridiculous to believe?

Why is it ridiculous to believe that God used evolution to create man?

Woodruff wrote:

Viceroy63 wrote:

waauw wrote:

Viceroy63 wrote:One of those stages would be to accept that Humans evolved out of stones and mud rather than to accept the simple truth that God created us.

lolololol, your own bible states that your deity made humans out of dust.

Genesis 2:7 Then the Lord God formed a man[a] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Thank You! That is absolutely correct. Man was created from the dirt of the ground and God breathed the breath of life into the nostril or lungs of man. This story tells the fact that man is a specially crafted creation and that God placed thoughts into the creation of mankind. The short version is that Man is a created being by the very hands and life giving force of God and not that Man evolved over millenniums from the hydrogen rich atmosphere in a primordial soups of methane and ammonia that in no way could support life as we know it in the first place!

And then it was also an "accident" as well?

Which is more ridiculous to believe?

Why is it ridiculous to believe that God used evolution to create man?

Evolution 101:
Definition of Evolution; = And attempt to explain Creation, without a Creator.

The Bible specifically states that man is a special creation. Evolution claims that it was all an accident of mutations and natural selection. The two are dynamically opposed to each other.

The Bible states that God created man in one day. Evolution would have you believe that the process took millions if not billions of years if you include the primordial oceans from which the first single cell organisms arose in. Both can not be in any kind of an agreement any where up and down this road.

The true believer either accepts the word of God or he/she is not a true believer. It was Jesus himself who said...

"But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.""
-Matthew 4:4

Viceroy63 wrote: Evolution 101:
Definition of Evolution; = And attempt to explain Creation, without a Creator.

nope

Viceroy63 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Viceroy63 wrote:Thank You! That is absolutely correct. Man was created from the dirt of the ground and God breathed the breath of life into the nostril or lungs of man. This story tells the fact that man is a specially crafted creation and that God placed thoughts into the creation of mankind. The short version is that Man is a created being by the very hands and life giving force of God and not that Man evolved over millenniums from the hydrogen rich atmosphere in a primordial soups of methane and ammonia that in no way could support life as we know it in the first place!
And then it was also an "accident" as well?
Which is more ridiculous to believe?

Why is it ridiculous to believe that God used evolution to create man?

Evolution 101:
Definition of Evolution; = And attempt to explain Creation, without a Creator.

That is a horribly illogical and agenda-driven definition, to be honest. Why do you feel the need to be dishonest?

Viceroy63 wrote:The Bible specifically states that man is a special creation. Evolution claims that it was all an accident of mutations and natural selection. The two are dynamically opposed to each other.

No, they absolutely are not dynamically opposed to each other. Why couldn't God have used the process of evolution to create man? Frankly, as far as I can see, it would go a great long ways to explaining some of the things that religious folks have difficulty "explaining away".

Viceroy63 wrote:The Bible states that God created man in one day. Evolution would have you believe that the process took millions if not billions of years if you include the primordial oceans from which the first single cell organisms arose in. Both can not be in any kind of an agreement any where up and down this road.

Who is to say what "a day" is to God? Are you playing God again, Viceroy? You do seem to have a habit of that.

universalchiro wrote:

universalchiro wrote:Let me be more clear. I'm asking specifically what verse in the Bible is the 1st verse you take literally & by what standard is that verse chosen as the 1st verse? Such as if you pick Joshua 2:15 as the first verse in the Bible that you switch from figurative reading to a literal reading. & why not the verse before it (vs 14).
That's what I'm asking, a specific verse. Thanks

Still waiting for answer.

Sorry, it has been a very weekend.

First let's start off with the notion that there is not a single "verse" where we go through non literal to literal. Each book of the Bible needs to be taken and considered separately. Each chapter and each verse needs to be likewise considered. Even within the Gospels, verses must be considered in context. Jesus told a parable about a rich man named Lazarus. Later he raised a friend of his named Lazarus from the dead. The accounts of the first Lazarus are figurative, not literal. The accounts of the second Lazarus are literal; he commanded Lazarus to come out and he did come out.

So let's start out with some passages of Jesus. We can start off with John 6:48-58. We can even cut it down to a single verse, number 53.

Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.

Note the criteria I used above; it comes directly from Jesus and is prefixed with "Amen, amen." This is, therefore truly literal. There is no metaphor here; no parable or tale and no case where the observer might see something that may not be exactly what has happened. It is clearly a solid literal case.

tzor wrote:

universalchiro wrote:

universalchiro wrote:Let me be more clear. I'm asking specifically what verse in the Bible is the 1st verse you take literally & by what standard is that verse chosen as the 1st verse? Such as if you pick Joshua 2:15 as the first verse in the Bible that you switch from figurative reading to a literal reading. & why not the verse before it (vs 14).
That's what I'm asking, a specific verse. Thanks

Still waiting for answer.

