Pastor Creflow Dollar is asking for 60 million to purchase new G6 to spread the gospel across the gl

[darthska]

It doen't make sense to you because it's not logical.

It makes sense to them under the following reasoning: The god concept would never condone something as violent as suicide bombing, so a suicide bomber who says "God told me" is different than an athlete saying "God wanted me to drop the pass."

Of course the flaw there is that the same god credited for not condoning violence... allegedly drowned the entire planet except for one family, which would include drowning obviously innocent children, toddlers, and infants. The story of Sodom & Gomorrah is that he wiped out the entire towns. The history of violence in the story of the god concept is THICK. Clearly the god concept is ok with violence; nothing could be more clear.

The second flaw is that it's too easy: just apply the positives to the god concept, then the statement "God is good all the time, and all the time God is good" remains true.

Because the god concept was made that way, and preserved that way.

 

[boris]

Like I said if we look back at each person in Hebrews 11 you will see what I mean by evidence. You mentioned Noah, well if we go back to Genesis 6, you will see that the evidence I am speaking of. I previously said that those people saw the evidence of God because they had a relationship with him. Verse 9 says Noah walked with God. So if Noah walked with God, we can assume that he knew who God is and what power He has. Noah, knew God created the earth because of their relationship. He saw what God can do by simply looking at nature (Evidence). So when God told him he was going to destroy the earth with a flood and gave Noah specific instructions on how to build the Ark, Noah used faith to do those things because he had the evidence that God was who He said he was. Correct, Noah had never seen rain because it had never rained up until the flood, but Noah trusted or put faith into the fact that if God can create whatever he wants by speach which he had evidence of then he could also destroy especially if God says that he is going to.

If you look at Genesis 6, it starts off by telling us that Noah was righteous and faithfully walked with god. Unless there is an issue with translation here, that doesn't say anything about evidence  being presented to Noah. So, what you've done here is changed the definition of faith  (to your alleged biblical definition) and applied it to Noah so that you can make assumptions. You even admit you're assuming here. 

The Muslim comparison for the word conviction leaves out the fact that I said how the Bible defines faith.

The word conviction  will have the same definition regardless of how you define faith, though. So, you only assume that a strong conviction requires some type of evidence when it has to do with the Bible? You conveniently assume that a Muslim's strong conviction requires no evidence?

And I have not altered anything that the Bible says. I am simply defining the word with the use of context. That is a common practice. Words only have meaning in context. If I say define the word board. One my say a wooden plank while someone else may say a group of people in a position of power. Both are correct definitions. I'm not denying your definition. I am simply showing that the Bible has another definition for the word faith.

But you are altering what it says when you change what the words mean to fit your opinions. You admitted above that these are your opinions and that you are making assumptions. Your example of the word board is not the same because both are known definitions. The definition you provided for the word faith  contradicts the dictionary definition. 

 

[girlthatsblanco]

If you look at Genesis 6, it starts off by telling us that Noah was righteous and faithfully walked with god. Unless there is an issue with translation here, that doesn't say anything about evidence being presented to Noah. So, what you've done here is changed the definition of faith (to your alleged biblical definition) and applied it to Noah so that you can make assumptions. You even admit you're assuming here. 


The word conviction will have the same definition regardless of how you define faith, though. So, you only assume that a strong conviction requires some type of evidence when it has to do with the Bible? You conveniently assume that a Muslim's strong conviction requires no evidence?


But you are altering what it says when you change what the words mean to fit your opinions. You admitted above that these are your opinions and that you are making assumptions. Your example of the word board is not the same because both are known definitions. The definition you provided for the word faith contradicts the dictionary definition. 

The only assumption made is their relationship which isn't a far stretch if we look at the text. Why did Noah walk with God? For what reason was Noah righteous? Why did God only tell Noah his plans? Why was Noah given specific instructions?

You keep focusing on the dictionary's definition, but I am telling you that the Bible simply has another definition. I have shown you why and so has the Bible. Which is the purpose for each example listed.

