@bsgrep That view went out of fashion about 30 years ago. Was it true, because it was in fashion, and is it now not true, because it is no longer in fashion? You decide, but if you decide that it is true, you will have to surmise that about 96% of the world's population is mentally ill. I'm afraid this is one of those snappy little slogans which is devoid of any useful meaning.
@The1hope4all You can concern yourself with the fashion aspect. As for the world's population, expectedly, the deeper you go into the third world, the more religious (mentally ill) they are. Conversely, the more intelligent a population or country, the less they believe in things that aren't true.
@bsgrep You mean the ignorant savages and the enlightened white men? This is getting worse and worse. Are you seriously suggesting that there are nations which have higher average degrees of intelligence than others? Do you really want to suggest that America (for example) is full of well balanced mentally healthy people, and that Africans are all basket cases? Are you a member of the KKK?
@The1hope4all Is it news to anyone that countries have different cultures and populations with varying degrees of intelligence? There have been around 80 studies done that demonstrate an inverse correlation between intelligence and religion (and crime/obesity/corruption/etc), from individuals up to whole countries.
No, I don't think americans are generally smart or mentally sane. No, I'm not in the KKK. Are there more dumb, retarded and insane personal questions that you want to ask?
@bsgrep Which studies? Why are half of scientists religious if dumb people are religious? Why criteria of intelligence are these studies based on? Why is church attendance higher in people with college educations and those with only highschool or less? And why are his questions dumb, retarded, or insane? How do you know God doesn't exist? If he does exist, would believing in Him still be considered a mental illness? Why do you think science doesn't require belief? Is your mind infallible?
@worldofdraculas Asking me if I'm in the KKK is a dumb, retarded and insane personal attack, and irrelevant to the subject.
For the rest you could google intelligence and religiosity (wiki has references).
It's not up to me to say why something doesn't exist. You're on the side of the people who say that a divine being exists, so the burden is on you to tell us how do you know.
The scientific method is based on demonstration, not faith. Our minds are fallible, that's the whole point!
@bsgrep I've yet to see anyone demonstrate evolution. Let's see an eye or a fish gill pop into place from a random primordial bloop from outer space. Let's see a raptor evolve into a chicken which supposedly happened a billion years ago. Evolution is hardly science because you cannot repeat it nor observe it! It's just a philosophy. So the burden is on you actually to demonstrate evolution philosophy because that's what science is according to your own words.
@ReachDavidKim The fact that you haven't is not the fault of scientists but your own (and probably your parents and school system). If you were near me (and paid for it) we could go to a lab or university so you could learn what evolution is. Eyes don't pop into place and a raptor does not evolve into a chicken. That's stupid.
@bsgrep If your mind is fallible than you do have faith, Faith in your mind. And if you believe in evolution of any kind you have no rational reason for believing that your mind is actually correct. If your mind came about through random, purposeless processes. Than how can you trust it? How are you interpreting your alleged scientific demonstration? sounds like you would need alot of faith to me....
@bsgrep Faith isn't belief without evidence of contrary to evidence. Faith is based on evidence. Since you've given me evidence that your definition of faith is malformed, then I have faith that your definition of logic is also malformed, too.
Faith is belief without evidence. If it wasn't, it would be evidence based belief and there would be no need for the word faith. So faith is by definition irrational.
@bsgrep Restating your position over again doesn't make your case stronger. Besides which, I don't have faith in something that is contrary to evidence. You're confusing (intentionally, I'm sure) that faith is the same as a delusion, but you're clearly mistaken. Perhaps if there were "proof" then we wouldn't need the word "faith", but proof doesn't necessarily follow from evidence alone.
@empreme Proof is for mathematics and mathematics alone. This is about rationality. If a belief is based on evidence, it is rational. If not, it is faith and irrational by definition.
Rephrasing something might help get it understood. I couldnt rephrase this any simpler.
@bsgrep Yeah if a belief is based on evidence it is rational, if it based on no evidence it is rational unless there is a defeater for that position, if it is contrary to evidence it is irrational. Faith can fit into any of those categories. You're very narrow minded and, frankly, it's difficult to have a discussion with you. There is no connection from faith to delusion unless it is in that final category. You seem to have confused many of your terms.
@bsgrep We have defeaters for all those positions. Therefore to hold them is irrational. What a silly objection. You can't defend that faith is only irrational. By the way, you have faith that the external world is real, you have faith that there are other minds, the special theory of relativity is hinged on the faith that the speed of light is constant in a one way direction between any two points A and B. Never said I was religious, btw.
@beethovensheir1234 Logic is a system for inference and reason. Faith is belief without evidence.
I'm sorry about 'my commitment to logic'. There is nothing that can be done with this, except underline it. I suppose you don't notice when your intellect self destructs.
@The1hope4all The Nazi or Communist party would be a better fit for him. He's probably an admirer of Nietzsche. Which is ironic, since Nietzsche died a lunatic.
All have sinned and greatly offended the holy God of the bible. The just punishment is death then hell. That's not Gods will. He suffered and died on the cross paying for the law you broke in His life's blood so He could legally dismiss your case. You must repent turn from your sin and trust alone in Jesus Christ for your salvation.
Believing evolution is almost impossible for a Christian in my opinion because, aside from it being a fairy tale, it has a bad effect one one's theology. What is a sin if we evolved? That being said, sin did not come in the world by evolution but by Adam choosing to disobey God. If evolution is true then who is to day that the devil waited until "humans" were advanced enough to "think outside the box". IMO, implications of evolution are blasphemous.
@BritneyAddicted4EVA Evolution is NOT a fairy tale. The evidence is overwhelming, from genetics, physiology, biology, embryology, every single one of the biological sciences fits with evolution, and not with god designing everything and creating it all within 6 days, then flooding the earth after a while thus killing off nearly all of them and starting again.
One thought to consider in determining your standpoint on the matter, will we ever be able to distinguish either theory evolution/big bang or a creator or was the universe/life created in such fashion that mathematics and science cannot prove or disprove either. Thus brilliantly leaving the created universe with an inconclusive origin that requires faith or science to attempt to grasp the magnitude of its majesty.
@CommitToFocus Thanks. That makes sense. I was considering the earth as the system, but very true that that is an incorrect assumption. And correct, evolution is not a theory that is related to some of my questions. My main point was that there are many questions that still need to be answered.
@SeedsOfHatred If you have an answer to one of those questions I'd love to hear it. I'm looking for answers. Right now evolution does not answer those questions. I'm not saying it isn't true. I'm saying they both take an element of faith.
