jaybird18c

Six Days or Millions of Years

If you have kids, have you ever noticed that, before they learn to tie their shoes, they sometimes try and tie or untie them and it all winds up in a very twisted mess? A mess that takes quite a while to unwind. It's hard to do sometimes when you're late for work and you're in a hurry. THIS is some "Twisted Scripture."

One can take something so far out of context or mix differing things out of context and make something up that has absolutely nothing to do with the original intent of the author. The rationale above is so wrong. It completely misses the theological point. The bible is an unfolding/progressive revelation of God’s plan of salvation for His people from Genesis to Revelation. Genesis describes the disobedience of Adam & Eve and the consequence of that disobedience. From then on, there are types/shadows in the OT of the Redeemer to come who will save God’s people (e.g. The ram provided to Abram by God in place of Isaac, the blood from the spotless lamb on the doorposts during the Passover, the delivery of the Hebrew people out of bondage in Egypt, the complex description of the Tabernacle in Leviticus, the valley of dry bones in Isaiah, etc.)….The fulfillment of all of this in the NT when Jesus came and performed His work on the cross. Long story – short…We died “in Adam”…we are made alive “in Christ.” As a matter of fact, Jesus is many times referred to as the "New Adam." Or the Bible is God's word and God's word holds true. Logically, you must include this possibility. We are to use our minds in the process of coming to faith in Christ. It is reasonable. He does not describe some mystical transcendental process. Faith and reason go together. Added: Without the "special revelation" of scripture, we would be left with merely the "general revelation" demonstrated in the creation and our conscience. Neither of which are sufficient to save.

Billvon....I think we agree. I love it when that happens!

You are correct in that we view what we see through a different lense. That is a good description. Both conclusions are based on presuppositions which cannot be "proved" scientifically. However, I can say with confidence "In the beginning, God." You, on the other hand must say everything came from nothing on it's own, blew up, and became an organized everything...by blind chance....over billions of years, of course.

The religious person is not more moral than the non-religious person. In and of themselves, there is no difference. We all suffer from the same fallen conition. I know atheists who appear to live more moral lives than some Christians. On the other hand, the Christian (in Christ) is seen as righteous before God because of what Christ has done in their place. Because of the transformation in their lives, the Christian then makes his/her best effort to be moral. Not works unto salvation but evidence of regeneration. It's all in the motive. The born again (not just professing) Christian is motivated to be moral because he/she has been changed by God and wants to see His will done. The non-Christian who acts morally does so for other reasons. Even those acts, however, can be very moral (from our perspective) (e.g. Oprah building schools in Africa or Madonna adopting foreign babies). Romans 2:14-16

I was an atheist for years mainly because I didn't want to be accountable for my actions. Not just because I didn't want to be accountable to our laws. My conscience nagged at me because I knew that ultimately, I would be held accountable to God for my actions. I didn't want to believe that. It didn't fit my lifestyle at the time.

They want to do what they want to do. The second they admit that there's a Lawgiver...they are subject to His law. That cramps their style.

Also...funny.

Actually, I was thinking along the lines that either your presuppositions lead you to believe that the rock layers are evidence of millions of years or it is evidence of a global flood and a much shorter timeframe.

Funny.

You can't "shut down" opposing views no matter how insulting you come across.

I would be very suspicious of that person also. and just as suspicious of someone who hasn't worked out that the world isn't 6000 years old and there was no ark... Again...depends on your presuppositions.

I would be very suspicious of that person also.

Depends on your presuppositions.

So it's only critical thinking if the results they come up with match up with yours. Got it.

What do youmean by indoctrination?

You don't teach your kids your beliefs and right from wrong and why? How loving is that?

It's not up to my kid's school, me, or anyone else but God to establish faith and belief in my children. It is my job, in which the school is a partner, to present them with what we believe to be true and to culture an environment to that end. However, they could in fact decide for themselves to reject the faith. I hope not and i think it's much less likely given that they've been brought up with the benefits of being part of a covenant family...but it is possible.

Figures. Teach them to recognise the enemy and they'll know how to avoid them. Would you not be open for Ken Ham or even Ben Stein to lecture at your kid's school (if you have kids)? Or do you "teach them to recognize the enemy?" Wouldn't it be good for them to really know both sides of the issues and have the critical thinking skills to decide for themselves which is correct?

General Rashid Dostom and his army in the North could unilaterally kick Karsai's a$$. Karsai might control Kabul...but not much more...not really.

I would love for Richard Dawkins to come to my kid's private Christian school. Within their classical model of instruction, they're taught logic and critical thinking skills. Some of our kids could put on a clinic with Richard in a debate.

If this country were primarily comprised of Indians with their culture, I would expect for those traditions to shine through including student led Hindu prayer at school. That would not be an "establishment of religion" and I would still be able to worship or not per the Constitution.

If I were in India, I would expect that. Doesn't mean I have to participate. It certainly wouldn't offend me. Most people there are Hindu. Here, the majority are Christian. It doesn't offend my individual disbelief if I am with them in a group as they pray at an event. It is in their culture. I still have my freedom to worship how I choose or not. I think this is much to do over nothing. Added: I was in Afghanistan and attended a funeral service for a friend (Afghan, Muslim) who was murdered because he worked for us. Muslim group prayer was offered. I payed my respects to him in my own way and also remained respectful to the Muslim majority. No problem.

This is such an absolutely ridiculous conversation. I can't figure out for the life of me why the atheist cares at all about this (because he doesn't believe any of it) except for the fact that I believe deep down each one of them, in their suppression of the truth in unrighteousness, hates Jesus Christ (even if they deny it).