jaybird18c

You're my hero Kallend.

No, I am guiding them to their position on the matter. I'm wondering if you lock the doors to your house at night. If so, why? Would it be to keep those out who might do your family harm? In that way, aren't you "closed" to the idea of others imposing their wills on you? You want to "keep the bad stuff out?" Now in the realm of ideas, you may expose your children to differing beliefs but do you not instruct them as to what you believe to be true? Do you try and shelter them from what you know might do them harm? Do you not raise them up in the direction you'd have them go? Of course, they may go a little to the left or right but do you not give them your idea of a foundation...a cardinal direction to follow? Or...is it just a "free for all", figure it out as you go along, don't learn from your mistakes, let them suffer through what could have been prevented? That doesn't sound very loving. To teach your kids what you believe is right is in fact a form of indoctrination, I guess. I'll give you that. I hope my kids hold to the foundation that I've tried to provide them. I hope it will carry them through life and give them something to hold onto. Principals to live by which are more important than money, wealth, or power. Character building principals which will help them to mature and live for something bigger than themselves....and for someone who will never let them down...regardless of circumstances. God.

Context is everything...and a proper understanding of Godly submission. Do Women Have to Remain Silent in Church?

So I guess she keeps silent at church as Paul says in 1 cor 14:34? Does she ask questione only at home? If she does ask questions at church then it would cause you great shame and you both would also be disobedient to God, and we know you don't want that. No offense, but your theology and understanding of this is juvenile.

Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth by Dr. Andrew Snelling

My wife is a doctor. She also holds the same theological views I do.

I don't deny my presupposition...but I can't seem to get you guys to admit yours. How did Fox News get in this conversation?? Next thing you know...we'll be saying it's all Bush's fault. Wow!

Oh but that is only for that particular group of Christians, who are not really the same as orthodox Christians (Jaybirds words). "We're the People's Popular Front of Judea." If you're going to quote me, do it appropriately and include the context. Otherwise, I'd prefer you didn't attribute my name to your B.S.

I don't have any idea what the assumption of millions of years has to do with oil companies and their task. Here is a critical assumption: "His theory was a radical uniformitarianism in which he insisted that only present-day processes of geological change at present-day rates of intensity and magnitude should be used to interpret the rock record of past geological activity. In other words, geological processes of change have been uniform throughout earth history. No continental or global catastrophic floods have ever occurred, insisted Lyell." Where Did the Idea of “Millions of Years” Come From?

An unbiased appraisal of the evidence could lead one in the direction of a global flood without the use of the bible. You just seem closed to examining all possibilities. You've drank the purple coolade served by your liberal professors in college...who also drank the purple coolade long ago. Have you seen the movie by Ben Stein called "Expelled?" He's not a Christian, obviously, and it shows the incredible bias in the scientific community in this regard. It seems to have moved from real science (observable/testable/falsifiable) to dogmatic belief in speculative/historical observation. Gathering "evidence" to fit your presuppositions. Didn't used to be that way.

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.