It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Science vs Christianity

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove
It is not enough to say that Jesus died for the sins of the world so we are all forgiven, no worries.

Why not? That's what God says. Is God mistaken, somehow?

Repentance is needed to be forgiven.


Repentance and forgiveness are two different things and neither one is bound by the other. I may be sorry for a wrong I did to you--but that doesn't mean you have to forgive me--it is your choice. Or perhaps I did you wrong and am not sorry at all--you can still choose to forgive me anyway--or not.

In the bible repentance is about being sorry but also about turning back to God--something God repeatedly suggested that the children of Israel should do.

It is one thing to 'apologize' and another thing altogether to 'repent.' Just being contrite does not mean a person changes anything--but to repent is to be so contrite that a change of ways comes about.


One needs to be sorry for the wrongs they have done and then to ask God for forgiveness.

If God's forgiveness was dependent upon contrite application, then Jesus would have been a carpenter and retired in His old age. And Esau would have regained his birthright.

God doesn't need our consent to do anything--especially something that is for our benefit.


What can we say, then? God is not unrighteous, is he?
Of course not! For he says to Moses,
"I will be merciful to the person I want to be merciful to, and I will be kind to the person I want to be kind to."
Therefore, God's choice does not depend on a person's will or effort,
but on God himself, who shows mercy.
~Romans 9:14-16



I'm sorry to be the fly in the ointment but all the people of the world are not God's children. They are God's creatures but not all are His children. Some are the children of the Devil.

That has nothing to do with forgiveness.

'...so that you will become children of your Father in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and the good, and he lets rain fall on the righteous and the unrighteous.'

"Look, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!'


For the creation is eagerly waiting for God to reveal his children,
because the creation was subjected to frustration,
though not by its own choice.
The one who subjected it did so in the hope
that the creation itself would also be set free
from slavery to decay in order to share the
glorious freedom of God's children.
~Romans 8:19-21




posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 12:17 AM
link   


That only exists in the mind of someone who is trying to prove God doesn't exist.


HA! That is the most blatant BS I've ever seen you post. You've obvsiouly havn't spent much time in the Creationism forum(or read the original post as he is the one asking the S vs C question not me or one of my Atheistic bretherin)
The name Evolution Cruncher mean anything to you? There are people on boths sides of the coin working tirelessly to discredit the other side. Good thing most people just ignores this whole frivolous process.



posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Posted by Queenannie38:

Repentance and forgiveness are two different things and neither one is bound by the other. I may be sorry for a wrong I did to you--but that doesn't mean you have to forgive me--it is your choice. Or perhaps I did you wrong and am not sorry at all--you can still choose to forgive me anyway--or not.

In the bible repentance is about being sorry but also about turning back to God--something God repeatedly suggested that the children of Israel should do.

It is one thing to 'apologize' and another thing altogether to 'repent.' Just being contrite does not mean a person changes anything--but to repent is to be so contrite that a change of ways comes about.
_______________________________

We may not be in much disagreement that much but I am not sure. I believe that true repentance comes from confessing to God your sin and asking Him to forgive you. If you are trying to say that there are "many" ways to God and that repentance is not needed since God just simply forgives the world without the need to actually tell God you are a sinner in need of a Savior, I believe this belief is error. Explain, if you will, how you believe you become saved in Christ.
________________________________

Lev 5:5 And it shall be when he is guilty in one of these, he shall confess that in which he has sinned.
Lev 5:6 And he shall bring his trespass offering to Jehovah for his sin which he has sinned, a female from the flock, a lamb or a doe of the goats, for a sin offering. And the priest shall make an atonement for him for his sin.

Luk 11:1 And it happened as He was praying in a certain place, when He ceased, one of His disciples said to Him, Lord teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples.
Luk 11:2 And He said to them: When you pray, say, Our Father who is in Heaven, hallowed be Your name, let Your kingdom come, let Your will be done on earth as it also is in Heaven.
Luk 11:3 Give us our needed bread day by day;
Luk 11:4 and forgive us our sins, for we ourselves also forgive everyone indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil.

