Revelations

[memento_mori]

But if God sent Jesus because he wanted us to be able to get into heaven (and hell wasn't meant for man), then why would he still damn people to hell?

the interpretation is that we damn ourselves to hell by not snuggling up to Jesus and accepting Him in our lives. at least in the rest of the bible.


in revelations, it's Second Coming Jesus with bitch-smack karate action. the great reeper will come and harvest us like wheat, the chosen with the symbols upon their forehead will be taken to God, and the rest will suffer amongst rivers of blood and plagues and fractions.

 

[IntruderLS1]

LOL Kinda like that. Only no symbols on our foreheads.

 

[All Else Failed]

Man chose separation from God with the forbidden fruit. When man chose that separation, there was no way for us to enter the kingdom. The only other place we could go was the place created for Lucifer and his angels. God didn't create Hell for man. God doesn't want to send man to Hell. Hell is a place of punishment for the devil, and many feel that the term hell is a description of separation from the Lord.

The law was given to man as a temporary bridge. It was designed to teach us how to live our lives according to God's standards. The first couple teach us to live spiritually, while the rest teach us to get along well with others.

God gave us the law in order to teach us how to live our lives, but also to show us that we need a greater being than ourselves, as no man is perfect. The law required a blood offering in order to wash away our sins.

Jesus offered Himself as a blood sacrifice for us all. Jews and Gentiles alike. By becoming that sacrifice, the law has been fulfilled, and no longer holds us hostage. We can accept the gift we were given, and now have a direct line of communication with the Lord.

When a debt has been fulfilled, it does not mean that we must continue to pay. It means the transaction has been completed. Jesus purchased us all at the cost of His own life, but we have the choice to accept Him, or walk our own line.

The Bible tells us that we have two choices in life. Life, or Death. The Bible urges us to choose life. Choose life, and don't go down that other road. It is advice given out of love. ... In the end though, the choice has been left up to each of us individually.

Except...God created hell and Satan. So he pretty much made it possible for people to suffer and by that indirectly sends people to hell. I mean, Christianity is a threat. You either follow or burn. There's no way around that.


Also, even if you do believe in this stuff, its debatable even IF we have free will. If god created us, he knows what we will do. Yeah, you can say he doesn't intervene in our choices, but that doesn't change the fact that he knows what you are going to do and therefore he knows where you are going after death. That rules out whatever choices you made in life. Your existence is predetermined.

 

[IntruderLS1]

Except...God created hell and Satan. So he pretty much made it possible for people to suffer and by that indirectly sends people to hell. I mean, Christianity is a threat. You either follow or burn. There's no way around that.

Also, even if you do believe in this stuff, its debatable even IF we have free will. If god created us, he knows what we will do. Yeah, you can say he doesn't intervene in our choices, but that doesn't change the fact that he knows what you are going to do and therefore he knows where you are going after death. That rules out whatever choices you made in life. Your existence is predetermined.

We're at a jumping off point here for a really deep end of the pool. Pure philosophy and opinion (Read: No science here), which looking at your new sig, you're not totally opposed to. I personally believe that God did not make Satan, but did create Lucifer. Lucifer then decided by using his free will to rebel, and become the individual we know as Satan. The Bible speaks of the war that followed his decision, and hence the expulsion from heaven, and the creation of Hell.

Parents often know what their kids are going to do before the kid does it, because the parent knows the child. How much more so would God know us? Would you argue that a child had no freewill in a certain situation because the parent knew the outcome?

Foreknowledge and free will do not cancel out to zero. Likewise, the creator of an item is not responsible for the user of said item. Your comparison is similar to saying Diesel is responsible for the thousands of deaths that automobiles have caused over the years, and whoever you want to give credit to for the creation of the gun is responsible for the wars and murders over the years. McDonalds is responsible for fat people, and Phillip-Morris is to blame for lung cancer. These people and entities obviously understood the implications of their inventions, but that doesn't make them evil.

You are under the impression that the Universe in infinite, with no beginning, and no end. This is the same view we believers have of God. An argument I often hear used against the idea of God is "Who created God, or how did he begin?" The same question has to be applied to the universe if you discount the idea of a creator. The difference is, that in the physical universe time moves only in one direction (which theoretically must imply a beginning), and we believe that God operates outside the realm of time (hence, no beginning that we can understand). To me, this makes more logical sense than the idea that the physical universe we know of is infinite in time AND space.

There are many theories in Christianity as to how these things can be explained. It is the same as in Science, but through a different prism. Many Christian argue over these details, but to do so if folly as none of it is scriptural.

