Why is there such a quarrel with Christianity today?

#2,477
#2,477
IBlvNTmWrk said:
Actually more the former (though it doesn't have to be advanced) vs the latter. I don't particularly agree with Molina's views that God knows things based on certain circumstances. I believe that God knows things because he is omniscient, and that God's perspective of time is not the same as ours.

I believe that time is a fourth dimension and can be viewed similarly as spatial dimensions, except that we don't see time the same way as God sees time. Psalms 90:4 - "For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night." 2 Peter 3:8 - "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." It seems clear to me that God is not limited in time the same way we are.

If a thousand years is like a day to God, then a person's whole life is less than a couple of hours to God, and God is not limited by time as we are. So I think it's reasonable that God knows what will happen (our perspective of time) because He has seen it happen... not because he determined what would happen.
Click to expand...

Sounds like Eternalism; you're already dead (you just haven't reached that time slice yet). The benefit of that is that our current understanding of physics seems to support such. The downside is that singular Eternalism crushes free will.

However, if one posits a (relatively) infinite amount of time slices with phase space tubes connecting each, Eternalism could work with free will. The benefit of this is you get Eternalism, free will, omniscient (in so far as God knows past, present, and possible futures). The downside is that such knowledge is contingent, which you seem to reject.
 
#2,478
#2,478
superdave said:
אני לא
ומכאן השאלה
Click to expand...




יש רק אלוהים אחד ומשפט אחד . זה החוק של אלוהים מגדיר חטא וקובע חסד .
 
#2,480
#2,480
delusion: a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary.

pretty much sums up the belief in the bible.
 
#2,481
#2,481
PKT_VOL said:
Depends on how one interprets scripture. Theology is about attempting to create a logical and cogent system of understanding about God.
Click to expand...

Doesn't it always. I guess that's the great thing about the bible. It fits you no matter what you believe. There is a denomination for everybody.
 
#2,486
#2,486
Vol8188 said:
Since you don't believe the bible teaches a young earth, how does this correspond with your views that the bible is literal? According to young earth supporters the two go hand and hand.
Click to expand...

You are correct. IMO Gramps and others that agree with him are misguided. You cannot have a literal interpretation without it being literal. As an example they take the 'day is like a thousand years' out of context and say it applies. That approach has been debunked by both new and old Earth camps for quite some time.

The young Earth approach is also scientific in its analysis. It makes assumptions based on observations just like old Earth supporters. Recent discoveries relating to DNA, NASA studies about Pluto that indicate an age of less than 1 million years, gaseous observations of the Sun, the recent black hole event that seems to confirm Einstein's Theory of Relativity, etc. all enhance that belief. I am sure the old Earth supporters can take those same observations and state them as proof for their theories. But the basic biblical new Earth belief centers around The Flood being worldwide in nature and being a cataclysmic event. The implications scientifically can mirror many old Earth assertions. I will not belabor the point because it us useless to so with some of the posters in here.

The most complete research summary book I have personally found on the New Earth approach I posted previously, The Genesis Account, which is tied to Genesis 1-11. It is a theological, historical and scientific commentary. It is a tedious read, but current. The author is Jonathan D. Sarfati PH.D, F.M.
 
#2,487
#2,487
maxamusxiii said:
יש רק אלוהים אחד ומשפט אחד . זה החוק של אלוהים מגדיר חטא וקובע חסד .
Click to expand...

בסדר חשבו שהמחיר היה התורה אך לא היה בטוח .
 
#2,489
#2,489
superdave said:
בסדר חשבו שהמחיר היה התורה אך לא היה בטוח .
Click to expand...

שאלה רצינית עם כל שיפוט , זה נצרות זה מפריע לך או לכל הדתות ? אני רק שואל כי ההודעה שלי לא נראית מפריעה לך את הדרך לאחרים לעשות . גם תודה על השימוש עברי . זה נחמד מצידך
 
#2,491
#2,491
Vols4us said:
You are correct. IMO Gramps and others that agree with him are misguided. You cannot have a literal interpretation without it being literal. As an example they take the 'day is like a thousand years' out of context and say it applies. That approach has been debunked by both new and old Earth camps for quite some time.