Mat 6:12 and forgive us our debts as we also forgive our debtors.
Mat 6:13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil. For Yours is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen.

Mat 6:14 For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you;
Mat 6:15 but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.


Fromabove



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove
I believe that true repentance comes from confessing to God your sin and asking Him to forgive you.

Repent, verb:
  1. To feel remorse, contrition, or self-reproach for what one has done or failed to do; be contrite.
  2. To feel such regret for past conduct as to change one's mind regarding it: repented of intemperate behavior.
  3. To make a change for the better as a result of remorse or contrition for one's sins.


If I confess to God, and seek to be forgiven, then it would be necessary for me to have come to some sort of feeling of regret or contrition--before confessing. How can that confession lead to regretting the thing which I have confessed--when it is the regret which leads to the confession?


If you are trying to say that there are "many" ways to God and that repentance is not needed

No, what I am trying to say is that disregarding the actual definitions and relative semantics in favor of the commonly accepted christian rhetoric is basically giving consent to be misled.

As far as repentance, itself--it is very important. But it is not 'the way to God.'


since God just simply forgives the world without the need to actually tell God you are a sinner in need of a Savior,

Well, I certainly would think God would already know such a thing--and if I know it, then He knows I know--because He knows my heart. If we had no need for rescue, then no Savior would have been sent.


Explain, if you will, how you believe you become saved in Christ.

Did you mean to ask:
'how did I come to believe in salvation?'
or
'what led me to the conclusion I was saved?'
or
'how did salvation come through Christ?'


Lev 5:5 And it shall be when he is guilty in one of these, he shall confess that in which he has sinned.
Lev 5:6 And he shall bring his trespass offering to Jehovah for his sin which he has sinned, a female from the flock, a lamb or a doe of the goats, for a sin offering. And the priest shall make an atonement for him for his sin.


What has Leviticus to do with this? What does Mosaic law have to do with the new covenant?

I'm also not clear on what you are demonstrating by citing 'the LORD's prayer?' As far as the topic of salvation, repentance, and forgiveness, that is.

Just citing passages which contain the words in question is a meaningless activity--if they are relevant, an explanation would seem in order. Otherwise,




Besides all that--what does repentance have to do with science?
We are derailing the thread with this little joust--if we continue this, we really ought to start another thread...



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 11:16 AM
link   
I don't mean to sound confusing, but what I wanted to know is what you believe the way is for a person to become saved in Christ. I understand it this way. Conviction of sin by God in the heart, remorse, desire to change to turn wholly to God, Repentance(the verb) by admitting to God of sin and asking forgiveness from sin and an acceptance of Jesus as Lord and savior through faith in His sacrifice for us.

I only cited the scriptures to show that confession or admittance of sin is a neccesary step in repentance. To receive forgivness one needs to ask for it and not assume it. I just wanted to know your thoughts on how a person becomes a Christian saved in Christ. What must a person do to be saved. That's why I wasn't sure that we were so far off from each other or not. I appreciate your comments.

Fromabove



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by zoso28
I suppose what i am looking for here is members opinions of how science and the bible co-exist, if indeed they can.


The Holy Trinity . ...

hmm, but the whole is three.

Electrons, protons, neutrons. (Chemistry)

The id, ego, and super ego (psychology)

Subconscious, conscious, Super Ego (para-psychology)

Electro-magnatism, electricity, light (physics)

Local government, State government, and Federal government (Social science)

Judicial branch, Executive branch, ....... .. . . .

Third rock from the sun . .. . . (astronomy)

And interestingly enough our galaxy is one in a small cluster of galaxies that make a cluster of 7 galaxies, with the nearest other galaxy being a great distance further than that of the 7 we are with (7 candle sticks???)

science does not discredit God all the time, depends on the state of mind i guess. But obviously there must be truth throughout the whole of it, or we would not be hanging on to such esoteric knowledge.