In the beginning, God hovered over the surface of the deep. To me this says there was a world that was covered in ocean at the beginning of our time on Earth. Did the Earth have a history before this time? Maybe the war spoken of in the Bible between God and Lucifer destroyed that place, and God rebuilt it. This would perhaps explain some of the ancient time tables different dating methods produce. It's possible still that this past Earth is where the dinosaurs lived.... Who knows? The reason most Christians believe that man and dinosaurs lived together, is because there is a passage in the bible that describes a Braceosauras (sp??).

If believers are correct, then we will all find out after physical death. If atheists are right, then none of us will ever know for sure.

 

[All Else Failed]

We're at a jumping off point here for a really deep end of the pool. Pure philosophy and opinion (Read: No science here), which looking at your new sig, you're not totally opposed to. I personally believe that God did not make Satan, but did create Lucifer. Lucifer then decided by using his free will to rebel, and become the individual we know as Satan. The Bible speaks of the war that followed his decision, and hence the expulsion from heaven, and the creation of Hell.

Parents often know what their kids are going to do before the kid does it, because the parent knows the child. How much more so would God know us? Would you argue that a child had no freewill in a certain situation because the parent knew the outcome?

Foreknowledge and free will do not cancel out to zero. Likewise, the creator of an item is not responsible for the user of said item. Your comparison is similar to saying Diesel is responsible for the thousands of deaths that automobiles have caused over the years, and whoever you want to give credit to for the creation of the gun is responsible for the wars and murders over the years. McDonalds is responsible for fat people, and Phillip-Morris is to blame for lung cancer. These people and entities obviously understood the implications of their inventions, but that doesn't make them evil.

You are under the impression that the Universe in infinite, with no beginning, and no end. This is the same view we believers have of God. An argument I often hear used against the idea of God is "Who created God, or how did he begin?" The same question has to be applied to the universe if you discount the idea of a creator. The difference is, that in the physical universe time moves only in one direction (which theoretically must imply a beginning), and we believe that God operates outside the realm of time (hence, no beginning that we can understand). To me, this makes more logical sense than the idea that the physical universe we know of is infinite in time AND space.

There are many theories in Christianity as to how these things can be explained. It is the same as in Science, but through a different prism. Many Christian argue over these details, but to do so if folly as none of it is scriptural.

In the beginning, God hovered over the surface of the deep. To me this says there was a world that was covered in ocean at the beginning of our time on Earth. Did the Earth have a history before this time? Maybe the war spoken of in the Bible between God and Lucifer destroyed that place, and God rebuilt it. This would perhaps explain some of the ancient time tables different dating methods produce. It's possible still that this past Earth is where the dinosaurs lived.... Who knows? The reason most Christians believe that man and dinosaurs lived together, is because there is a passage in the bible that describes a Braceosauras (sp??).

If believers are correct, then we will all find out after physical death. If atheists are right, then none of us will ever know for sure.

You're forgetting that god would know that Lucifer would rebel. If he didn't he's not all powerful like the bible states.


We have free will in the sense that we can do what we like in life, but in the end, God has seen what you will do and knows if you are going to hell or heaven. So quite literally, what you did in life doesn't really matter since he knew from the very beginning where you are going to do.

Fat people are responsible for being fat, not corporations. The food companies do not help, but at the end of the day, YOU are responsible for what you stuff in your mouth. (Except people with glandular problems, then the glans are the cause.)


Christianity ans science are not in the same "just through a different prism". Science is the study of actual data, religion is just "I believe because a book tells me so". There is very little wiggle room in religion for fact.


You seriously don't think dinos lived together with man...do you? Various forms of dating have been used on bones and set them back millions and millions of years. There's also passages in the bible where it describes unicorns and giants.

Since we're on the subject of creation, did you read that link I posted about the impossibility of the flood? It pretty much answers all of the question you are posting. Here it is: flood_predictions Please read. They provide actual data that dismantles the flood myth.


Look, I know what the creation story is, Ive read the bible cover to cover a few times before. If you take the creation story over actual data and numerous scientific studies, you're ignoring the evidence.

 

[GraceAbounds]

I love science and I love the Word of God. I feel bad for Christians that are trying to find scientific answers in the Bible and also for Non-Believers that are trying to use science as an anti-religion tool. It is the misuse of two very wonderful gifts given unto men.

The Bible is not a science book. And the purpose of science is not to disprove the Bible.

 

[IntruderLS1]

I love science and I love the Word of God. I feel bad for Christians that are trying to find scientific answers in the Bible and also for Non-Believers that are trying to use science as an anti-religion tool. It is the misuse of two very wonderful gifts given unto men.

The Bible is not a science book. And the purpose of science is not to disprove the Bible.