Sorry, it has been a very weekend.

Moreso than most weekends? <evil grin>

Viceroy63 wrote:The Bible specifically states that man is a special creation.

Catechism of the Catholic Church wrote:I. "IN THE IMAGE OF GOD"

356 Of all visible creatures only man is "able to know and love his creator".[219] He is "the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake",[220] and he alone is called to share, by knowledge and love, in God's own life. It was for this end that he was created, and this is the fundamental reason for his dignity:
What made you establish man in so great a dignity? Certainly the incalculable love by which you have looked on your creature in yourself! You are taken with love for her; for by love indeed you created her, by love you have given her a being capable of tasting your eternal Good.[221]

357 Being in the image of God the human individual possesses the dignity of a person, who is not just something, but someone. He is capable of self-knowledge, of self-possession and of freely giving himself and entering into communion with other persons. And he is called by grace to a covenant with his Creator, to offer him a response of faith and love that no other creature can give in his stead.

358 God created everything for man,[222] but man in turn was created to serve and love God and to offer all creation back to him:
What is it that is about to be created, that enjoys such honour? It is man that great and wonderful living creature, more precious in the eyes of God than all other creatures! For him the heavens and the earth, the sea and all the rest of creation exist. God attached so much importance to his salvation that he did not spare his own Son for the sake of man. Nor does he ever cease to work, trying every possible means, until he has raised man up to himself and made him sit at his right hand.[223]

359 "In reality it is only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of man truly becomes clear."[224]
St. Paul tells us that the human race takes its origin from two men: Adam and Christ. . . The first man, Adam, he says, became a living soul, the last Adam a life-giving spirit. The first Adam was made by the last Adam, from whom he also received his soul, to give him life... The second Adam stamped his image on the first Adam when he created him. That is why he took on himself the role and the name of the first Adam, in order that he might not lose what he had made in his own image. The first Adam, the last Adam: the first had a beginning, the last knows no end. The last Adam is indeed the first; as he himself says: "I am the first and the last."[225]

360 Because of its common origin the human race forms a unity, for "from one ancestor [God] made all nations to inhabit the whole earth":[226]
O wondrous vision, which makes us contemplate the human race in the unity of its origin in God. . . in the unity of its nature, composed equally in all men of a material body and a spiritual soul; in the unity of its immediate end and its mission in the world; in the unity of its dwelling, the earth, whose benefits all men, by right of nature, may use to sustain and develop life; in the unity of its supernatural end: God himself, to whom all ought to tend; in the unity of the means for attaining this end;. . . in the unity of the redemption wrought by Christ for all.[227]

361 "This law of human solidarity and charity",[228] without excluding the rich variety of persons, cultures and peoples, assures us that all men are truly brethren.

Viceroy63 wrote:Evolution claims that it was all an accident of mutations and natural selection. The two are dynamically opposed to each other.

A man is sitting on a park bench with a deck of cards. He flips and reveals them one by one. To a casual observer, the results of each flip appear to be perfectly random, but it is impossible to determine if the person has "stacked the deck" beforehand, perhaps in a subtle way. The "opposition," in fact, is relative. Natural selection was one proposed way for evolution to occur; most evolution occurred through mass extinctions or drastic changes to the environment.

Viceroy63 wrote:The Bible states that God created man in one day.

The first creation story in Genesis assigns the creation of man to the 6th day, or the third day of the second set of three day intervals. Here he placed as the capstone of creation, the ruler of the sea, land, and air (but not over the sun and moon and the stars under the sun and moon).

Then God said: Let the earth bring forth every kind of living creature: tame animals, crawling things, and every kind of wild animal. And so it happened: God made every kind of wild animal, every kind of tame animal, and every kind of thing that crawls on the ground. God saw that it was good. Then God said: Let us make human beings in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the tame animals, all the wild animals, and all the creatures that crawl on the earth.

Viceroy63 wrote:Evolution would have you believe that the process took millions if not billions of years if you include the primordial oceans from which the first single cell organisms arose in. Both can not be in any kind of an agreement any where up and down this road.

No, silly, the creatures of the sea were made on a previous day.

But if you want to insist on a literal interpretation here, explain the whale.