The young Earth approach is also scientific in its analysis. It makes assumptions based on observations just like old Earth supporters. Recent discoveries relating to DNA, NASA studies about Pluto that indicate an age of less than 1 million years, gaseous observations of the Sun, the recent black hole event that seems to confirm Einstein's Theory of Relativity, etc. all enhance that belief. I am sure the old Earth supporters can take those same observations and state them as proof for their theories. But the basic biblical new Earth belief centers around The Flood being worldwide in nature and being a cataclysmic event. The implications scientifically can mirror many old Earth assertions. I will not belabor the point because it us useless to so with some of the posters in here.

The most complete research summary book I have personally found on the New Earth approach I posted previously, The Genesis Account, which is tied to Genesis 1-11. It is a theological, historical and scientific commentary. It is a tedious read, but current. The author is Jonathan D. Sarfati PH.D, F.M.
Click to expand...

There is no question that people who hold to YEC and OEC both look at the same evidence. Evidence doesn't speak, people do.

Still, You need to clarify your post as it seems you are criticizing Gramps and agreeing with him at the same time. But the words of scripture do not demand the reader pick one of those positions, and if you say a "literal" interpretation does, then the onus is on you to define literal and then defend the hermeneutical starting points.
 
#2,492
#2,492
maxamusxiii said:
שאלה רצינית עם כל שיפוט , זה נצרות זה מפריע לך או לכל הדתות ? אני רק שואל כי ההודעה שלי לא נראית מפריעה לך את הדרך לאחרים לעשות . גם תודה על השימוש עברי . זה נחמד מצידך
Click to expand...

לא מתלהבים ברוב הדתות אבל
הנצרות היא אחד אני מכיר היטב .
חייב ללכת לעת עתה
 
#2,493
#2,493
SuperDave said:
אני לא
ומכאן השאלה
Click to expand...

MaxamusXIII said:
יש רק אלוהים אחד ומשפט אחד . זה החוק של אלוהים מגדיר חטא וקובע חסד .
Click to expand...

SuperDave said:
בסדר חשבו שהמחיר היה התורה אך לא היה בטוח .
Click to expand...

MaxamusXIII said:
שאלה רצינית עם כל שיפוט , זה נצרות זה מפריע לך או לכל הדתות ? אני רק שואל כי ההודעה שלי לא נראית מפריעה לך את הדרך לאחרים לעשות . גם תודה על השימוש עברי . זה נחמד מצידך
Click to expand...

SuperDave said:
לא מתלהבים ברוב הדתות אבל
הנצרות היא אחד אני מכיר היטב .
חייב ללכת לעת עתה
Click to expand...

Would you guys quit posting in Klingon??

I speak it much better than I read it...... Q'plah!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,494
#2,494
Roustabout said:
YEC state that a literal interpretation of Genesis and a young earth go hand and hand.

Some OEC also claim a literal interpretation that teaches old earth.

Both are wrong. The bible is not arguing for the age of the earth, period. Both are reading in their presuppositions.

Literally speaking, show me where the bible teaches that one must adhere to a 6k-10k year old earth? If you are claiming that this is the "literal" approach, then I'm all ears. Now, most classical biblical scholars would define 'literal' interpretation as a search to discern what the biblical author was literally trying to communicate to it's audience.

Example, Jesus often used parable to communicate a message to His audience. So, if I read the parable of the vineyard owner, am I to take away that there was an actual person who sent servants to check on his vineyard that were then beaten and killed? Not if I want to "literally" know they what, why, when, where of what Jesus was wanting to communicate.

I would say much of the Genesis account is written to an audience that was dealing with being surrounding by and even in captivity to polytheistic cultures.
Click to expand...

If you assume the bible to be the literal word of God, then what Ken Hamm and others are doing makes sense. You should be able to add up the ages of the people in the bible to estimate the age of the earth and even the Galaxy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#2,495
#2,495
Vol8188 said:
If you assume the bible to be the literal word of God, then what Ken Hamm and others are doing makes sense. You should be able to add up the ages of the people in the bible to estimate the age of the earth and even the Galaxy.
Click to expand...

Wouldnt that be very difficult using the new common core standards though? :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,496
#2,496
SuperDave said:
delusion: a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary.

pretty much sums up the belief in the bible.
Click to expand...

opinionated: conceitedly assertive and dogmatic in one's opinions.

Pretty much sums you up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top