Let's step back and look at Hebrews as a whole. The Book of Hebrews was written by a Hebrew (Paul) to other Hebrews telling the Hebrews to stop acting like Hebrews. They can now put their faith in the work of Jesus Christ and no longer the law and he gives them reasons which are evidence why they can. Many of the early Jewish believers were slipping back into the rites and rituals of Judaism in order to escape the mounting persecution. ThE book is also intended for those persecuted believers to continue in the grace of Jesus Christ.

In the 4 Gospels Christ shows us evidence to tell the world that he truly is who he says he is. He fulfills specific prophecies of the coming Messiah that are mentioned by OT prophets. Christ performs miracles and acts that can only be attributed to God. That is evidence the Jesus is who He says He is. If someone were to simply say, "Hey I'm God in the flesh. Follow me and have faith in me," people would ask that person to prove that they are who they say they are and not just a person making a claim. Show some evidence. Which is why their is so much evidence to support matters of the Bible and make it distinct from other ancient text.

It seems like you want me to to ultimately deny that evidence to prove that my faith and beliefs are simply something I came up with that have no foundation. That is called blind faith. Focus on the context of how the word faith is used in the Bible. Over and over again, people had evidence (some seen and some not) to justify their faith. You also have to remember that during the times of each person mentioned they did not have a complete Bible or a full revelation of who God is. Which is why he gave them evidence to prove that he was who He said he was in order to give that person a foundation for their faith.

What is the difference between faith and blind faith to you?

 

[leavemeglazzies]

Well, they're constantly remaking 80s movies and other 80s stuff, I guess the guy figured "Hey, why don't I try to remake those 80s money grubbing evangelists", since people pay for all the other stuff.

 

[Quincy McCall]

Does the religious community recognize science or what science has done for man? Was technology in god's plans?

Serious questions that I was jus wonderin'

 

[darthska]

^ It's mixed.

Most who acknowledge the need for medicine or who appreciate advanced machines like MRI machines also fiercely reject things like stem cell research, because it's not natural.

Many cite that there is no way dinosaurs were millions of years ago (because the Bible suggests the earth is only thousands of years old), but do acknowledge that there were dinosaurs. They conclude that dinosaurs lived with humans.

Others say that dinosaur fossils are part of a conspiracy theory; they say there were no dinosaurs.

 

[blastercombo]

Does the religious community recognize science or what science has done for man? Was technology in god's plans?

Serious questions that I was jus wonderin'

God invented inventing

 

[Quincy McCall]

^ It's mixed.

Most who acknowledge the need for medicine or who appreciate advanced machines like MRI machines also fiercely reject things like stem cell research, because it's not natural.

Many cite that there is no way dinosaurs were millions of years ago (because the Bible suggests the earth is only thousands of years old), but do acknowledge that there were dinosaurs. They conclude that dinosaurs lived with humans.

Others say that dinosaur fossils are part of a conspiracy theory; they say there were no dinosaurs.

Never understood that...

They'll agree with most things that science has accurately measured but when something like human evolution is brought up... I'm told I'm pulling information from a biased science community that vindictively hates on religion... idk

 

[darthska]

Absolutely.

- You say, "Evolution."
- They say, "You only say that because of information you got from a god-hating source, information that hasn't absolutely been PROVEN."

- You ask, "So you have proof that every single one of is came from Adam & Eve? There's proof of their existence, and our lineage?"
- "Yes," they'll say. "The Bible said it. That proves it."
- "But is there scientific proof? Or is that just information that hasn't been ABSOLUTELY proven?"

At this point, they'll either get frustrated with you and accuse of being an arrogant, angry, ignorant skeptic/atheist, or they'll stick with the rhetoric of how the Bible is a scientific reference, and holds more weight than any other scientific findings, anyways. If the Bible says it, that's what happened.

 

[blastercombo]

Refer to evolution as long term adaptation from the beginning of your argument and watch their minds change. Then explain THATS what evolution is and watch their heads explode

 

[757bred]

Never understood that...