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove
I just wanted to know your thoughts on how a person becomes a Christian saved in Christ. What must a person do to be saved. That's why I wasn't sure that we were so far off from each other or not. I appreciate your comments.

Fromabove


I thought that was what you meant--and I also truly do appreciate your comments and would like to continue this discussion. As I said, though--I feel we have derailed this thread and so I'm going to start another one so we can go on with this. I'll U2U with the link.



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove
If you are trying to say that there are "many" ways to God and that repentance is not needed since God just simply forgives the world without the need to actually tell God you are a sinner in need of a Savior, I believe this belief is error.


why would a divine creator make a city with only one road to the center?
---me, at this very moment

it is a good to discuss the paths to god, but shouldn't this be put in the BTS faith forum?



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 06:38 PM
link   
The thread I said I would start is here



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 10:28 PM
link   
Science and religion are completely compatible. Religion explains the why, science explains the how. Think of science as God's fingerprint.

As to the evolution debate, there are tons of resources right here on ATS on that very subject, though some of them are buried in seemingly unrelated threads. If you'd like, you could U2U me and I'll send you several links to threads or posts talking about this.

Short story, evolution can work with the Genesis account. The Hebrew word "tom", used in Genesis and translated generally as "day" in the first chapter, also means age. You may see someone talk about the day-age controversy or theory; this is what they're talking about. There is a strong case for both the day and the age interpretation. Personally, I lean towards the "age" translation.

What really is interesting is that Genesis follows the mold modern geology has established for Earth's creation. The only question is the seeming dichotomy of day 1 and day 4. In day 1, God created light and dark, but in day 4 he created the sun, stars and moon. This was after the Earth was created, as was its atmosphere. Big problem there with religion and science, right?

Not necessarily. The Hebrew grammar in the fourth day is different than any other day. The way the words are put together insinuates that God didn't create the sun, stars and moon on day 4, but rather he made them visible. This works out with the geologic life cycle of Earth, as it is theorized that in the initial stages of Earth's development, the atmosphere was opaque. It wasn't until the volcanic activity subsided that the sun, moon and stars were visible from the surface of the earth, though the light and darkness was still visible.

Personally, every little bit of science I learn only reinforces my faith. I was actually at the Field Museum in Chicago today and was going through the nature exhibit with a friend. We were looking at the variations of sparrows in Madagascar, and I shook my head in wonder. "...And Darwin was able to look at this and see evidence of no God," I wondered aloud.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 04:24 PM
link   
i wasn't aware that darwin simply stated that there was no god, could i see where you got this idea from?

other questions:
could the process known as evolution been set in motion after a biblical creation?
exactly how old do you view the earth as being jj/other christians who believe in creation science?
and how should we reconcile the mention of earth bound plants coming before sea animals?



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
other questions:
could the process known as evolution been set in motion after a biblical creation?


Some Christians believe that's what is meant by man being created from the dust of the earth and eve being from Adam's rib as a description of the process. Others don't.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
exactly how old do you view the earth as being jj/other christians who believe in creation science?


I don't know. Nor do scientists know. Nor do I believe the Bible lays out a clear timeline of how old the earth is.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
and how should we reconcile the mention of earth bound plants coming before sea animals?


It makes ecological sense for plants to come before animals.

[edit on 4-1-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
exactly how old do you view the earth as being jj/other christians who believe in creation science?


I don't know. Nor do scientists know. Nor do I believe the Bible lays out a clear timeline of how old the earth is.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
and how should we reconcile the mention of earth bound plants coming before sea animals?


It makes ecological sense for plants to come before animals.



scientists may not have an exact date or time, but geologists have a pretty good idea of how old the earth is (not giving a date because i'm not a geologist).

it makes sense for plants to come first in any ecosystem, but for plants to be earthbound before there were sea creatures? that would mean plants came to be rooted in solid ground at least several million years earlier than was previously accepted.



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 04:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
trying to put to make the bible and science agree perfectly is going the wrong way. though i'm personally not a christian, the christians i know say that they find the hand of god in science. you must realize that the bible is a book of spirituality and faith, and science is a parallel (sp?) force to religion.


