....lybob Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 TYTT do you believe the Universe is only about 6000 years old ?, do you believe the earth is only 6000 years old ? these are yes or no questions I believe that it is possible for the Earth, and the Universe, to be 6000 years old because I believe in an all-powerful God; and an all-powerful God would, of course, have the ability to make that so. you did not answer the questions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 (edited) you did not answer the questions I do not believe that the Earth is 6000 years old, but given my faith, would not be surprised to learn I was wrong. What was your purpose in asking these questions? Edited November 18, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 (edited) I believe that it is possible for the Earth, and the Universe, to be 6000 years old because I believe in an all-powerful God; and an all-powerful God would, of course, have the ability to make that so. I believe in an all powerful god but not a pagan view of him/her. it's a fundamental and unresolvable difference but it's important to appreciate. I agree with what is stated below. do you? Confusion over Pope Francis' words also arose when he said that “When we read in Genesis the account of Creation, we risk imagining God as a magician, with a wand able to make everything.” After this statement the pontiff said that God allowed creation and created beings to develop throughout history according to the internal laws which God gave them at the beginning of creation, and because of this “God is not a demiurge or a magician, but the creator who gives being to all things.” In response to those who took the Pope's words as meaning that God is not divine, Br. Consolmagno explained that all the pontiff said was that the Christian notion of God is not the same as other, pagan understandings of the divine being. He referred to Pope's use of the term “demiurge,” which comes from a gnostic tradition, and has been considered a heresy since ancient Roman times. “This was the idea that God was some sort of 'artisan' who formed the universe out of pre-existing materials,” he said, which is basically the same notion as the pagan nature gods who were thought to oversee the activities of nature. In light of this understanding, the astronomer said that what the Pope was most likely implying is that the Christian concept of God is “not a 'nature God'” like that of the pagans. Edited November 18, 2015 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 (edited) God is I Am. He operates outside of the laws of nature, and is no way restricted or confined by them. God absolutely has the ability to create from nothing. And that is neither magic, nor paganism. It is simply the will of an all-powerful God. If the god (lowercase on purpose) you worship is not all-powerful, then he (lower case on purpose) is not the God that I worship. Edited November 18, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 I do not believe that the Earth is 6000 years old, but given my faith, would not be surprised to learn I was wrong. What was your purpose in asking these questions? I wanted to know if you believed in a God that made things to appear different than they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 I wanted to know if you believed in a God that made things to appear different than they are.To what end? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 (edited) God is I Am. He operates outside of the laws of nature, and is no way restricted or confined by them. God absolutely has the ability to create from nothing. And that is neither magic, nor paganism. It is simply the will of an all-powerful God. If the god (lowercase on purpose) you worship is not all-powerful, then he (lower case on purpose) is not the God that I worship. that's what I thought. a fundamental and unresolvable difference. Edited November 18, 2015 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 (edited) that's what I thought. a fundamental and unresolvable difference.The God you believe, not being all powerful, certainly doesn't seem like much of a God. Can you point to the passages of the Bible which describe God as being less than all-powerful? Edited November 18, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 The God you believe, not being all powerful, certainly doesn't seem like much of a God. Can you point to the passages of the Bible which describe God as being less than all-powerful? seems to be the in vogue trick for you cons lately: "prove a negative". it's not possible....but you all know that. intellectual dishonest unfortunately suits you very well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 seems to be the in vogue trick for you cons lately: "prove a negative". it's not possible....but you all know that. intellectual dishonest unfortunately suits you very well. I never asked you to prove anything. I simply asked you to point out the Bible passages that say God is not all-powerful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 I never asked you to prove anything. I simply asked you to point out the Bible passages that say God is not all-powerful. And the Lord was with Judah, and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron. (Judg. 1:19.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 God is I Am. He operates outside of the laws of nature, and is no way restricted or confined by them. God absolutely has the ability to create from nothing. And that is neither magic, nor paganism. It is simply the will of an all-powerful God. If the god (lowercase on purpose) you worship is not all-powerful, then he (lower case on purpose) is not the God that I worship. So is Jesus a god, too? Isn't Christianity really polytheism? All the saints and Virgin Mary and all that? I never asked you to prove anything. I simply asked you to point out the Bible passages that say God is not all-powerful. Well, he can't seem to destroy Satan, now can he? Or is Satan just another part of the polytheism network? