What if they just acknowledged them as well-known figures that their listeners would know about and understand? What if they were being used in the same way as the good Samaritan was used?
4 Likes
You are personally âoff the chartsâ with your positions ⌠and you could say that I am as well. So we balance each other out, right?
Iâm 100% positive that @swamidass does not agree with most of my position on many things regarding the Bible.
Remember, Iâm a Unitarian Universalist. Why would you expect PeacefulScience, which supports the idea of miraculous creation of Adam and Eve, would somehow be equivalent to a Unitarian Universalistâs personal position on the Bible?
2 Likes
First, this is not an issue of being off the charts in ideas. If God exists and has spoken and our reaction is not characterized as âoff the chartsâ then it is really not of God. If our gaze is not upon God but alternatives, this is called idol worship. Look at the Isaiah chapter before the one i sent earlier about this very thing. People who say they said a prayer and believe Jesus rose fr the dead represent Him out of their imaginations and out of the boundaries of Scripture may toy w being not true converts, but rather believers in name only. Only God can truly judge hearts.
As far as @swamidass, why in the world do you depict him and the stance on this website as almost deity? Yes, your positions are bizarre. If you support another with so much enthusiasm, how do you think this will project to the audience in view of this?
My positions are Unitarian Universalist.
Are you suggesting that I would be a better Unitarian Universalist if didnât defend the goals of Joshuaâs group so vigorously?
Are you suffering from the idea that you improve your standing in this group by intentionally rejecting the idea that God could create many forms of life through his control (and design) of Evolutionary processes?
In fact, your insistence that God could never do such a thing as to use evolutionary processes is akin to saying God would never use the processes of Evaporation and Condensation to make it rain.
2 Likes
First, God cannot produce natural evil. He may allow it in a fallen world, but He is not the creator of it. Period.
Second, the idea that God creates via weeding the weak and empowering the strong is purely against His nature.
Third. For one to say that the designs in nature were produced in the luck involved in the selection of genetic mutations is anti God of Scripture.
Forth. God transcends nature. To suggest that He is the embodiment of nature to create is unscriptural.
Mainstream evolutionary science provides backbone for all of the above.
Creation science says God created Adam and Eve as the FIRST humans who sinned and this evil is the cause of death and natural evil.
Creation science says God created kinds and graced them with qualities for adaptation purposes is fair game. The fossil record supports this and this is Biblical.
The Christian worldview that honors God is in the last two. The Christian worldview is very opposing the first 4 points.
End of story.
Your universalist ideas may accept all of those and none of those all in one breathâŚbut it leans much more closely to the first 4 points and that is why you like the stance this site takes. This speaks volumes.
So youâre one of those folks who thinks there was no death before the Fall? Who are you, incidentally, to say what God can and cannot do?
So youâre saying that natural selection doesnât happen, even in the current world?
All death, in all species? Also the cause of earthquakes, hurricanes, volcanoes, and such?
I donât understand this. How can the fossil record support adaptation if the fossil record is the result of a single Flood, and all those fossils died in it?
Natural selection does occur in created kinds designed to do so. This is called adaptation and incorporates the idea of common grace. This is fully acceptable by creationists and indeed fully embraced by Scripture. On the other hand, to suggest that God is a Creator by doing so via weeding out the weak via selection of chance mutations in an environment where natural evil is present as supplied by GodâŚwhere in the end of it all God calls it âgoodâ is completely unacceptable to scripture and a slap in the face insult towards the only God who is of Scripture and is the God i know and worship. To promote a misrepresentation of God will be subject to judgement by God.
That was gibberish. You canât expect anyone to know what youâre saying if you donât know yourself.
Why should God care whether anyone insults him? Is he insecure about himself?
I always love it when you end with a threat. Makes you that much more convincing.
2 Likes
Not my threat. I would be unloving if i withheld the entire counsel given in Scripture. Listen, im not trying to sell you my book and taking a lot of time to share these truths. I have nothing to gain exceot that i know i care for people, love and respect God at His word. There comes a time to move on fr individuals who roll eyes, and i think that time has come with you harshman. Regards.
God creating natural evil for its own sake would be the equivalent to Him creating and causing murder. This is impossible. God destroying the world because the evil within it was so heinous equates to justice via the death penalty. God permitting natural disasters in a fallen world where fallen mankind caused such a paradigm shows Him sovereign even in that fallen world but not fallen in His nature Himself. This means that God even oversees natural disasters that cause the death of children! But He was not the cause of natural disasters being capable of harmâŚaccording to precepts in Scripture, this was due to the fall of man. And yes, i believe Scripture gives room for all children before the age of accountability going to heaven.
The reason why this pure God who has not one single sliver of evil in His nature needed to send His Son to take on the wrath that man deserved is because even our very best works are not enough to reconcile us back into relationship to Him. He is perfect, we are imperfect. Every time man suggests a model that does not protect God from being blamed for evil, suffering, disease, etc, not only does this dishonor God, but it belittles the cross.
Itâs probably escaped your attention but almost everyone here including the Christians have ârolled their eyesâ at the silly rejections of solid science you offer.
2 Likes
@gregâŚ
I think you have no idea what you are talking about.
There is no other way to describe the global flood.
Some of the most respectable theologians on the planetâŚmany of whom are represented in the gospel coalition which has direct ties to people associated with ps are also rolling their eyes at how quickly men abandon Scripture because they think they have the worlds history figured out in their frail little minds. And there are other theologians i respect more for the seriousness of adherance to Scripture who refuse to even associate with the gospel coalition because of too widespread acceptance of unbiblical stance who are justifiably upset with how scientists think that they have the right and ability to define Gods ways that run contrary to Scripture.
Of course, what will all of this matter to you.
I roll my eyes.
1 Like
[quote=âgbrooks9, post:137, topic:5618â]
God creating natural evil for its own sake would be the equivalent to Him creating and causing murder.
@gregâŚ
I think you have no idea what you are talking about.
I saw a great tshirt the other week. It went something like, âI was told i had an attitude problem. I told them they had a perception problem.â
Natural evil is depicted in no way and no fashion before the fall of man. After the renewal of the earth, natural evil will cease. The Christian theology surrounding this has been firm on the cause of natural evil being the fall of manâŚwhere else can i go?
I would suggest that you investigate the meaning of the Hebrew word TOV, which is often translated as âgoodââeven though the word âgoodâ in English has a great many definitions and an extremely wide semantic field. It is very easy for English Bible readers to develop wrong impressions from TOV=good if they donât consult a solid commentary on Genesis 1.
I would suggest that we all think through how much and often we try to alter the most basic meanings in Scripture in everything from individual verses to the big picture perspectives to accomodate our human concocted feelings and ideas. Are you really willing to associate even the English meaning of bad, the opposite of the English meaning of good to the God depicted in Scripture?
Of course⌠not depicted.
But when God plans for a global flood⌠you canât really say that itâs the baby fawnâs fault âŚ
Your assessment of what is âNatural Evil that countsâ and what is âNatural Evil that doesnât countâ is completely arbitrary and contrived.
And then there is the more nuanced problem of Adam and Eve still being dominated by the process of DYING ⌠which is why there was a Tree of Life in their vicinity.
So even though there wasnât any âdeathâ depicted ⌠there was certainly an obvious reality that God had to counteract⌠a reality that he built into Adam and Eve ⌠the process of âdyingâ
Is death a part of natural evil? If so, the bible teaches explicitly that God created animals and human beings with mortal bodies⌠i.e that they would inevitably die.
1 Like