From Catholic Answers:
-
Navaros — 9 years ago(November 27, 2016 05:38 PM)
An explanation that explains everything, explains nothing.
Wow, this is probably the first time ever that I sort-of agree with graham about anything! LOL
The explanation in the OP is indeed useless. It asserts that one can just tack on a "God did it" caveat as an afterthought in front of any evil belief system, and then once that is done, anyone can do whatever they want and God will suddenly become A-OK with all of it.
That explanation is antithetical to everything God stands for. Contrary to what the explanation in the OP implies, God requires
much more
from man than just to pay him the empty lip service of saying, "You did it."
"Science creates fictions to explain facts" Gilman -
knight-in-black-leather — 9 years ago(November 27, 2016 08:58 PM)
The explanation in the OP is indeed useless. It asserts that one can just tack on a "God did it" caveat as an afterthought in front of any evil belief system, and then once that is done, anyone can do whatever they want and God will suddenly become A-OK with all of it.
That explanation is antithetical to everything God stands for. Contrary to what the explanation in the OP implies, God requires much more from man than just to pay him the empty lip service of saying, "You did it."
I think you missed the point of my OP, Nav. The article's argument is that God is the original and ultimate creator. For example, though we understand how rain happens, that doesn't explain how the physical laws that govern it came to be. Without the universe and physical laws, rain wouldn't exist, so ultimately, God is the creator of rain.
Take care and God bless
This is a faithful sayingJesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. -
Navaros — 9 years ago(November 27, 2016 10:06 PM)
The article's argument is that God is the original and ultimate creator
That may be
part
of the argument, but that statement does not cover
the entirety
of the article. That is what
you've
missed, KiBL.
That article is
heavily laced
with pro-darwinism connotations to the effect that I've described in my previous posts in this thread, and which I will again reiterate in this very post.
though we understand how rain happens, that doesn't explain how the physical laws that govern it came to be. Without the universe and physical laws, rain wouldn't exist, so ultimately, God is the creator of rain.
Sure KiBL, I don't dispute that
but
my point is that the article
goes beyond just saying that
.
To wit, that article is implicitly endorsing all of darwinists' false claims as true, and telling darwinists to slap a "God did it" caveat in front of their false claims, and then all will be well, everything will be right with God, and everyone will go to Heaven.
By the same token, that article is also implicitly encouraging Christians to accept darwinists' false claims, again with the caveat that doing so is fine as long as the the caveat "God did it" is slapped in front of them. It is telling Christians that when darwinists make claims that contradict God & the Bible, to go ahead right ahead and accept darwinists' claims over God's.
God, however, disagrees with those evil messages. Hence, my posts come to this thread to articulate God's opposition.
Take care and God Bless too, KiBL.
"Science creates fictions to explain facts" Gilman -
mamu2 — 9 years ago(November 28, 2016 06:18 AM)
For example, though we understand how rain happens,
The authors of the Bible didn't seem to understand how rain happens like we do today though
Genesis 1:6-8 "And God said, Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water. So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. God called the vault sky. And there was evening, and there was morningthe second day"
Not to mention all the instances where God personally sends or withholds rain in the Bible on a whim.
So, if they were wrong about that, why couldn't they be wrong about more than that? -
Navaros — 9 years ago(November 27, 2016 02:21 PM)
From the tone of that piece quoted in the OP, the author sounds as if he is a darwinist who is trying to tack God on in front of his beliefs in darwinism. And he is doing that in order to become approved in the eyes of men, rather than being unashamed of and standing up for the Bible, in which case other men would hate him just like they hated Jesus and just like they hate all true Christians.
An article written by a real Christian would not do that.
Rather, an article written by a real Christian would affirm the truth that God's Word stands, and when the so-called "science" of man contradicts, that is because the science of man is
wrong.
That's the
real
defense of God and the Bible.
That article KiBL quoted is
a defense of apostasy
which pretends as if calling God and the Bible liars in order not to offend Satan and ungodly men is the right thing to do.
"Science creates fictions to explain facts" Gilman -
Rumble_McSkirmish — 9 years ago(November 27, 2016 03:18 PM)
Rather, an article written by a real Christian would affirm the truth that God's Word stands, and when the so-called "science" of man contradicts, that is because the science of man is wrong. That's the real defense of God and the Bible.
Ahahahaha, you beep moron. This is the same thought pattern that landed us the dark ages. The more we don't allow god's "wisdom" to lead society the more advanced the world becomes. I for one enjoy knowing that i don't have to worry about dying from simple diseases because evolution conflicts with god's word.
Panzer vor! -
jmarkoff2 — 9 years ago(November 28, 2016 10:55 AM)
Christians also have to deal with the fact that when a scientific discovery disproves something of theirs, they can't (if they want to stay intellectually honest) simply cast it aside and only acknowledge the convenient bits of science. (A lot of Christians do this, but at this moment it ceases to be science.) There is an attempted defense I have oft seen, where Christians will then claim that problematic Bible passages were written as metaphor, while convenient Bible passages are literal truth. This is by definition unscientific, as science is about following ALL evidence wherever it leads, not picking-and-choosing bits that are convenient to a preconceived notion.
-
marty-130-840283 — 9 years ago(November 29, 2016 05:53 AM)
You don't know something, so you invent something.
no, we dont invent something. We listen to what the Bible says.
Christians also have to deal with the fact that when a scientific discovery disproves something of theirs, they can't (if they want to stay intellectually honest) simply cast it aside and only acknowledge the convenient bits of science.
name 1 thing, where science has disproved God, or the Bible.
im waiting -
Winter_King — 9 years ago(November 29, 2016 06:52 AM)
no, we dont invent something. We listen to what the Bible says.
Yes, you listen to what other man invented to explain what they didn't know.
Wouldst thou like the taste of butter? A pretty dress? Wouldst thou like to live deliciously?