The whale is not a fish; the whale is a mammal. "Evolution" would suggest that the ancestors of the whale lived on the land went back to the sea and never looked back. Your literal interpretation would suggest that God made the whales on day five using the pattern he would eventually use for land creatures on day six. You have to assume this because on day five, "God created the great sea monsters and all kinds of crawling living creatures with which the water teems" and on day six, "God made every kind of wild animal, every kind of tame animal, and every kind of thing that crawls on the ground."

But if you instead look at day five as assigning rulers to the domains created on day two (the sea and the sky) and day six as assigning rulers to domains created on day three (the solid ground) then the order is logical and reasonable.

Psalms 90:4 wrote:A thousand years in your eyes are merely a day gone by, Before a watch passes in the night,

So wrote the psalmist. Now a thousand or a million? Perhaps God sees in a completely different manner than you? The first story of Genesis is a revelation, not an eyewitness account.

Woodruff wrote:Moreso than most weekends? <evil grin>

Saturday 12:00 - Work Called - Files delayed - Pricing Files would not complete - Problem solved at 6:30 AM

*** SLEEP *****

Saturday 1:00 PM - I had to go out to get extra petitions signed so I have have the fun privilege of walking in the middle of the summer and get petitions signed.

Saturday 4:00 PM - Having gotten petitions signed, I then went to the Outlet to get a carry on luggage bag that supports a laptop.

*** DINNER FOLLOWED BY TV FOLLOWED BY MORE SLEEP ***

Sunday 9:15 AM - Mass

Sunday 1:00 PM - Knights of Columbus Suffolk Chapter Charity Ball - Served as honor guard escorting dignitaries and then had a meal.

Sunday 7:00 PM - Got home

So, yea, more busy than normal. Normally I sleep nights.

tzor wrote:

universalchiro wrote:

universalchiro wrote:Let me be more clear. I'm asking specifically what verse in the Bible is the 1st verse you take literally & by what standard is that verse chosen as the 1st verse? Such as if you pick Joshua 2:15 as the first verse in the Bible that you switch from figurative reading to a literal reading. & why not the verse before it (vs 14).
That's what I'm asking, a specific verse. Thanks

Still waiting for answer.

Sorry, it has been a very weekend.

First let's start off with the notion that there is not a single "verse" where we go through non literal to literal. Each book of the Bible needs to be taken and considered separately. Each chapter and each verse needs to be likewise considered. Even within the Gospels, verses must be considered in context. Jesus told a parable about a rich man named Lazarus. Later he raised a friend of his named Lazarus from the dead. The accounts of the first Lazarus are figurative, not literal. The accounts of the second Lazarus are literal; he commanded Lazarus to come out and he did come out.

So let's start out with some passages of Jesus. We can start off with John 6:48-58. We can even cut it down to a single verse, number 53.

Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.

Note the criteria I used above; it comes directly from Jesus and is prefixed with "Amen, amen." This is, therefore truly literal. There is no metaphor here; no parable or tale and no case where the observer might see something that may not be plexactly what has happened. It is clearly a solid literal case.

Evade all you want.
I'll ask for the 4th time. What is the first verse you take literally in the Bible? This isn't a tough question. Why is this so hard to communicate with you.. argh

tzor wrote:

Viceroy63 wrote: Evolution claims that it was all an accident of mutations and natural selection. The two are dynamically opposed to each other.

A man is sitting on a park bench with a deck of cards. He flips and reveals them one by one. To a casual observer, the results of each flip appear to be perfectly random, but it is impossible to determine if the person has "stacked the deck" beforehand, perhaps in a subtle way.

Oh, I really like that analogy. I'm going to remember that. I have used some others on this site in a VERY LONG discussion I had with (I think) Mandalorian about this very issue. It was sort of funny, because he and I (two atheists) were the ones arguing that God could use evolution to his own ends, and we were arguing with those who believe in God.

tzor wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Moreso than most weekends? <evil grin>

Saturday 12:00 - Work Called - Files delayed - Pricing Files would not complete - Problem solved at 6:30 AM

*** SLEEP *****

Saturday 1:00 PM - I had to go out to get extra petitions signed so I have have the fun privilege of walking in the middle of the summer and get petitions signed.

Saturday 4:00 PM - Having gotten petitions signed, I then went to the Outlet to get a carry on luggage bag that supports a laptop.

*** DINNER FOLLOWED BY TV FOLLOWED BY MORE SLEEP ***

Sunday 9:15 AM - Mass

Sunday 1:00 PM - Knights of Columbus Suffolk Chapter Charity Ball - Served as honor guard escorting dignitaries and then had a meal.