@MrBenbenbenbenny the law of entropy applies to closed systems, and is only a statement about the total entropy of the system. In the case of the earth, the system includes minimally, the earth, sun and moon. Consider the enormous increase in entropy of the sun as it convert its fuel. Some of that entropy results in pockets of order (decreasing entropy) elsewhere in the system (life on earth) but the total entropy of the system increases.
@MrBenbenbenbenny also, evolution would not provide an answer to the issue of entropy. Evolution only describes the process of differentiating species.
@CommitToFocus Actually, evolution RELIES on entropy, as if each succeeding generation was a genetically exact copy of the previous generation, then it could not evolve, whereas with evolution, the mutations that give advantages will succeed, and these mutations will be propagated by the descendents of these successful individuals.
Evolution requires a leap of faith to believe as well. There are many flaws in it. To name a few... It doesn't follow the law of entropy. How did flight arise when hollow bone structures were needed? How did independent single cell organisms change to more complex and dependent beings? Or even the biggest question, looking at the Big Bang theory, what explains the existence of the infinitely small dense universe? Naturalism takes as much or more faith to believe in than a divine creator.
He is starting to get it. The church knew from the start that the bible was destined to implode if the masses got to read it, that is why they fought to hard to keep it locked up in the past.
The only reason the first cannon was developed was to counteract someone who was attempting to assemble his own cannon outside the influence of the church.
Unfortunately for him, evolution is an undeniable fact.
@buppus Read Luke 3 and see the genealogy of Jesus back tomAdam .....this could NOT been over billions of years. Adam was made the sixth day ....it's a young world! See Paul Ackermans book. It's a Young World After All.
I believe that God created this world. I believe that God created human beings. I know that God loves us dearly. I do not know how God did what He did, but I know he did it. Instead of focusing on the hows, shouldn't we rather thank our Lord for doing what He did? We human beings are too knowledge hungry, we have to know what is what or we cant sleep. God is our Shepard, and we are the sheep. Let's just follow what the Lord tells us and love Him.
John, what do you do about the evidence of evolution? And he would say sth like "who cares about evidence? Faith does not require evidence by definition. Faith is blindly following what an old book tell you and what I tell you. Physical evidence are not true evidence."
Evolution is science based on evidence, based on reality, based on what is.
There you have it, folks. John Piper believes that homo sapiens were specially created by god.
Perhaps his god created us as mammals belonging to the ape family in order to trick scientists into believing in common descent? Or just maybe Piper is wrong to put so much stock in the writings of ignorant bronze age tribesmen?
@inf0dump Your comment is entirely an argument against religion not the issue of the video. You should have said what I was about to comment which was, If Adam came from dust why couldn't he have come from an ancestor of us and monkeys? Which is more insulting dirt or monkeys.
@inf0dump Your thoughts, ideas, speech and writing are the accidental by-products of entirely random, meaningless and co-incidental evolutionary processes. This, combined with the fact that the Universe displays no order or signs of design whatsoever, render your words as being entirely without meaning. (Whatever that is.)
@The1hope4all Evolutionary processes are not "entirely random" - they are guided by natural selection. This has been understood for over 150 years, and the data supporting it just keeps piling up. For even longer, we've known that humans are a type of animal belonging to the ape family. Our natural origins are THOROUGHLY understood - no magic required. To claim that we were specially created by a god is to plug your ears and go "la la la" in the face of all the evidence to the contrary.
What I mean by "not entirely random" is that natural selection is a non-random force. It is not just any random organism that survives. Rather, the organisms most suited for survival & reproduction are more likely to survive. That means it's not random, but directional. The fact that all organisms pass on their traits to new generations means that this natural force builds new traits over time. ~3.8 bil.yrs of this natural process gives us all the diversity of life we see on this planet today.
@inf0dump You mean, a fixed scientific, physical law is being obeyed, right? Does that not apply to all physical laws, gravity, speed, motion etc.... Is there a distinction between random and non-random forces? If natural selection is an example of a non-random force, what would be an example of a random force?
@The1hope4all Well, evolution also has random aspects to it. For example, genetic mutations occur more or less randomly. Some of these mutations are detrimental, some are beneficial (most are neither). Natural selection works with these random mutations by filtering away the detrimental ones and preserving the beneficial ones, simply because the organisms with harmful mutations die.
@inf0dump Sorry, I'm still not quite with you. Weak or diseased organisms dying is surely a natural fixed law being "obeyed" just like unsupported objects always falling. Why is this any more random than the rest of the evolutionary process? You seem to be saying that evolution is non-random, except mutations which are random. Natural selection isn't an intelligent force, is it? It's just another way of saying that weak organisms don't survive.
@The1hope4all NP - I might not be explaining it very well. Yes, everything follows various laws, which in the scientific sense are just descriptions of how the universe behaves. Genetic mutations are random in the sense that we can't predict which genes will mutate - at least that's my understanding. Natural selection isn't an intelligent force - it's more like a filter that preserves those mutations which help the organism adapt to its environment. Its effect is cumulative over the generations.
The point I have attempted to make, quite poorly it would seem, is that science and theology both share (1) axiomatic truth that is assumed and unprovable, (2) logic and (3) interactions with the natural world.
@theearstohear actually, there is no axiomatic assumed and unprovable truths in science, anything that is not testable is relegated to hypotheses, like string theory, which is untestable with current technology.
@dangerouslytalented - Science is based on mathematics and logic both of which are accepted axiomatically. Most scientists do not even realize this truth since all of their work takes place "downstream" from this axiomatic presupposition. Your assertion is a perfect example - "anything that is not testable" - this is something in the realm of science proper, not the upstream axiomatic underpinnings of science. Search these things out - you may be surprised to discover they are true.
@theearstohear Actually, the test for the veracity of the mathematics and logic is that, when put to the test, they produce verifiable results. 2+2=4. You can test that easily, and because this is always so consistant, you can use that for any application.
Such testable results are NOT found within the bible.
@theearstohear No, that is why you use real world situations to prove it. You can use real world situations to prove the mathematics, particularly in engineering, where you can see the real world effects of even very minor changes in mathematical formulae.
@dangerouslytalented - Real world situations can never PROVE anything but they can substantiate usable portions of a hypothesis. This is because it is impossible to make all observations.
@theearstohear That is where falsifiability comes in, When you can set up a test that DISPROVES a hypothesis, you can pretty much throw that hypothesis out the window. And if that test does not disprove a hypothesis, and there is no other explanation, then that hypothesis becomes scientific theory, which is tested more and more, until it is scientifically proven.
@dangerouslytalented - That's not entirely true. There is much about Newtonian physics that has been disproven but the model still works in a number of instances. The same is true of Einstein's relativity. What constituted proof in Newton's day has been shown to be incomplete observation in our day. Moreover, Newton and Einstein were both working with math and logic as unproven axioms.