They'll agree with most things that science has accurately measured but when something like human evolution is brought up... I'm told I'm pulling information from a biased science community that vindictively hates on religion... idk

One thing to remember is that there are many different denominations of religions, even in Christianity. You have major groups like Catholic, Baptists, Methodists etc, but even some of these are splintered into different beliefs. It's hard to lump everyone in together

 

[Quincy McCall]

One thing to remember is that there are many different denominations of religions, even in Christianity. You have major groups like Catholic, Baptists, Methodists etc, but even some of these are splintered into different beliefs. It's hard to lump everyone in together

So they hold different beliefs on science?... idk, I'm really asking

 

[fraij da 5 11]

It appears this thread has gone beyond the scope of a sleazy, ironically named Pastor.

 

[darthska]

He's right.

There is no 'they'.

Nothing you can ask will get an answer that applies to all people.

Except this: "Do religious people believe that there are supernatural/non-human spiritual forces?"

Yes, yes 'they' do.

Outside of that, it would be hard to find something that applies to ALL of 'them'.

 

[Quincy McCall]

I'm confuze, but I understand.

 

[girlthatsblanco]

Since some of you have rejected a belief in God and the Bible's account of creation, does this mean you have put your current trust in the theory of evolution or is it in something else in concerns to creation? And why? Just curious.

 

[darthska]

They're is no collective truth for ANY group.

Whether it's race, religion, sports teams, career, whatever.

 

[Quincy McCall]

I don't completely trust it, but if you were to present the points of both sides

I'd be inclined to say that science guy comes thru with a little more evidence to back his point

I don't wholesomely believe there is enough proof to outright say so

 

[darthska]

[quote name="GirlThatsBlanco"]Since some of you have rejected a belief in God and the Bible's account of creation, does this mean you have put your current trust in the theory of evolution or is it in something else in concerns to creation? And why? Just curious.[/quote]#1:
I have a feeling you have a false understanding of the word 'theory'. Gravity is also technically called the theory of gravity. A theory is not a guess, the way most people think it is. It's not even an educated guess. Something is labeled as scientific theory after multiple scientists have critically tested the idea, and agreed in principle with the idea. Where most people think 'theory' is almost disrespectful, (like the idea doesn't count because it's just a guess), it's actually an an honor (in that multiple independent studies have been applied to the idea, and it has been accepted as both highly possible and likely).

There is no Sun/Cheetos theory, a theory that would state the sun is made of Cheetos.

The theory of evolution is as much of a theory as the theory of gravity.

That's first.

#2:
There has been no proof that man literally evolved from monkeys. There is strong evidence of multiple stages of evolution, but that's my point: proof.

There may not be 100% proof, but there is 0% scientific support of the Adam & Eve story. None.

It has nothing to do with rejecting the Bible just because; it has more to do with rejecting anything that has zero scientific support/evidence.

#3 (and I guess for me, this is more the answer to your question than 1 & 2 are):
I don't know, and I'm ok with that. Maybe we evolved from a single cell to a fish-like creature that took to land and resembled a monkey-human type thing and evolved to what we are today, maybe we didn't. There is some scientific evidence of all that, but maybe we didn't.

I don't know, and I'm perfectly ok with that.

Maybe there is a god, and he swirled up some dust and made man and then cracked his rib and made a woman. There is absolutely zero scientific evidence of that, but maybe.

I don't know, and I'm perfectly ok with that.

 

[girlthatsblanco]

#1:
I have a feeling you have a false understanding of the word 'theory'. Gravity is also technically called the theory of gravity. A theory is not a guess, the way most people think it is. It's not even an educated guess. Something is labeled as scientific theory after multiple scientists have critically tested the idea, and agreed in principle with the idea. Where most people think 'theory' is almost disrespectful, (like the idea doesn't count because it's just a guess), it's actually an an honor (in that multiple independent studies have been applied to the idea, and it has been accepted as both highly possible and likely).