Where is the stand up and aplaude emoti?

 

[memento_mori]

I love science and I love the Word of God. I feel bad for Christians that are trying to find scientific answers in the Bible and also for Non-Believers that are trying to use science as an anti-religion tool. It is the misuse of two very wonderful gifts given unto men.

The Bible is not a science book. And the purpose of science is not to disprove the Bible.

shush, you! we're trying to have an argument

 

[IntruderLS1]

shush, you! we're trying to have an argument

No we're not.

 

[GraceAbounds]

Party on with that argument ... don't let me stop you.

:lol2:

 

[All Else Failed]

I love science and I love the Word of God. I feel bad for Christians that are trying to find scientific answers in the Bible and also for Non-Believers that are trying to use science as an anti-religion tool. It is the misuse of two very wonderful gifts given unto men.

The Bible is not a science book. And the purpose of science is not to disprove the Bible.

I agree with most of this, but it just so happens that science has disproved various things in the bible.

But meh, whatever. You believe one thing and I'll believe another.

 

[All Else Failed]

Here's a nice video on science and creationism (intelligent design). It touches the important bases. Please watch.

YouTube - What Science Isn't


This goes along with it:
YouTube - Why Is Evolution So Unpopular?

 

[IntruderLS1]

You're forgetting that god would know that Lucifer would rebel. If he didn't he's not all powerful like the bible states.


We have free will in the sense that we can do what we like in life, but in the end, God has seen what you will do and knows if you are going to hell or heaven. So quite literally, what you did in life doesn't really matter since he knew from the very beginning where you are going to do.

Fat people are responsible for being fat, not corporations. The food companies do not help, but at the end of the day, YOU are responsible for what you stuff in your mouth. (Except people with glandular problems, then the glans are the cause.)


Christianity ans science are not in the same "just through a different prism". Science is the study of actual data, religion is just "I believe because a book tells me so". There is very little wiggle room in religion for fact.


You seriously don't think dinos lived together with man...do you? Various forms of dating have been used on bones and set them back millions and millions of years. There's also passages in the bible where it describes unicorns and giants.

Since we're on the subject of creation, did you read that link I posted about the impossibility of the flood? It pretty much answers all of the question you are posting. Here it is: flood_predictions Please read. They provide actual data that dismantles the flood myth.


Look, I know what the creation story is, Ive read the bible cover to cover a few times before. If you take the creation story over actual data and numerous scientific studies, you're ignoring the evidence.

I'll make you a deal. I'll spend some time, and carefully go through your link, if you agree to re-read what I posted, and tell me if your response makes any sense of it.

Deal?

 

[IntruderLS1]

Interesting article from CNN:
CNN.com - Undersea explorer finds new evidence of great flood - September 13, 2000

From your site:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]10. Because of the catastrophic force of the marine environment and the lack of exposure of the land during the flood, we would expect to find no examples at all in the geologic record of the following delicate fossils or evidence for land deposition :[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]fossilized dinosaur nests[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]ant nests[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]termite nests[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]bird nests (of a relative of the flamingo in the Green River Formation in Wyoming)[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]fragile wasp nests[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]complex rodent burrows[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]animal dung left in its original position of deposition as it hardened on dry, solid ground[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]trackways of land animals[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]raindrop imprints[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]fossilized mudcracks[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]fragile things preserved as fossils, such as bird feathers (Confuciusornis)[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]ferns (adjacent to coal beds)[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]insects (Oligocene lake beds near Florrisant, CO),[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]oxidized rocks layers (redbeds) because there is insufficient oxygen in the water to oxidize (bring up) the iron present.[/FONT]

The reality is, that for these delicate things to have been preserved, they had to have been covered insanely quickly. They would fall apart in weeks on their own. They had to have been burried by large amounts of mud and water to maintain their shape for fossilization.

The scarcity of erosion, soil formation, animal burrows and roots between layers also shows they must have been deposited in quick succession. The radical deformation of thick layers of sediment without evidence of cracking or melting also shows how all the layers must have been still soft when they were bent. Dykes (walls) and pipes (cylinders) of sandstone which connect with the same material many layers beneath show that the layers beneath must have been still soft, and contained much water. That the sandstone could be squeezed up through cracks above to form the ‘clastic’ dykes and pipes, again shows rapid deposition of many strata.
The worldwide distribution of many geological features and rock types is also consistent with a global Flood. The Morrison Formation is a layer of sedimentary rock that extends from Texas to Canada, clearly showing the fallacy of the still popular belief that ‘the present is the key to the past’—there are no processes occurring on Earth today that are laying down such large areas of sedimentary layers.