Sunday 7:00 PM - Got home

So, yea, more busy than normal. Normally I sleep nights.

I think you may have missed it. Go back to your statement I was replying to. <smile>

universalchiro wrote:

tzor wrote:

universalchiro wrote:

universalchiro wrote:Let me be more clear. I'm asking specifically what verse in the Bible is the 1st verse you take literally & by what standard is that verse chosen as the 1st verse? Such as if you pick Joshua 2:15 as the first verse in the Bible that you switch from figurative reading to a literal reading. & why not the verse before it (vs 14).
That's what I'm asking, a specific verse. Thanks

Still waiting for answer.

Sorry, it has been a very weekend.

First let's start off with the notion that there is not a single "verse" where we go through non literal to literal. Each book of the Bible needs to be taken and considered separately. Each chapter and each verse needs to be likewise considered. Even within the Gospels, verses must be considered in context. Jesus told a parable about a rich man named Lazarus. Later he raised a friend of his named Lazarus from the dead. The accounts of the first Lazarus are figurative, not literal. The accounts of the second Lazarus are literal; he commanded Lazarus to come out and he did come out.

So let's start out with some passages of Jesus. We can start off with John 6:48-58. We can even cut it down to a single verse, number 53.

Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.

Note the criteria I used above; it comes directly from Jesus and is prefixed with "Amen, amen." This is, therefore truly literal. There is no metaphor here; no parable or tale and no case where the observer might see something that may not be plexactly what has happened. It is clearly a solid literal case.

Evade all you want.
I'll ask for the 4th time. What is the first verse you take literally in the Bible? This isn't a tough question. Why is this so hard to communicate with you.. argh

Does the irony burn you when you touch it?

Well, since he asked for "proof", I will give you "proof".
While in Peru, my father was in a small city where there was a girl paralyzed from the neck down. Being on a mission trip, one of the missionaries prayed for the girl asking that God may heal her. Not much long after, the girl stood up and began to walk.

I know this won't change anything, but you asked for proof, and I'd like to see if somebody can come up with a different explanation for this than some form of higher power.

chang50 wrote:Viceroy, Just to be 100% clear here,are you saying it is IMPOSSIBLE for a Hitler,or any fanatical tyrant,after a lifetime of evildoing to sincerely repent and accept Jesus as their personal saviour?If so,how do you know this?Where is the cut off point in terms of evil?

Still waiting for a clear unequivocal answer...

Gabriel13 wrote:Well, since he asked for "proof", I will give you "proof".
While in Peru, my father was in a small city where there was a girl paralyzed from the neck down. Being on a mission trip, one of the missionaries prayed for the girl asking that God may heal her. Not much long after, the girl stood up and began to walk.

I know this won't change anything, but you asked for proof, and I'd like to see if somebody can come up with a different explanation for this than some form of higher power.

My explanation would be that this never happened. If it had occurred it would have been all over the news, small town or no. Likely somebody told your father that this happened when it actually didn't.

Gabriel13 wrote:Well, since he asked for "proof", I will give you "proof".
While in Peru, my father was in a small city where there was a girl paralyzed from the neck down. Being on a mission trip, one of the missionaries prayed for the girl asking that God may heal her. Not much long after, the girl stood up and began to walk.

I know this won't change anything, but you asked for proof, and I'd like to see if somebody can come up with a different explanation for this than some form of higher power.

I don't necessarily have a BETTER explanation for it, but that's not even remotely "proof".

So why this little girl, and not the enormous numbers of people in similar situations who are also being prayed for? Why is God so capricious as to ignore them?

Gabriel13 wrote:Well, since he asked for "proof", I will give you "proof".
While in Peru, my father was in a small city where there was a girl paralyzed from the neck down. Being on a mission trip, one of the missionaries prayed for the girl asking that God may heal her. Not much long after, the girl stood up and began to walk.

I know this won't change anything, but you asked for proof, and I'd like to see if somebody can come up with a different explanation for this than some form of higher power.

How about in the total absence of a reasonable explanation for this event,if it has been accurately relayed,we just honestly and humbly admit we don't know instead of arrogantly thinking we can invoke the supernatural.

Gabriel13 wrote:Well, since he asked for "proof", I will give you "proof".
While in Peru, my father was in a small city where there was a girl paralyzed from the neck down. Being on a mission trip, one of the missionaries prayed for the girl asking that God may heal her. Not much long after, the girl stood up and began to walk.

I know this won't change anything, but you asked for proof, and I'd like to see if somebody can come up with a different explanation for this than some form of higher power.