@dangerouslytalented - So no biblical truths can be substantiated by observation? The bible establishes the existence of evil. We also observe it. All truth is presuppositional.
@theearstohear except that what is considered evil? Wiping out entire cities, when done by men, as in the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Blitz, is considered quite evil, but when god does it, like with Sodom and Gomorrah, why is that not considered evil?
@dangerouslytalented - Irrespective of definition anyone who experimentally affirms the presence of evil does so through observation. God destroying cities is not evil because God is sovereign (Ps 115:3) and not evil (I John 1:5). I am willing to admit that I accept these truths because I accept the bible axiomatically - just as the scientist accepts logic and math axiomatically.
When Cristianity started only few people believed in it. So now Pastafarianism starts and only few people believe in it. In the future Pastafarianism will overcome Christianity. I love you FSM so much!!
Carbon dating is totally unreliable, so why do people debate how many thousands, or tens of thousands or millions or bazillions of years ago something happened? Anyone who puts their faith in science over God, has more faith than me. When Christians start reducing the truth of scripture to allegory and metaphor, we risk watering the message down so that you may as well believe anything you want. There is only one truth...we just don't have all the details yet.
This whole discussion misses the point. It's a mistake to think that the writers of Genesis 1-2 had any idea of the actual scientific structure of the universe. It is apparent that they took the ancient cosmology with which they were familiar, and used that ancient understanding of their world to communicate the truth about God. It's poetic and mythic literature - what's important is the theological meaning (God as loving creator, human beings as his image bearers and stewards of creation).
@buppus ....that's stupid.......these ancient writers wrote the Bible under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit who was there and actually formed the earth. No one else was there.......just God. Genesis is His account to us of what He did. Believe it!!.......the Bible is for your good. You dismiss it at your own peril. If you do dismiss it there will come a day that you will regret doing so. Acts 17:30,31 Phil 2:9-11.
@willpower242 Everything you have said is true, it was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the Bible is there for our good, and I believe it too. I don't believe, however, that the Bible was meant by God to be a science book, but I think he had other purposes in mind. There are things in the Bible which simply have to be allegorical or metaphorical, such as the "Four corners of the earth" and the "Stars falling to earth, for example.
@willpower242 I agree wholeheartedly that it is God's revelatory truth, and by mythic I don't mean false - I mean a story that orients and gives meaning to life. But when you make the mistake of thinking the passage is intending to give us a play-by-play description, as if reviewing camera footage of the event, you actually derail the real significance and intended meaning of the story. The only reason this is even an issue is because of the fundamentalist/modernist controversy a century ago.
@buppus - You claim, "it is apparent that they took the ancient cosmology with which they were familar and used that ancient understanding of their world to communicate truth about God." But the bible says that "no prophecy of scripture is of any private interpretation" and that "Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (I Peter 1:20-21) It follows that your accusation of 'ancient understanding' is not leveled at the ancient writers - it's leveled at God.
Read through Gen 1 right now, and look where it talks about a "dome in the midst of the waters" - that was the ancient understanding, which we know now is incorrect. Then read Gen 2.. guess what... the order of creation is different, (human beings are made first, rather than last). If it's meant to be taken literally, then which one is right, and which one is wrong? It's not meant to be taken literally, because it's not doing science, it's doing theology.
@theearstohear - 1) the "science" of the ancient world regarding their understanding of the structure of the world is much different than the modern understanding, and because of that, 2) the story doesn't even make sense if you try to read it as if the author did know about the properties of space, the spherical shape of the world, and the inner workings of our solar system.
@theearstohear - there is no "accusation," I'm simply trying to point out that when you try to argue for a young earth/6 day creation, you're skipping past what the Bible actually means to say (the world is God's beloved creation) and making it about something which the author never intended (the world was created 6 thousand years ago, in 6 days), because
@buppus - If the point of Genesis 1 and 2 is to say "the word is God's beloved creation" then it wasted a lot of words imparting that message. Until you understand that theology is the study of God, God is omnipotent and sovereign and thus science is subservient to theology, you will be forever trapped trying to reconcile the virgin birth of Christ with a well established science that utterly refutes this position. The bible is superior to science.
@theearstohear - Theology can also use science, and many great theologians in fact do. Check out Alister McGrath for starters - this is a great 3 min clip: FNp0tYWR7XY
And for more on Genesis, here's the former Anglican Bishop of Durham in two more short pieces (this is what I was trying to say essentially): 3BP1PpDyDCw
@theearstohear - Comparing science and theology is apples and oranges, and I really don't see them in conflict the way you seem to describe them. Science is a tool that must be interpreted through a philosophy. Science doesn't refute the virgin birth, but various philosophies like darwinian naturalism and epicureanism try to conscript science in the service of refuting it
@buppus - I have not set science at odds with theology, I have said that science is subservient to theology. For example: science cannot explain creation ex nihilo since that is inherently non-scientific. Christian theology has no such difficulty since it presupposes an ever-existing creator. Science is part of creation and is thus under God's dominion. If you do not believe that science refutes the virgin birth, then why is it a miracle? That's a ridiculous statement on your part.
@theearstohear - because the fact that you define the virgin birth as a "miracle" shows how wrapped up you are in the terms of western enlightenment philosophy. You're letting the assumption that the extrapolations from empirical observation - or "natural law" is normative for the universe, and any event that doesn't follow the "laws of science" then become violations of nature, and this is how the west has come to define "miracles." Science can't touch the virgin birth.
@buppus - Defining the virgin birth as a "miracle" has nothing to do with "enlightenment philosophy" as you assert. Rather it is the straightforward testimony of the prophet Isaiah who refers to it as a "sign". (Is 7:14) A young Israelite girl getting pregnant is not a sign; a virgin being with child is.
@theearstohear - Forgive me, but I'm not seeing a point here... I say Genesis 1-3 are not intended to be read as science (literal 6-day creation), and you insist that it is scientific in that sense, but then you proceed to tell me I'm trapped in a losing battle against science???
I then demonstrate that science is neutral and it's actually the philosophy behind it which determines its interpretation, and you deny this claim with an out-of-context proof text? Your reasoning is circular at best.
There are 2 virgin births? The baby in Is7 is born in ch 8. Every scholar knows the true meaning was "young maiden." The unknown writers of Luke and Matthew, estecially Matt, attempt to create a messianic prophecy which never existed.
Are you saying YWHW raped 13yr engaged virgin,reattached her destroyed hymen.He never even asked Mary or Joe if OK? YWHW did not even have the guts to tell Joe the evil he did and sent angel. Fact is,all sun gods had virgin births.