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 see this is where it gets maddening but of course that is by design. you cons are losing the argument and therefore resort to bs like this. almost any fool can see it even those on ppp. carson holds many beliefs that the average american will find highly suspicious. he's been, at the very least, less than fully honest about his past. he has a snowballs chance in hell of winning the prez race. the earth is not 6000 years old and literal interpretation of genesis is silly. I'm not a "con." And you have to do nothing more than read that definition to figure out it's ****ty. It's not a value judgement, it's a grammatical judgement. I believe in an all powerful god but not a pagan view of him/her. it's a fundamental and unresolvable difference but it's important to appreciate. I agree with what is stated below. do you? Confusion over Pope Francis' words also arose when he said that “When we read in Genesis the account of Creation, we risk imagining God as a magician, with a wand able to make everything.” After this statement the pontiff said that God allowed creation and created beings to develop throughout history according to the internal laws which God gave them at the beginning of creation, and because of this “God is not a demiurge or a magician, but the creator who gives being to all things.” In response to those who took the Pope's words as meaning that God is not divine, Br. Consolmagno explained that all the pontiff said was that the Christian notion of God is not the same as other, pagan understandings of the divine being. He referred to Pope's use of the term “demiurge,” which comes from a gnostic tradition, and has been considered a heresy since ancient Roman times. “This was the idea that God was some sort of 'artisan' who formed the universe out of pre-existing materials,” he said, which is basically the same notion as the pagan nature gods who were thought to oversee the activities of nature. In light of this understanding, the astronomer said that what the Pope was most likely implying is that the Christian concept of God is “not a 'nature God'” like that of the pagans. That's why I left the church. "An all-powerful god with limitations on his power" goes beyond a mere paradox into fundamental ridiculousness. Say what you want about TYTT's (and Carson's) views, but they're at least logically self-consistent. "Limited omnipotence," not so much... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 And the Lord was with Judah, and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron. (Judg. 1:19.) The passage refers to Judah's inability, as he lost his faith at the sight of the weapons of his enemies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 (edited) I'm not a "con." And you have to do nothing more than read that definition to figure out it's ****ty. It's not a value judgement, it's a grammatical judgement. That's why I left the church. "An all-powerful god with limitations on his power" goes beyond a mere paradox into fundamental ridiculousness. Say what you want about TYTT's (and Carson's) views, but they're at least logically self-consistent. "Limited omnipotence," not so much... yes, it is a nuanced understanding of God. in my experience this is true for most things: the truth is rarely black and white. absolutes are easier to comprehend but rarely represent the truth. it's more difficult to understand how the creator could set the table and allow things to play out through free will, mistakes and heroism without pulling strings to constantly control every movement in the universe but it is the most likely truth in my mind. it makes the most sense relative to what we think we know about the nature of the universe. if you discount science which you deny doing, you can easily envision a cloud sitting humanoid throwing thunderbolts and lightning down upon us. I don't see that but it would certainly be more easy to comprehend. Edited November 18, 2015 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 yes, it is a nuanced understanding of God. in my experience this is true for most things: the truth is rarely black and white. absolutes are easier to comprehend but rarely represent the truth. it's more difficult to understand how the creator could set the table and allow things to play out through free will, mistakes and heroism without pulling strings to constantly control every movement in the universe but it is the most likely truth in my mind. it makes the most sense relative to what we think we know about the nature of the universe. if you discount science which you deny doing, you can easily envision a cloud sitting humanoid throwing thunderbolts and lightning down upon us. I don't see that but it would certainly be more easy to comprehend. You can't pretend to understand Him. That's the whole point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 yes, it is a nuanced understanding of God. in my experience this is true for most things: the truth is rarely black and white. absolutes are easier to comprehend but rarely represent the truth. it's more difficult to understand how the creator could set the table and allow things to play out through free will, mistakes and heroism without pulling strings to constantly control every movement in the universe but it is the most likely truth in my mind. it makes the most sense relative to what we think we know about the nature of the universe. if you discount science which you deny doing, you can easily envision a cloud sitting humanoid throwing thunderbolts and lightning down upon us. I don't see that but it would certainly be more easy to comprehend. It's certainly more easy to comprehend. It's just not nearly as accurate a portrayal of the world as science. You can't make predictions on the basis of an omnipotent and capricious God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 (edited) yes, it is a nuanced understanding of God. in my experience this is true for most things: the truth is rarely black and white. absolutes are easier to comprehend but rarely represent the truth. it's more difficult to understand how the creator could set the table and allow things to play out through free will, mistakes and heroism without pulling strings to constantly control every movement in the universe but it is the most likely truth in my mind. it makes the most sense relative to what we think we know about the nature of the universe. if you discount science which you deny doing, you can easily envision a cloud sitting humanoid throwing thunderbolts and lightning down upon us. I don't see that but it would certainly be more easy to comprehend. It is the absolute pinnacle of hubris to believe you know the mind and nature of God, and then to further confine Him to human understanding. Edited November 18, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 You can't pretend to understand Him. That's the whole point. And people pretend to all the time. How many actions are taken according to "The will of God?" Another of the reasons I left the church and became a true agnostic. I find the humility of saying "I don't and can't know anything about God" more palatable than the arrogance of pretending to some "My God can beat up your God" understanding of God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 And people pretend to all the time. How many actions are taken according to "The will of God?" Another of the reasons I left the church and became a true agnostic. I find the humility of saying "I don't and can't know anything about God" more palatable than the arrogance of pretending to some "My God can beat up your God" understanding of God. The actions of a very vocal minority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts