CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: All things Christianity

[JettaKnight]

I make my post for several reasons, first being, in my early teen years I did witness something that can not be explained, but that is not the only reason, there are things in this world that have been made before we kept record of time like the Nazka lines that were made to only be viewed from above..far above, long before we had the ability to fly, or even figure out the math that goes into making these "markers" there are several of these types of unexplained markers with math so precise that we did not even realize the precision until recently...for example look at the pyramids in Egypt, a feat that could not be replicated today with astrological mathematics that we could not have understood, and global positioning that could not have been comprehended by humans at the time., do some research on the precision of the placement of each of those blocks (some exceeding 200 tons) but all are placed with corner facing within 2 degree true north, and how you can not slide a sheet of paper between the blocks (real precision) or the huge stone blocks in puma punka that have been cut with such precision that even the most advanced stone masons say they could not replicate the blocks even with the laser techniques we have in our modern time...yet these blocks were made many thousands of years ago... Please do some research into these places and more...our world is not alone...

Paging Indiucky, you have a call on the white courtesy phone.

He's a lot more capable of addressing the ingenuity and capabilities of prehistorical cultures. I fully believe they were capable of feats we can't imagine despite what the sensationalist History Channel shows say.

I'm not disputing god, I'm saying is to think the great creator just created earth and left the rest as blank filler is pretty closed minded.. look at the evidence and not just blind faith because a man told you that's how it is

Be very careful about brandishing the term "closed minded" - one might think it could apply to you given your certainty about things. You'll find this group is anything but closed minded.


We may be alone, we might not. I believe the former, but the latter is not outside of the realm of possibilities. I also don't believe modern miracles happen nearly as often as reported. I am in a minority on this here. I believe in an "old earth", probably with the majority. I also believe that infant baptism is wrong - that's 50/50 here in this thread.

Those are all theological issues that I hold to loosely; I might be wrong, but God can correct me in Heaven if I am. They are not essential for salvation and I have an open mind concerning them, but I know what I believe.

 

[rvb]

Not as I read it. I believe that God is consistent and immutable so His nature remains the same everywhere, but I think it would be a mistake to think that just because the Bible doesn't mention life elsewhere in the universe, it can not exist. It may or may not. I believe that the only life here that has a soul is mankind as we are the only life describes as being created Imago Dei (in the image of God). Could such life exist elsewhere? I have no basis to say one way or the other. Unless someone can't point out specific Scripture that excludes the possibility of life elsewhere, I will consider it just one more thing we don't know. I'm fine with not knowing exactly how the sovereignty of God and man's free will both exist simultaneously, so alien life? I have no need make a conclusion about that.

I'm at pretty much the same point. I believe ET life is possible, but I don't believe it necessarily has to exist. I don't believe we've been visited.

The thing most use as Biblical evidence for us being the only intelligent life is that the Bible indicates the heavens are a sign to us that God exists and created everything (eg Psalm 19:1, or one of my personal favorites, Psalm 8:3-4... been thinking of getting an inscription made for my telescope with that on it). The argument is that the stars and heavens don't exist as a home to others, but for us.

But what WE see in the sky (naked eye) is a very very tiny slice of our galaxy, let alone the universe as a whole. When you look up and see the stars at night, all you are seeing is our closest neighboring stars. God may have put those in place, with recognizable constellations, etc, for a reason. They may remind us he created us, reflect part of His story, be useful to us, etc. But is it feasible that in some far part of the universe beyond what we can readily see or study, or in some other time, God created others in his image? Something to ponder.... what if in some distant galaxy, there are children of God that chose NOT to fall to the temptation of eating the forbidden fruit (or whatever their equivalent might be).

I also think our inability to grasp these ancient structures and building feats is really an indictment of us... our reliance on documented techniques and computers, etc. I think it's easy to underestimate ancient men, and what they could accomplish with time, large labor pools, and ingenuity.

-rvb

 

[JettaKnight]

Something to ponder.... what if in some distant galaxy, there are children of God that chose NOT to fall to the temptation of eating the forbidden fruit (or whatever their equivalent might be).

Oof!

Personally, that's not a road I want to travel. I'll just refrain from such theological exercises and since there's nary a shred of evidence for ET apart from a few anecdotal UFOs... I feel confident in my position.

 

[rvb]

Oof!

Personally, that's not a road I want to travel. I'll just refrain from such theological exercises and since there's nary a shred of evidence for ET apart from a few anecdotal UFOs... I feel confident in my position.

haha. And I agree. as I tried to say above, I'm in the "possible, but not very likely" camp... even if they exist, I really don't believe we ever have or will encounter them.

But those are a few thoughts I've had while sitting out alone under the stars using my telescope ...
A good time to meditate on the Word, creation, etc...

-rvb

 

[T.Lex]

That's an interesting thought - one that I haven't entertained before - about a place where original sin had not occurred.