@thedagonjones - The baby of Isaiah 7 is called Immanuel. The baby of Isaiah 8 is not. The baby of Isaiah 7 is born of a virgin. The baby of Isaiah 8 is not. When your understanding of a miracle of God is so depraved that you accuse God of rape, it is not difficult for me to affirm that you are a blasphemer. May the grace of God make you ashamed.
Is this the same Immanuel spoken in Is8:8? IT IS little man. You always look for a sign, but you will get no sign. You are rebuked. I am a man of god and will not tolerate your insubordination for a monent. Your misunderstanding of God begatting(fucking until impregnating)is treasonous.The royal sperm flowed from heaven from YWHW's testicals into the egg of the child Mary whom he raped.It wasn't with her or Joe's concent.This is immoral and very evil.You r rebuked.
Not as proud as your mom when you teach and cry about how YWHW told a many to kill and burn his second son.Gen22.Even though god instructed we are NOT to kill,Abram is applauded and is a man of BAD faith.He is wicked.God says he never commanded this bs.jer19:5,7:30,Lev20:1-5.You testify a lie against YWHW.James1 says YWHW willNOT tempt with evil.this is pure rotten evil.God knows everything and the heart.NOTEST required.
Whatever confused liar.If you had something to write,you'd know as in texting to abbrev to save space.Is this all you got?You are rebuked in the name of the sun god Jesus of Nazareth...no Bethleham as Nazareth was not build until the second century.Anyway,you are rebuked by this sun god and cursed on his sabbath sun day.Or would you rather wait until his sun solstice birth on Christmas or his death on the sun equinox with the sun god Tammuz and Easter?Which 1 fool?
@thedagonjones - You would save a lot more space if you would eliminate the vowels and consonants from your messages. So this Bethleham, is that like a Honey Baked Ham or more like smoked country ham? You are truly a dimwit.
Anyway,YWHW never did get over the wondrfl raping of Mary.He is the Great Restorer.He restored her hymen as it was totally destroyed because of YWHW's huge cock and the power of thrusting all night.
Mary always treasured this brutal,sexual assault and hid the thrill in her heart.This would help her understnd the homosxual acts of Xman Jesus such as the young lad.
Thnx my bro.The disciple whom Jesus loved also got ass fucked openly showing affection. l8<o
YWHW explicitly commands NOT to kill in Gen9.YWHW commands NOT to drink blood. As paganism cleverly advanced, it shows YWHW commanding murder of Isaac,woman and children.It then teaches to pretend to drink blood and pretend to eat human flesh.This is wicked immoral stuff.We are not to think impure thoughts.If we lust,we have committed adultry in our hearts by the thought police. But we can break YWHW's laws by pretending to drink blood. This is heathen.
@theearstohear - Science can't touch the virgin birth because it is beyond the bounds of science by definition (it's not a repeatable/testable event). Furthermore, saying that because nature normally works one way does not mean that it must always work that way. Only a very flawed worldview would hold that. A biblical worldview says that God sustains all of creation continually, that nature's breath is provided by God, and so the virgin birth is God working in cooperation with his creation.
@theearstohear - obviously there's a lot more to it than that, and I'm not trying to write a commentary on YT comments for a John Piper clip... and the way you describe theology sounds like you think it is a type of science - one that discovers God instead of the physical world, and I think that is a category mistake.
@buppus - Theology is a type of science (which means knowledge). It has axiomatic presuppositions (God, biblical truth) just as natural science does (math, logic). It posits systematic arguments based on the precepts that stem from its axioms, just as natural science does. The only theology that is not science, is bad theology (paradox theology); in the same way that bad science (self contradictory nonsense) is not science. Have you ever considerted theology in this way?
@theearstohear - there are strands of theology that attempt to function as science, and generally, theologians do well to abide by the flow and functions of logic, but when you're talking about logic you're not talking about science, you're talking about philosophy. Science is a formal method of empirical observation and experimentation. It deals with the material world. Philosophy/theology explore the meaning of things. Science is not theology, theology is not science. They are very different.
@buppus - Logic is an axiomatic pillar of science and also of all good theology. Theology deals with the material world as well. If God is the creator, he created the material world and thus theology deals in this realm as well. The parting of the Red Sea, the worldwide flood and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah were all acts of God that have to do with the material world. And so the material world distinction simply does not hold true.
@theearstohear - I never made any such claim. I said that Theology deals with the meaning of things - that means the material world as well as everything else.
You simply cannot make a claim, however, that theology is science, as science is by definition empirical, while theology is not limited by the empirical category. That is not to say that theology doesn't deal with the empirical (it certainly does), simply that it deals with meaning, and not just classification/observation. It is prior.
Calvinism/Doctrines of Grace/Reformed Theology are from the pit of Hell.....they are heresies that make God Almighty a sinner and not just a sinner but the Author of ALL sin.
Every child raped....every women beaten...every person murdered...every deceitful business deal...every cruelty man has done, was authored by God. It is a blasphemous false religion and many otherwise fine Bible teachers are promoting it today. MacArthur, Sproul, Piper, are some of them. Flee and Repent of Calvinism!!
Well, finally my personal opinion is there are major problems for old earth view. If we assume old earth and notice it is almost impossible for an animal to live 1000000 years, then there must exist death before Adam sinned. Thus, wager of sin excludes physical death. If so then Jesus did not die physically, a contradiction.
But I believe Piper has studied more and thus I respect his position :)
Secondly, in order to understand all, we need to consider all things, as all opinions are still restricted by common grace of God (we are not in hell yet) and therefore, have some degree of truth. BUT, we need to see everything towards biblical point of view.
As an example, Solomon said (or at least the obvious way to interpret what he said) pi=3 somewhere in Book of Chronicles. It turns out pi=3.1415... It is quite a major difference.
It seems that you have affirmed that there are realities that exist outside the realm of science. Once there you have opened up the possibility that this reality could be superior to the physical world that science deals in. Next Mother's Day say, "Mom, I love you so much, but it's really just a bunch of chemical reactions in my head, you know, like when you pop open an RC Cola." That's the Hallmark Holiday Card of the year for sure! I believe the bible, but it's not all applicable today.
@theearstohear Philosophy begins where science ends. Abstract concepts like ethics are not scientific, but they are deduced rationally. The process of testing and observation may not tell us everything about everything, but that doesn't mean we need the supernatural to explain what's left. Philosophy is a far more sophisticated approach than religious pandering.
@BigMikeMcBastard - You say, "the process of testing and observation may not tell us everything about everything, but that doesn't mean we need the supernatural to explain what's left." True, but it doesn't prove that we DON'T need it. You do affirm that science does not have all the answers and that's progress if you'd consider the ramifications of that. It creates fissures in your reliance on science, but it might make telling your daughter you love her a little less antiseptic.