Benjamin Sillman, head of geology of Yale in the 1800's, wrote,
"Respecting the Deluge there can be but one opinion: geology fully confirms the scriptural history of the event. Whales, sharks, crocodiles, amphibians, mammoths, rhinoceros, hippopotamus, hyenas, tigers, deer, horses, bullpine families are found buried together in deluvian at a greater or lesser depth and in most instances, under circumstances indicating that they were buried by the same catastrophe which destroyed them, namely a sudden and violent deluge."178, 179

Leading scholars such as Dr. James Trofle of George Mason University have admitted that the dinosaurs were struck by catastrophe. He wrote,
"That they present this kind of pattern: suddenly their fossils disappear from the rocks. And when I say ‘suddenly’ I mean a time that could be as long as 100,000 years or as short as a weekend—we can’t tell the difference. At the same time the dinosaurs disappeared, all the other species we talked about, from ocean plankton to some flowering plants, disappeared as well. Paleontologists term this sort of event in which many species disappear at the same time as ‘mass extinction.’"

Dr. John R. Hornet in Digging for Dinosaurs stated,
"Judging from the concentration of bones in various pits, there were 30 million fossil fragments in that area. At a conservative estimate, we had discovered the tomb of 10,000 dinosaurs. There was a flood. This was no ordinary spring flood from one of the streams in the area but a catastrophic inundation. . . That’s our best explanation. It seems to make the most sense, and on the basis of it we believe that this was a living, breathing group of dinosaurs destroyed in one catastrophic moment."182/131

Both observable science and the biblical account agree that the waters were higher than the mountains. Otherwise, fossils could not have been covered with sediment and turned into fossils on top of the mountains. The only real question is, where did the water come from?

From your site:
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+1]Do you really believe that all this was laid down after a 40 day downpour? [/SIZE][/FONT]

An interesting observation:
One thing that puts the evolution model into doubt is the height of the Grand Canyon. The top of the Grand Canyon is considerably higher than the beginning of the canyon where the Colorado River enters into it. This would mean that the river would have to flow uphill for thousands or even millions of years before it could cut a groove below the mouth of the canyon so the water could begin to flow downward. This ‘mystery’ can’t be explained by anything except the fact that the water had to be higher than the canyon when it was formed. It would either have had to be higher than the canyon for millions of years, or it would have to be flowing over a land that is not yet hardened into rock.

 

[All Else Failed]

All that is fine and dandy but you forget the grand canyon would be impossible to form in 6,000 years. What about the rest of the evidence on my link? If we get into the impossibility of the ark itself it gets hilariously easy to dismantle the entire myth just by that one aspect, since the ark is pure impossibility.

Plus I love that you quoted people IN THE 1800'S! LOL. I severely doubt that most doctors, geologists and the like back then even accepted evolution because of the intense religious atmosphere in the era, and quite possibly would be fired if they even slightly agreed with Darwinism or evolution.


Plus, I don't think its coincidence that the vast majority of geologists, environmentalists, botanists, archaeologists and the like completely dismiss the great flood as an utter joke. I think they know what they're talking about.

 

[IntruderLS1]

All that is fine and dandy but you forget the grand canyon would be impossible to form in 6,000 years.

Well, you forget, that it couldn't have been formed over millions of years either, so where does that leave us?

I only spent about 15 mintus putting that together. It's easy when you use search engines. I assure you though, that if you give me an hour or so, I can come up with a list that duels yours practically point for point, but you'll never in a million years let me call any of it fact.

There are items on both sides of this argument that the other cannot explain. That my friend is what I call a fact.

 

[All Else Failed]

So, you're going to take established scientific fact on that site, and make a counterpoint to each other, knowing that they are fact. Good luck.

While you're doing that, try not to quote people in the 19th century.


Again, I think geologists know what they're talking about more than us put together.

 

[IntruderLS1]

Am I to understand that you are able to use scientists back to the ancients, but I am stuck using only information gathered in the last 25 years or so? If that's the case, I can probably work with that, I just need to be sure I know what you mean.

I had a very nice converstaion with an extreemly pleasent little birdy that was nice enough to deliver a list of scientists for your enjoyment. I can take no credit for the compilation of this list, but I'll dig through their work for some "facts" for you. Actually, at a glance, can you tell me for sure if all of these people are out of their minds, and have no credibility? I don't want to waste my time on the losers, and you seem to be a blood hound at picking them out.