But, Genesis doesn't mention angels, either. Yet, we know from other places in the Bible that they exist. So, it kinda sorta makes sense that wherever the angels come from would be a place that had not known original sin.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Seems to me, if the Bible is the inspired word of God, and that he can do all things work for his plan and glory, if there is life on other planets, even intelligent life, it will be used for that plan. At the end of the day, we have to remember whether the "scientific" claims in the Bible are what we understand to be "true" or not, the entire point of the bible is to tell us of God's plan for redemption for us sorry, sinning, human beings.

 

[JettaKnight]

That's an interesting thought - one that I haven't entertained before - about a place where original sin had not occurred.

But, Genesis doesn't mention angels, either. Yet, we know from other places in the Bible that they exist. So, it kinda sorta makes sense that wherever the angels come from would be a place that had not known original sin.

Heaven.

 

[JettaKnight]

Seems to me, if the Bible is the inspired word of God, and that he can do all things work for his plan and glory, if there is life on other planets, even intelligent life, it will be used for that plan. At the end of the day, we have to remember whether the "scientific" claims in the Bible are what we understand to be "true" or not, the entire point of the bible is to tell us of God's plan for redemption for us sorry, sinning, human beings.

I believe the Bible is inerrant. I also believe that, despite conventional wisdom, we don't know everything about everything, and our scientific knowledge and theories are wrong about some things we think we complete understand. There's never been a time in human history where we haven't been wrong about some scientific issue.

 

[T.Lex]

I believe the Bible is inerrant. I also believe that, despite conventional wisdom, we don't know everything about everything, and our scientific knowledge and theories are wrong about some things we think we complete understand. There's never been a time in human history where we haven't been wrong about some scientific issue.

Just to totally pick an incredibly small nit we can agree that "inerrant" could still be "incomplete" right?

That is, it is inerrant as to the things it mentions. But, it cannot mention EVERYTHING.

And along those same lines - and this may be where we part philosophically - just as scientific insight has changed over time, I think insight into the Word can change, while staying consistently inerrant.

 

[rvb]

The interesting twist is throughout much of history, science was rejected because it conflicted with an understanding from religious teachings. Now, religion is rejected because it conflicts with a scientific theory. Science is the new mainstream religion, despite scientific understanding constantly changing (er, evolving...).

I believe that religion and science exist perfectly together. they are the "why" and "how." Where we always fall on our face is when we hold as absolutes the incomplete or wrong beliefs with either. I don't presume to perfectly understand either, despite many years as a Christian, and many years studying science/engineering. Someday, the "why" and "how" questions will be answered and we'll see how it all fits together!

It's like the old/young Earth thing....
I believe we are self-centered as people to limit God to OUR understanding of a "Day" being a 24-hour period, especially when the sun wasn't created until day 4. But could God have done it all in six 24-hour days? absolutely! Did he? I don't know. Does it matter? Some say yes... on both sides of the argument. "why" and "how." ... which is more important; which is your religion?

-rvb

 

[T.Lex]

Totally agree that "science" (or whatever subdiscipline) has replaced organized religion for many people and that the 2 are not mutually exclusive.

Science can be fueled by a desire to understand the universe God created. All the complexity is His glorious work. Science should be celebrated for revealing it.

 

[rvb]

Just to totally pick an incredibly small nit we can agree that "inerrant" could still be "incomplete" right?

That is, it is inerrant as to the things it mentions. But, it cannot mention EVERYTHING.

Speaking for me, not JK.... Absolutely right.
The Bible is not a scientific or history text, but it is not wrong where science and history are discussed.

-rvb

 

[2A_Tom]

I'm at pretty much the same point. I believe ET life is possible, but I don't believe it necessarily has to exist. I don't believe we've been visited.

The thing most use as Biblical evidence for us being the only intelligent life is that the Bible indicates the heavens are a sign to us that God exists and created everything (eg Psalm 19:1, or one of my personal favorites, Psalm 8:3-4... been thinking of getting an inscription made for my telescope with that on it). The argument is that the stars and heavens don't exist as a home to others, but for us.

But what WE see in the sky (naked eye) is a very very tiny slice of our galaxy, let alone the universe as a whole. When you look up and see the stars at night, all you are seeing is our closest neighboring stars. God may have put those in place, with recognizable constellations, etc, for a reason. They may remind us he created us, reflect part of His story, be useful to us, etc. But is it feasible that in some far part of the universe beyond what we can readily see or study, or in some other time, God created others in his image? Something to ponder.... what if in some distant galaxy, there are children of God that chose NOT to fall to the temptation of eating the forbidden fruit (or whatever their equivalent might be).

I also think our inability to grasp these ancient structures and building feats is really an indictment of us... our reliance on documented techniques and computers, etc. I think it's easy to underestimate ancient men, and what they could accomplish with time, large labor pools, and ingenuity.

-rvb

Me thinks ye may have perused Lewis's Space Trilogy.