1. Is this story true? And how do you know?

2. How long is "not much long after"? A few hours? One week? Several months? A year?

3. Was the girl getting any kind of medical treatment? Or was she left there with nothing?

4. The bigger question will help us control for confirmation bias: Of the total instances similar to this one, how many times did prayer alone work, and how many times did it fail?

5. And even if the prayer itself works, is that evidence of God exerting his magical powers on the girl, or is it because the girl used the morale boost to recover more quickly?

BigBallinStalin wrote: 5. And even if the prayer itself works, is that evidence of God exerting his magical powers on the girl, or is it because the girl used the morale boost to recover more quickly?

This is one benefit that prayer can hold for some. And obviously, morale (and even the placebo affect) can be a difference-maker sometimes.

Woodruff wrote:

Viceroy63 wrote:Evolution 101:
Definition of Evolution; = An attempt to explain Creation, without a Creator.

That is a horribly illogical and agenda-driven definition, to be honest. Why do you feel the need to be dishonest?

Viceroy63 wrote:The Bible specifically states that man is a special creation. Evolution claims that it was all an accident of mutations and natural selection. The two are dynamically opposed to each other.

No, they absolutely are not dynamically opposed to each other. Why couldn't God have used the process of evolution to create man? Frankly, as far as I can see, it would go a great long ways to explaining some of the things that religious folks have difficulty "explaining away".

Viceroy63 wrote:The Bible states that God created man in one day. Evolution would have you believe that the process took millions if not billions of years if you include the primordial oceans from which the first single cell organisms arose in. Both can not be in any kind of an agreement any where up and down this road.

Who is to say what "a day" is to God? Are you playing God again, Viceroy? You do seem to have a habit of that.

The argument of intelligent design is what Darwinist oppose because it implies a designer. A designer then means creation and not evolution. By definition, they are both contrast to each other and can not be the same. It would make no sense for a God who but with a word (Like a Star Trek Transporter) can cause the creation of all of the universe to choose a mechanism that would take millions of years???

"By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.
He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses.
Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him.
For he spake, and it was [done]; he commanded, and it stood fast."
-Psalm 33:6-9

Incidentally, Darwinist maintain that all of the parts that had combined to form the more complex organ or cells also served other purposes and thus were not dismissed by evolutionary process. An example of this is the mouse trap example. The mouse trap is compose of some 5 parts that all work together and if you remove any of them then you no longer have a mouse trap. Thus you no longer have irreducible complexity.

• The wooden base
  The spring
  The hammer
  The trigger
  The holding arm

They go on to show that Irreducible complexity is wrong because you can in fact remove the Trigger and the holding arm and still be left with some sort of a clip that can be used to hold papers or perhaps a tie (Tie Clip). But they fail to explain what the trigger or the holding arm pieces would do by themselves in the meantime while they wait (for millions of years) to form the larger mouse trap apparatus.

The parts are all specifically design and shaped for a singular use and could not have evolved or borrowed from some other organism using that similar part. These are not like nuts and bolts waiting for a general use but very specific parts that had to be designed for the specific job. While some of the same parts are used in other Mechanisms/Organs, the vast majority of them are not. Even Protein Building Blocks are shaped with in the cell for specific use and are not interchangeably shaped pieces. In fact it is the uniqueness of the shape that gives the RNA it's singular uses.

This is the argument of evolution, that there was no thought or consideration behind the creation while the Bible maintains that special thought and consideration was taken in the creation of man. Man was SHAPED, he was FORMED of the earth by God and not time and chance. Evolution does not claim any special forming or shaping, only that it all fell together by accident. This is why both teachings opposed each other and can not be combined. Yes God could use the mechanism of evolution to create by why would He not have mentioned it more clearly using days instead of eons of time.

"...And the evening and the morning were the first day."
Genesis 1:5

How can one possibly apply this phrase to eon's of time? "Evening and morning are singular events that can only happen when the sun sets in the evening and rises in the morning. Correspondingly, all the vegetation on the planet was created on Day 3 while the Sun was "Created" on Day 4. Did Vegetation suffer "eon's" of time before they saw the sun? no Vegetation can exist in either constant light or constant darkness for very long.

So I am not as you would say, "Playing god" again, but interpreting the scripture as they are intended to be revealed. Creation did not take millions of years to happen. It happened fast and can not be mixed in with the theory of evolution and the bible itself claims days and not millions of years. This is man's interpretation of the facts in order to explain away a Creator who formed and fashioned man into his image and likeness. And not some mechanism of time and chance.