@theearstohear If you can explain something through testing an observation why would you resort to supernatural explanations? How do you decide what the correct supernatural explanation is? If we want to resort to the genesis of the universe, for example, how do we decide between the myths of Christians or the myths of the vikings? Or the myths of Islam? Or Scientology? On what basis do we prove or disprove one religion over the other? We can't. So, we disregard them out of hand.
@BigMikeMcBastard - I would not likely look for another answer but God also has dominion over the natural world. That something is provided through natural means is no proof that it was given by God. I choose the truth of the bible because I accept it axiomatically by faith, in the same way that you accept scientific observation in a universe so vast it defies cognition, based on axiomatically accepted math and logic, and on the assumption of uniformity which observation cannot prove.
@theearstohear I said specifically I don't believe that science tells us everything about everything, citing philosophical matters specifically as something science is mostly mute on. What I am asserting is that when it comes to the fields which science applies to, science is the final word. Why is it the final world? It's because a world in which no evidence of any kind of God can be tested or observed to include is a world where the existence of God can be discounted.
@BigMikeMcBastard - So creation ex nihilo is not science and something else is required to account for the nanosecond prior to the singularity. I'm good with that.
@theearstohear Not having the answer to something yet is no reason to defer to supernatural authority to explain it. And even if you were to, you'd be picking your creation stories out of a hat. There's no reason to believe the Christian God was responsible over some other agency.
You aren't circumcised on a whim, really. The early Jews who comprised the Christian religion debated at length whether circumcision would still be required of them. It isn't because of what Jesus said.
@theearstohear And to bring it all home... if all of the evidence points toward an Earth 4.54 billion years old and none suggests it's less than 10k years old, then what any given religious text implies about the age of the Earth doesn't matter, and John Piper is perfectly reasonable to go with an old Earth rather than a young/created Earth. That, again, is because science is the best method we have for understanding the physical world, and the age of the Earth is within its scope
@BigMikeMcBastard - I'd estimate 6k years, then again, I believe the bible. If you don't, I accept that, but (returning to the original point of this thread) I do NOT understand why a preacher like John Piper, who claims to believe the bible, and in the supernatural, would side with SCIENCE on the age of the earth. Surely, even if you disagree with me on this, you can see the point that I'm making. I mean, he's not a physicist, he's a man who claims to believe the bible is the word of God.
@theearstohear But in a situation such as this, does it matter? Like Piper said, both views have merit, and because this isn't a Huge issue, why fight? I personally take an old Earth view, but if its new Earth, then fine.
@zz060210 - Yes, it does matter. If you take the evidence of natural science to be sufficient to bend your interpretation of Genesis in favor of an old earth, this same approach applied elsewhere would reject the virgin birth of Christ. Why accept science to modify scripture in one place and reject it in another? Both instances require the supernatural to support the bible's claims. It undermines the authority of scripture which Piper purports to uphold; it's a pandora's box.
@theearstohear As for the Bible, is there a part of it that I missed where it said "ignore these sections after X date is reached"? Who decided when which parts should no longer be applicable? Do you imagine this shoot-from-the-hip approach to the Bible might not be a sign that it is not the immutable word of God? Does the fact that most humans do not accept it as a holy book, and those that do can't even agree on fundamental points within or around it, is a sign of the same sort?
@BigMikeMcBastard - Well actually, yes. This is explained in Hebrews among other places. In the New Covenant, Christ fulfilled the old covenant (Heb 8:7-13) for his people, thereby saving them (Heb 10:14). I am not talking about a "shoot-from-the-hip" approach to the bible, which I'm sure you have often encountered, I'm talking about right division of scripture (II Tim 2:15). Any assertion based on what "most..accept" is so fallacious that I'm certain you KNOW this is no proof at all.
@theearstohear So you do or do not believe that a woman found not to be a virgin on her wedding night should be stoned to death? When did you decide this and on what basis do you contradict a revelation from God? Or, less extreme, working on the sabbath. Eating shellfish. How about divorce? The list of things that are in the Bible which I doubt you give any weight to is staggering, and the idea that this book is somehow better than "science" is a fairly silly thing I think.
@BigMikeMcBastard - I am not a national Israelite so the old covenant was never made with me. Stonings, Sabbaths, shellfish, Moses divorce - all Old Covenant, all made with Israel, not with me. By the hermeneutic that would apply this to me, I could equally make you responsible for paying my mortgage. That this seems silly to you - maybe, but no more so than your hamfisted assertions regarding the covenants of scripture.
@theearstohear That's not true at all, and in fact there was quite a lot of debate during early Christianity about which of the Hebrew laws the Christians were to follow, including circumcision and so forth. This is at least in part because Jesus was referenced several times as holding the Hebrew Bible in high regard and indicating he wasn't there to replace the Old Testament (Matthew 5:18-19) and that it would always apply (Luke 16:17).
@BigMikeMcBastard - You have a remarkable capacity for coarse thought - I have not suggested that the OT be disregarded. I am saying the Old Covenant does not apply to me. God's holy standard represented by the OT law is always in place, but man could not keep it. Christ fulfilled it for his people. That is why "there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." (Rom 8:1)
Piper's "old earth" theory is unable to accommodate that death came as a result of sin (Rom 5:12) nor that the creatures were just as explicitly created as Adam was. More waffling on biblical truth from Piper.
@theearstohear It is a strenuous thing to reconcile the decidedly unscientific, faith-based approach of Biblical literalism with the inquisitive, logic-seeking faculties of the human mind. Piper has unfortunately allowed his more rational nature to poison what might otherwise be blind, unthinking faith and turn it into a bizarre mish-mash, the kind which elucidated all sorts of important discoveries about the world before The Enlightenment. But cut him some slack anyway won't you?
@BigMikeMcBastard Science and Religion are both faiths based on the axiomatic acceptance of their initial presuppositions which are inherently unprovable. I have a hard time cutting Piper slack on this matter because if science is this influential in your hermeneutic you don't have any valid way of affirming the virgin birth of Christ. If you affirm the virgin birth, young earth seems like a no brainer.
@theearstohear If you would like to debate the premise that our senses are inherently unprovable and the world as we know it may be entirely illusory I am sure you'd have a gander of it in a philosophy class. However, as of yet we have no reason to doubt our ability to perceive the world (within reason) and scientific inquiry has lead to this very moment, which is so far the peak of human civilization.
So, no. Science is not faith-based in any realistic sense of the term.
@BigMikeMcBastard - Science cannot prove its own presuppositions of both math and logic. Both math and logic are accepted axiomatically. Belief is involved in the acceptance of axiomatic truth. I'm comfortable affirming and discussing my reliance upon faith in the God of the bible and his word as an axiomatic presupposition. Are you a big enough McBastard to admit as much about the unprovable axiom's science?