 

[JettaKnight]

Just to totally pick an incredibly small nit we can agree that "inerrant" could still be "incomplete" right?

That is, it is inerrant as to the things it mentions. But, it cannot mention EVERYTHING.

And along those same lines - and this may be where we part philosophically - just as scientific insight has changed over time, I think insight into the Word can change, while staying consistently inerrant.

The Word of God is complete for it's purpose. Furthermore, one cannot simply know God the Word of God alone without pondering the Works of God.


In other words, I agree with you on both points.

 

[T.Lex]

The Word of God is complete for it's purpose. Furthermore, one cannot simply know God the Word of God alone without pondering the Works of God.


In other words, I agree with you on both points.

Well this suddenly got more boring.

 

[JettaKnight]

The interesting twist is throughout much of history, science was rejected because it conflicted with an understanding from religious teachings. Now, religion is rejected because it conflicts with a scientific theory. Science is the new mainstream religion, despite scientific understanding constantly changing (er, evolving...).

I believe that religion and science exist perfectly together. they are the "why" and "how." Where we always fall on our face is when we hold as absolutes the incomplete or wrong beliefs with either. I don't presume to perfectly understand either, despite many years as a Christian, and many years studying science/engineering. Someday, the "why" and "how" questions will be answered and we'll see how it all fits together!

It's like the old/young Earth thing....
I believe we are self-centered as people to limit God to OUR understanding of a "Day" being a 24-hour period, especially when the sun wasn't created until day 4. But could God have done it all in six 24-hour days? absolutely! Did he? I don't know. Does it matter? Some say yes... on both sides of the argument. "why" and "how." ... which is more important; which is your religion?

-rvb

I used to struggle with all sorts of the same questions. I used to dread studying creation because it made no sense. I just couldn't square it away. Gap theory, days / years... it was all a hot mess of jury rigged theories to try and make sense of a "literal" interpretation.

So I just took a young earth view, but then the observations of the works of God didn't match the word of God. I look into the heavens and I see "old and slow", but I look to the Bible and I see, "quick & young".

Then I read The Lost World of Genesis One by John Walton. It explains the Framework Theory - the concept that the "days" aren't periods at all, but way to group things and explain their importance in creation. Once lifted from the shackle of seeing Genesis as a how-to timeline, it becomes so elegant and rich.




That said, I'm not completely sold; there's still the sticky wicket of the garden of Eden and how sin entered the world... but that's for another time.

 

[JettaKnight]

Well this suddenly got more boring.

Mary wasn't always a virgin and she was never sinless and died like (almost) everyone else!

 

[T.Lex]

Mary wasn't always a virgin and she was never sinless and died like (almost) everyone else!

Ah, there's the INGO that I know.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

I used to struggle with all sorts of the same questions. I used to dread studying creation because it made no sense. I just couldn't square it away. Gap theory, days / years... it was all a hot mess of jury rigged theories to try and make sense of a "literal" interpretation.

So I just took a young earth view, but then the observations of the works of God didn't match the word of God. I look into the heavens and I see "old and slow", but I look to the Bible and I see, "quick & young".

Then I read The Lost World of Genesis One by John Walton. It explains the Framework Theory - the concept that the "days" aren't periods at all, but way to group things and explain their importance in creation. Once lifted from the shackle of seeing Genesis as a how-to timeline, it becomes so elegant and rich.




That said, I'm not completely sold; there's still the sticky wicket of the garden of Eden and how sin entered the world... but that's for another time.

My thought is, God created the earth like he created Adam: fully mature. If you looked at Adam you would think, grown man, even though he was only one day “old”. At least in my mind, young earth doesn’t contradict processes that theoretically can take thousands or millions of years. Scientists talk about stars that are so far away that it takes the light a million years to reach earth. I’m fine with that. The universe wasn’t created at 0. It was created, like Adam and the animals, fully mature and functioning.

 

[2A_Tom]

I used to struggle with all sorts of the same questions. I used to dread studying creation because it made no sense. I just couldn't square it away. Gap theory, days / years... it was all a hot mess of jury rigged theories to try and make sense of a "literal" interpretation.

So I just took a young earth view, but then the observations of the works of God didn't match the word of God. I look into the heavens and I see "old and slow", but I look to the Bible and I see, "quick & young".

Then I read The Lost World of Genesis One by John Walton. It explains the Framework Theory - the concept that the "days" aren't periods at all, but way to group things and explain their importance in creation. Once lifted from the shackle of seeing Genesis as a how-to timeline, it becomes so elegant and rich.




That said, I'm not completely sold; there's still the sticky wicket of the garden of Eden and how sin entered the world... but that's for another time.

I am an ignorant young earther. May I offer that if G-d could create Adam as a fully developed adult male and he could form Eve as a fully developed adult female, he could create the things that we see as relatively old.

I mean, HE IS G-D!