There is no Sun/Cheetos theory, a theory that would state the sun is made of Cheetos.

The theory of evolution is as much of a theory as the theory of gravity.

That's first.

#2:
There has been no proof that man literally evolved from monkeys. There is strong evidence of multiple stages of evolution, but that's my point: proof.

There may not be 100% proof, but there is 0% scientific support of the Adam & Eve story. None.

It has nothing to do with rejecting the Bible just because; it has more to do with rejecting anything that has zero scientific support/evidence.

#3 (and I guess for me, this is more the answer to your question than 1 & 2 are):
I don't know, and I'm ok with that. Maybe we evolved from a single cell to a fish-like creature that took to land and resembled a monkey-human type thing and evolved to what we are today, maybe we didn't. There is some scientific evidence of all that, but maybe we didn't.

I don't know, and I'm perfectly ok with that.

Maybe there is a god, and he swirled up some dust and made man and then cracked his rib and made a woman. There is absolutely zero scientific evidence of that, but maybe.

I don't know, and I'm perfectly ok with that.

In no way am I trying to get into a evolution vs creation debate because I am in no way skilled or knowledgeable enough in different sciences to even have that type of dialogue. I would have to rely basically on the studies done by scientists much smarter than me. I was just interested in what people hold to and why. You answered my question, but I have an issue with a couple of things. First, yes gravity is a theory, but it is also a law. Evolution is only a theory. Second, you said that there is zero scientific evidence in support of Adam and Eve. A simple Google search would show there is a lot of scientific studies in geneology, linguistics, pathogens and other sciences that have been done in support of the Adam and Eve story.

 

[the natural mystic]

In no way am I trying to get into a evolution vs creation debate because I am in no way skilled or knowledgeable enough in different sciences to even have that type of dialogue. I would have to rely basically on the studies done by scientists much smarter than me. I was just interested in what people hold to and why. You answered my question, but I have an issue with a couple of things. First, yes gravity is a theory, but it is also a law. Evolution is only a theory. Second, you said that there is zero scientific evidence in support of Adam and Eve. A simple Google search would show there is a lot of scientific studies in geneology, linguistics, pathogens and other sciences that have been done in support of the Adam and Eve story.

Post those scientific studies or link please?

 

[girlthatsblanco]

Post those scientific studies or link please?

One website that I enjoy reading is

icr.org

They have a lot of different scientific articles that support the Bible's account. Their research staff seems to be quite credible, but you can determine that for yourself. There's so many articles discussing so many matters I just sent you to the home page, but you can search for specific topics.

 

[darthska]

Clicked on 2 articles on that site.

COMPLETELY agenda driven. They exist to further their agenda and use science to back their agenda.

My first thing when reading an article: don't tell me what to think. You present what you've found, I put those pieces together with other things other people have presented in other articles. Now if you would like to suggest what your findings could mean, I've got no problem with that so long as you present it with the explicit understanding that it's just your opinion/suggestion.

Telling me, "So this means that Genesis was right" is not scholarly, professional, appreciated, and certainly not ignored.

 

[girlthatsblanco]

Clicked on 2 articles on that site.

COMPLETELY agenda driven. They exist to further their agenda and use science to back their agenda.

My first thing when reading an article: don't tell me what to think. You present what you've found, I put those pieces together with other things other people have presented in other articles. Now if you would like to suggest what your findings could mean, I've got no problem with that so long as you present it with the explicit understanding that it's just your opinion/suggestion.

Telling me, "So this means that Genesis was right" is not scholarly, professional, appreciated, and certainly not ignored.

Can we not say the same thing about the theory of evolution?

 

[darthska]

"This suggests..." is not the same as "This means..."

"The skull that was unearthed today very closely resembles blah, blah, blah, which suggests very strongly that blah, blah, blah" is not even close to the same sentiment/approach/respect as "This moth means Genesis was right."

The former pays respect to the possibility of being wrong, but offers a suggestion; the latter thinks it has solved the case.