@theearstohear Actually math is the one area of science that is absolutely certain and what it proves is considered real "proof". It is impossible to disprove 1+1=2. Hooray for math.
As for the rest, when we have any reason to doubt our ability to use the scientific method to discover how the world works we will reassess our faculties and the truths they might reveal. Until then, enjoy your electricity, your antibiotics, your air travel, and your Internet.
@BigMikeMcBastard - I'll accept this as a McBastardly admission that your science is based on the axiomatic presuppositions of math and logic. All observational science is inferential since it is impossible to make all observations. Honest scientists do not turn a blind eye to the reality of the presuppositional and axiomatic basis of their endeavors. Enjoy your fascination with the accomplishments of human science, meanwhile, the heavens declare the glory of God. (Ps 19:1)
@theearstohear And the Bible is based on... what? Absolute truths? Which is why you ignore entire swaths of it I assume? Or are you writing this from prison after having stoned someone to death?
@BigMikeMcBastard - It is a revelation from God (II Tim 3:16). None of the bible is to be ignored (Matt 4:4); it is all written FOR us, but it is not all written TO us. The word of God must be rightly divided to be properly understood and applied to our lives (II Tim 2:15). My belief is based on the presupposition that the bible is word of God and I freely admit that. Do you honestly believe that science has an explanation for love, or beauty or justice? Or are these just meaningless?
@theearstohear Love, beauty and justice are generally left to the domain of philosophers as they are abstract concepts for the most part. Science can describe physiological changes that occur when someone is in love, for example, but science does not seek to understand "justice". Or "the meaning of life". Science is not the entirety of human understanding.
However, as I implied, you obviously do not believe the entirety of the Bible. Explain that to me given what you've said here.
I have never understood why Christians call themselves humble. Here's one that says to 97% (Pew 2009) of the scientific community who accept evolution, that they're wrong and instead proposes that we should believe the bible because its true and that its true because its in the bible.
@angryspidertv Well i'm not limiting God's power by saying He made it in 6 days. Why did Jesus rise again in 3 days? Why not 3 hours? Is it cuz He didn't have enough power to? No. But because He ordained it to be that time. I believe when it says 6 days, it's 6 days. Honestly, no reason to look deeply into it. Our knowledge is infinitely futile to God's. So if He says 6 days, then I'm sure we should take it in the way He implied it to be. 6 days. Grace and peace to you
@angryspidertv Well i'm not limiting God's power by saying He made it in 6 days. Why did Jesus rise again in 3 days? Why not 3 hours? Is it cuz He didn't have enough power to? No. But because He ordained it to be that time. I believe when it says 6 days, it's 6 days. Honestly, no reason to look deeply into it. Our knowledge is infinitely futile to God's. So if He says 6 days, then I'm sure we should take it in the way He implied it to be. 6 days. Grace and peace to you
We have more evidence supporting evolution than the fact that the earth is round.
This is like asking do you accept the earth is round?
baldurus1 8 hours ago
Piper doesn't seem nearly as hostile to evolution as that extremist John MacArthur.
ObjectiveBob 4 days ago
Religion is a complex mental illness.
bsgrep 6 days ago
@bsgrep That view went out of fashion about 30 years ago. Was it true, because it was in fashion, and is it now not true, because it is no longer in fashion? You decide, but if you decide that it is true, you will have to surmise that about 96% of the world's population is mentally ill. I'm afraid this is one of those snappy little slogans which is devoid of any useful meaning.
The1hope4all 6 days ago
@The1hope4all You can concern yourself with the fashion aspect. As for the world's population, expectedly, the deeper you go into the third world, the more religious (mentally ill) they are. Conversely, the more intelligent a population or country, the less they believe in things that aren't true.
bsgrep 6 days ago
@bsgrep You mean the ignorant savages and the enlightened white men? This is getting worse and worse. Are you seriously suggesting that there are nations which have higher average degrees of intelligence than others? Do you really want to suggest that America (for example) is full of well balanced mentally healthy people, and that Africans are all basket cases? Are you a member of the KKK?
The1hope4all 6 days ago
@The1hope4all Is it news to anyone that countries have different cultures and populations with varying degrees of intelligence? There have been around 80 studies done that demonstrate an inverse correlation between intelligence and religion (and crime/obesity/corruption/etc), from individuals up to whole countries.
No, I don't think americans are generally smart or mentally sane. No, I'm not in the KKK. Are there more dumb, retarded and insane personal questions that you want to ask?
bsgrep 6 days ago
@bsgrep Which studies? Why are half of scientists religious if dumb people are religious? Why criteria of intelligence are these studies based on? Why is church attendance higher in people with college educations and those with only highschool or less? And why are his questions dumb, retarded, or insane? How do you know God doesn't exist? If he does exist, would believing in Him still be considered a mental illness? Why do you think science doesn't require belief? Is your mind infallible?
worldofdraculas 5 days ago
@worldofdraculas Asking me if I'm in the KKK is a dumb, retarded and insane personal attack, and irrelevant to the subject.
For the rest you could google intelligence and religiosity (wiki has references).
It's not up to me to say why something doesn't exist. You're on the side of the people who say that a divine being exists, so the burden is on you to tell us how do you know.
The scientific method is based on demonstration, not faith. Our minds are fallible, that's the whole point!
bsgrep 5 days ago
@bsgrep I've yet to see anyone demonstrate evolution. Let's see an eye or a fish gill pop into place from a random primordial bloop from outer space. Let's see a raptor evolve into a chicken which supposedly happened a billion years ago. Evolution is hardly science because you cannot repeat it nor observe it! It's just a philosophy. So the burden is on you actually to demonstrate evolution philosophy because that's what science is according to your own words.
ReachDavidKim 3 days ago
@ReachDavidKim The fact that you haven't is not the fault of scientists but your own (and probably your parents and school system). If you were near me (and paid for it) we could go to a lab or university so you could learn what evolution is. Eyes don't pop into place and a raptor does not evolve into a chicken. That's stupid.
bsgrep 3 days ago
@bsgrep If your mind is fallible than you do have faith, Faith in your mind. And if you believe in evolution of any kind you have no rational reason for believing that your mind is actually correct. If your mind came about through random, purposeless processes. Than how can you trust it? How are you interpreting your alleged scientific demonstration? sounds like you would need alot of faith to me....
beethovensheir1234 2 days ago
@beethovensheir1234 There is no 'believe in evolution'. Either you understand it or you don't.