Science and God are parallel lines that keep revolving around the same sphere. I call that sphere life, some people call it planet earth with life on it. The only problem is when these parallel lines cross.

They're no longer parallel. The finite is trying to cross the infinite path. Perhaps they should stay parallel in order to keep revolving.




posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 06:03 AM
link   
madnessinmysoul, that's because the assumption is that life began on Earth during a global flood, when all land on Earth was covered by water. If you want to know where the Christian ID argument is coming from, I encourage you to look into Paul Nelson.

While I disagree with Nelson on many of his points, I, like you and most other people on this site have only a surface knowledge of the evolution/creation debate. I say surface because we are armchair scientists, where as those who are qualified to engage in this debate have about 12 years of education in biology or geology or astrophysics and then years more of research and experience in the field. We simply read their dumbed down explanation that is typically dumbed down even more by the publication giving the information.

Paul Nelson will give you an idea where hardline creationists stand, and what their evidence is (again, dumbed down) for supporting such a concept. While Paul Nelson is a philosopher of biology, he does have extensive education and knowledge in both philosophy and biology.

After all, in order to best present your argument against a belief, you have to know the arguments for that belief so as to refute them.

Another place to look into the scientific argument, from a non-philosophical viewpoint, check out the Institute For Creation Research. Yes, the source is biased, but they still raise points and questions that should be addressed.



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher

science does not discredit God all the time, depends on the state of mind i guess. But obviously there must be truth throughout the whole of it, or we would not be hanging on to such esoteric knowledge.



Well, in regards to pure Scientific Methodology it does not try to discredit God, so much as it assesses the possibility/compatability/feasibility within the existing network of working predictor models and theories. As for "esoteric knowledge", I am thinking that we humans will have it as long as we have mysteries.

LCKob

[edit on 5-1-2006 by LCKob]



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Actually, I dont think science discredits ANY god, ever. UNLESS, your a bible extremist that believes everything is a fact, verbatum, and isn't to be interupted.

I mean, even with evolution, a diety could've made the evolution system so his creations could adapt to an increasingly hostile enviroment, right?


Personally, I'm a bit of a deist, so I think god just planted the seeds of life (I.e. started the universe), set things in motion to spring up life, and then moved on.



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by WolfofWar
Actually, I dont think science discredits ANY god, ever. UNLESS, your a bible extremist that believes everything is a fact, verbatum, and isn't to be interupted.

I mean, even with evolution, a diety could've made the evolution system so his creations could adapt to an increasingly hostile enviroment, right?


Personally, I'm a bit of a deist, so I think god just planted the seeds of life (I.e. started the universe), set things in motion to spring up life, and then moved on.


Just so, SM by process tries to be as "neutral" as possible in regards to hypthetical or theoretical assertions ... as for a diety "planting seeds" I have no real problem with such a model ... since, as you say, consistent natural processes were used or catalyzed in the process ... (thus maintaining? consistency and cohesiveness with working predictor models on cosmological origins and evolution ...

IMO SM and religions in general IMO have the same dilemna ... namely "how did it all really start" and the paradox of "what came before" ... the difference is that most religions embrace the mystery and defer it to a diety ... and SM in essence says "Don't really know" ... hence my stance of agnostisim with a leaning towards SM.



LCKob



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by LCKob
IMO SM and religions in general IMO have the same dilemna ... namely "how did it all really start" and the paradox of "what came before" ... the difference is that most religions embrace the mystery and defer it to a diety ... and SM in essence says "Don't really know"


Good grief, they have a name for every mode of thought we can manifest, don't they?

To me, that is the most logical and credible 'ending' of any sort of cosmological theory--I really don't know.' It gets to a certain point, and then mystery takes over.

That's just the way it is--and yet that is far more 'non-fantasy' than the crazy outlines that religious men make in order to erase the remainder of the mystery from the mind.

Making a confusing jumble of paradox in trying to validate one's theory as the theory only makes the tangle more impossible to straighten out when new information arrives. It is pointless.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join