Gerald E. Aardsma (physicist and radiocarbon dating)

• Louis Agassiz (helped develop the study of glacial geology and of ichthyology)
• Alexander Arndt (analytical chemist, etc.)
• Steven A. Austin (geologist and coal formation expert)
• Charles Babbage (helped develop science of computers / developed actuarial tables and the calculating machine)
• Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)
• Thomas G. Barnes (physicist)
• Robert Boyle (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics)
• Wernher von Braun (pioneer of rocketry and space exploration)
• David Brewster (helped develop science of optical mineralogy)
• Arthur V. Chadwick (geologist)
• Melvin Alonzo Cook (physical chemist, Nobel Prize nominee)
• Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative anatomy and vertebrate paleontology)
• Humphry Davy (helped develop science of thermokinetics)
• Donald B. DeYoung (physicist, specializing in solid-state, nuclear science and astronomy)
• Henri Fabre (helped develop science of insect entomology)
• Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics / developed the Field Theory / invented the electric generator)
• Danny R. Faulkner (astronomer)
• Ambrose Fleming (helped develop science of electronics / invented thermionic valve)
• Robert V. Gentry (physicist and chemist)
• Duane T. Gish (biochemist)
• John Grebe (chemist)
• Joseph Henry (invented the electric motor and the galvanometer / discovered self-induction)
• William Herschel (helped develop science of galactic astronomy / discovered double stars / developed the Global Star Catalog)
• George F. Howe (botanist)
• D. Russell Humphreys (award-winning physicist)
• James P. Joule (developed reversible thermodynamics)
• Johann Kepler (helped develop science of physical astronomy / developed the Ephemeris Tables)
• John W. Klotz (geneticist and biologist)
• Leonid Korochkin (geneticist)
• Lane P. Lester (geneticist and biologist)
• Carolus Linnaeus (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and systematic biology / developed the Classification System)
• Joseph Lister (helped develop science of antiseptic surgery)
• Frank L. Marsh (biologist)
• Matthew Maury (helped develop science of oceanography/hydrography)
• James Clerk Maxwell (helped develop the science of electrodynamics)
• Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics)
• Samuel F. B. Morse (invented the telegraph)
• Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope)
• Gary E. Parker (biologist and paleontologist)
• Blaise Pascal (helped develop science of hydrostatics / invented the barometer)
• Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and immunizations)
• William Ramsay (helped develop the science of isotopic chemistry / discovered inert gases)
• John Ray (helped develop science of biology and natural science)
• Lord Rayleigh (helped develop science of dimensional analysis)
• Bernhard Riemann (helped develop non-Euclidean geometry)
• James Simpson (helped develop the field of gynecology / developed the use of chloroform)
• Nicholas Steno (helped develop the science of stratigraphy)
• George Stokes (helped develop science of fluid mechanics)
• Charles B. Thaxton (chemist)
• William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) (helped develop sciences of thermodynamics and energetics / invented the Absolute Temperature Scale / developed the Trans-Atlantic Cable)
• Larry Vardiman (astrophysicist and geophysicist)
• Leonardo da Vinci (helped develop science of hydraulics)
• Rudolf Virchow (helped develop science of pathology)
• A.J. (Monty) White (chemist)
• A.E. Wilder-Smith (chemist and pharmacology expert)
• John Woodward (helped develop the science of paleontology)
• A more thorough list of current (and past) Creationist scientists is not provided for two reasons: (1) A complete list would be extremely lengthy, and (2) Some scientists would rather not have their name made public due to justified fear of job discrimination and persecution in today's atmosphere of limited academic freedom in Evolutionist-controlled institutions.

I know we've been over this a zillion times, but I can never get a straight answer from you. What do you consider an iron clad, indisputable fact? Yours are scattered, and from random places, but I haven't managed to stumble across one yet!! Help a brother out mang.

 

[IntruderLS1]

So, you're going to take established scientific fact on that site, and make a counterpoint to each other, knowing that they are fact. Good luck.

First off, thanks for wishing me luck.

Secondly though, I did notice a trend in the information, I'm sorry, facts that you posted. The super vast majority of them are deductive 'facts.' What I mean by that is the people who put those ideas forward looked at an item, and said this must be this way because of that.

One reason I used the Grand Canyon example in my rebuttal of your site, was because I found the evidence makes more sense from a creationist point of view. Which is more plausible? Water flowed uphill for thousands and thousands of years, or a river cut through dirt that was softened by a large amount of water?

Also, which is more plausable (Scientifically of course)? Water drops on sand, and delicate birds nests' lasting for hundreds of years in the elements in order to become fossils, or these items were burried completely and almost instantly by water and mud?

:muscles:

LOL

 

[memento_mori]

intruder, is that a list of scientists that believed in god or believed in intelligent design or the bible or all three? if so, why isnt einstein on there?

either way, i don't think it's really about the book of revelations. tho it's interesting to see a fight. carry on.