I don't have Faith. Faith is belief without evidence, or even in spite of evidence to the contrary. How can I trust my mind? LOGIC!
bsgrep 2 days ago
@bsgrep Faith isn't belief without evidence of contrary to evidence. Faith is based on evidence. Since you've given me evidence that your definition of faith is malformed, then I have faith that your definition of logic is also malformed, too.
empreme 1 day ago
@empreme Ok, believe that too!
of contrary to evidence? No.
Faith is belief without evidence. If it wasn't, it would be evidence based belief and there would be no need for the word faith. So faith is by definition irrational.
bsgrep 1 day ago
@bsgrep Restating your position over again doesn't make your case stronger. Besides which, I don't have faith in something that is contrary to evidence. You're confusing (intentionally, I'm sure) that faith is the same as a delusion, but you're clearly mistaken. Perhaps if there were "proof" then we wouldn't need the word "faith", but proof doesn't necessarily follow from evidence alone.
empreme 1 day ago
@empreme Proof is for mathematics and mathematics alone. This is about rationality. If a belief is based on evidence, it is rational. If not, it is faith and irrational by definition.
Rephrasing something might help get it understood. I couldnt rephrase this any simpler.
bsgrep 1 day ago
@bsgrep Yeah if a belief is based on evidence it is rational, if it based on no evidence it is rational unless there is a defeater for that position, if it is contrary to evidence it is irrational. Faith can fit into any of those categories. You're very narrow minded and, frankly, it's difficult to have a discussion with you. There is no connection from faith to delusion unless it is in that final category. You seem to have confused many of your terms.
empreme 1 day ago
@empreme What a moronic thing to say. Ok, defeat the belief that fairies exist. Defeat the belief that Thor, Peter Pan and Poseidon exist.
Logic has a tendency to be narrow minded. Either it's correct or not. It's also corrosive to religious wishthinking.
bsgrep 23 hours ago
@bsgrep We have defeaters for all those positions. Therefore to hold them is irrational. What a silly objection. You can't defend that faith is only irrational. By the way, you have faith that the external world is real, you have faith that there are other minds, the special theory of relativity is hinged on the faith that the speed of light is constant in a one way direction between any two points A and B. Never said I was religious, btw.
empreme 22 hours ago
@empreme It's called the assumption that the speed of light is constant, not faith.
I experience the world subjectively. No faith there either.
I'd like to hear, moron, how to defeat the existence of fairies. Notice how I don't dodge questions.
bsgrep 7 hours ago
@bsgrep
Please explain to me where logic came from, and how you know it exists.
beethovensheir1234 23 hours ago
@beethovensheir1234 Logic is something abstract. It didn't come from anywhere. It doesn't exist in the sense that you or a hammer exist.
Are you about to ask me everything you want to know now? Hope you're not going to pray to me as well.
bsgrep 7 hours ago
@bsgrep
Please explain to me how your commitment to Logic, based on your own definition of it, is not faith?
And stop the cheap shots, frankly there stupid, uninformed and immature.
beethovensheir1234 7 hours ago
@beethovensheir1234 Logic is a system for inference and reason. Faith is belief without evidence.
I'm sorry about 'my commitment to logic'. There is nothing that can be done with this, except underline it. I suppose you don't notice when your intellect self destructs.
bsgrep 6 hours ago
@The1hope4all The Nazi or Communist party would be a better fit for him. He's probably an admirer of Nietzsche. Which is ironic, since Nietzsche died a lunatic.
worldofdraculas 5 days ago
All have sinned and greatly offended the holy God of the bible. The just punishment is death then hell. That's not Gods will. He suffered and died on the cross paying for the law you broke in His life's blood so He could legally dismiss your case. You must repent turn from your sin and trust alone in Jesus Christ for your salvation.
mamainmancj 1 week ago
@mamainmancj - So you have to obey God through repentance in order to obtain eternal life? Is that what you are saying?
theearstohear 6 days ago
Believing evolution is almost impossible for a Christian in my opinion because, aside from it being a fairy tale, it has a bad effect one one's theology. What is a sin if we evolved? That being said, sin did not come in the world by evolution but by Adam choosing to disobey God. If evolution is true then who is to day that the devil waited until "humans" were advanced enough to "think outside the box". IMO, implications of evolution are blasphemous.
BritneyAddicted4EVA 1 week ago
@BritneyAddicted4EVA Evolution is NOT a fairy tale. The evidence is overwhelming, from genetics, physiology, biology, embryology, every single one of the biological sciences fits with evolution, and not with god designing everything and creating it all within 6 days, then flooding the earth after a while thus killing off nearly all of them and starting again.
dangerouslytalented 6 days ago
@BritneyAddicted4EVA There is no 'believe in evolution'. Either you understand it or you don't.
bsgrep 6 days ago
One thought to consider in determining your standpoint on the matter, will we ever be able to distinguish either theory evolution/big bang or a creator or was the universe/life created in such fashion that mathematics and science cannot prove or disprove either. Thus brilliantly leaving the created universe with an inconclusive origin that requires faith or science to attempt to grasp the magnitude of its majesty.
JMiller8888 1 week ago
@CommitToFocus Thanks. That makes sense. I was considering the earth as the system, but very true that that is an incorrect assumption. And correct, evolution is not a theory that is related to some of my questions. My main point was that there are many questions that still need to be answered.
MrBenbenbenbenny 1 week ago
@SeedsOfHatred If you have an answer to one of those questions I'd love to hear it. I'm looking for answers. Right now evolution does not answer those questions. I'm not saying it isn't true. I'm saying they both take an element of faith.
MrBenbenbenbenny 1 week ago
@MrBenbenbenbenny the law of entropy applies to closed systems, and is only a statement about the total entropy of the system. In the case of the earth, the system includes minimally, the earth, sun and moon. Consider the enormous increase in entropy of the sun as it convert its fuel. Some of that entropy results in pockets of order (decreasing entropy) elsewhere in the system (life on earth) but the total entropy of the system increases.
CommitToFocus 1 week ago
@MrBenbenbenbenny also, evolution would not provide an answer to the issue of entropy. Evolution only describes the process of differentiating species.
CommitToFocus 1 week ago
@CommitToFocus Actually, evolution RELIES on entropy, as if each succeeding generation was a genetically exact copy of the previous generation, then it could not evolve, whereas with evolution, the mutations that give advantages will succeed, and these mutations will be propagated by the descendents of these successful individuals.
dangerouslytalented 6 days ago
@dangerouslytalented I agree. The question was how does the overall order we see in life arise. That's what I was trying to explain.
CommitToFocus 6 days ago
Evolution requires a leap of faith to believe as well. There are many flaws in it. To name a few... It doesn't follow the law of entropy. How did flight arise when hollow bone structures were needed? How did independent single cell organisms change to more complex and dependent beings? Or even the biggest question, looking at the Big Bang theory, what explains the existence of the infinitely small dense universe? Naturalism takes as much or more faith to believe in than a divine creator.
MrBenbenbenbenny 2 weeks ago
@MrBenbenbenbenny Read a book.
That is all.
SeedsOfHatred 1 week ago
He is starting to get it. The church knew from the start that the bible was destined to implode if the masses got to read it, that is why they fought to hard to keep it locked up in the past.
The only reason the first cannon was developed was to counteract someone who was attempting to assemble his own cannon outside the influence of the church.
Unfortunately for him, evolution is an undeniable fact.
/watch?v=eGmLDKQp_Qc
l337pwnage 2 weeks ago
@niinja2 yes
Dkenair2 2 weeks ago
@buppus Read Luke 3 and see the genealogy of Jesus back tomAdam .....this could NOT been over billions of years. Adam was made the sixth day ....it's a young world! See Paul Ackermans book. It's a Young World After All.
willpower242 2 weeks ago
Let's all be civil about the issue
roycestevens37 2 weeks ago
I believe that God created this world. I believe that God created human beings. I know that God loves us dearly. I do not know how God did what He did, but I know he did it. Instead of focusing on the hows, shouldn't we rather thank our Lord for doing what He did? We human beings are too knowledge hungry, we have to know what is what or we cant sleep. God is our Shepard, and we are the sheep. Let's just follow what the Lord tells us and love Him.
rogerdu88 3 weeks ago
@rogerdu88 -What you said!
minralb 3 weeks ago
@rogerdu88 "We humans are too knowledge hungry"...and that's how you shot down a human brain. Shame on you, religion!
Sad...
HKragh 2 weeks ago
John, what do you do about the evidence of evolution? And he would say sth like "who cares about evidence? Faith does not require evidence by definition. Faith is blindly following what an old book tell you and what I tell you. Physical evidence are not true evidence."
Evolution is science based on evidence, based on reality, based on what is.
maximemeis111 3 weeks ago
if adam and eve are our parents that means their children got married and got children?
niinja2 3 weeks ago
Look up "Kent Hovind" on creation and a young earth. Very thorough and a much better answer on creation vs evolution than this.
agapeguide 3 weeks ago
@agapeguide ... and still wrong, in fact massively wrong on pretty much all counts.
dangerouslytalented 6 days ago
There you have it, folks. John Piper believes that homo sapiens were specially created by god.
Perhaps his god created us as mammals belonging to the ape family in order to trick scientists into believing in common descent? Or just maybe Piper is wrong to put so much stock in the writings of ignorant bronze age tribesmen?
inf0dump 1 month ago
@inf0dump Your comment is entirely an argument against religion not the issue of the video. You should have said what I was about to comment which was, If Adam came from dust why couldn't he have come from an ancestor of us and monkeys? Which is more insulting dirt or monkeys.
superdubman999 4 weeks ago
@inf0dump Your thoughts, ideas, speech and writing are the accidental by-products of entirely random, meaningless and co-incidental evolutionary processes. This, combined with the fact that the Universe displays no order or signs of design whatsoever, render your words as being entirely without meaning. (Whatever that is.)
The1hope4all 3 weeks ago
@The1hope4all Evolutionary processes are not "entirely random" - they are guided by natural selection. This has been understood for over 150 years, and the data supporting it just keeps piling up. For even longer, we've known that humans are a type of animal belonging to the ape family. Our natural origins are THOROUGHLY understood - no magic required. To claim that we were specially created by a god is to plug your ears and go "la la la" in the face of all the evidence to the contrary.
inf0dump 3 weeks ago
@inf0dump So if not entirely random, then at least partly deliberate or planned then?
The1hope4all 3 weeks ago
What I mean by "not entirely random" is that natural selection is a non-random force. It is not just any random organism that survives. Rather, the organisms most suited for survival & reproduction are more likely to survive. That means it's not random, but directional. The fact that all organisms pass on their traits to new generations means that this natural force builds new traits over time. ~3.8 bil.yrs of this natural process gives us all the diversity of life we see on this planet today.
inf0dump 3 weeks ago
@inf0dump You mean, a fixed scientific, physical law is being obeyed, right? Does that not apply to all physical laws, gravity, speed, motion etc.... Is there a distinction between random and non-random forces? If natural selection is an example of a non-random force, what would be an example of a random force?
The1hope4all 3 weeks ago
@The1hope4all Well, evolution also has random aspects to it. For example, genetic mutations occur more or less randomly. Some of these mutations are detrimental, some are beneficial (most are neither). Natural selection works with these random mutations by filtering away the detrimental ones and preserving the beneficial ones, simply because the organisms with harmful mutations die.
inf0dump 3 weeks ago
@inf0dump Sorry, I'm still not quite with you. Weak or diseased organisms dying is surely a natural fixed law being "obeyed" just like unsupported objects always falling. Why is this any more random than the rest of the evolutionary process? You seem to be saying that evolution is non-random, except mutations which are random. Natural selection isn't an intelligent force, is it? It's just another way of saying that weak organisms don't survive.
The1hope4all 3 weeks ago
@The1hope4all NP - I might not be explaining it very well. Yes, everything follows various laws, which in the scientific sense are just descriptions of how the universe behaves. Genetic mutations are random in the sense that we can't predict which genes will mutate - at least that's my understanding. Natural selection isn't an intelligent force - it's more like a filter that preserves those mutations which help the organism adapt to its environment. Its effect is cumulative over the generations.
inf0dump 3 weeks ago
The point I have attempted to make, quite poorly it would seem, is that science and theology both share (1) axiomatic truth that is assumed and unprovable, (2) logic and (3) interactions with the natural world.
theearstohear 1 month ago
@theearstohear actually, there is no axiomatic assumed and unprovable truths in science, anything that is not testable is relegated to hypotheses, like string theory, which is untestable with current technology.
dangerouslytalented 6 days ago
@dangerouslytalented - Science is based on mathematics and logic both of which are accepted axiomatically. Most scientists do not even realize this truth since all of their work takes place "downstream" from this axiomatic presupposition. Your assertion is a perfect example - "anything that is not testable" - this is something in the realm of science proper, not the upstream axiomatic underpinnings of science. Search these things out - you may be surprised to discover they are true.
theearstohear 6 days ago
@theearstohear Actually, the test for the veracity of the mathematics and logic is that, when put to the test, they produce verifiable results. 2+2=4. You can test that easily, and because this is always so consistant, you can use that for any application.
Such testable results are NOT found within the bible.
dangerouslytalented 6 days ago
@dangerouslytalented - To use math to prove math is a circular reference. This would allow one to use the bible to prove the bible. See the problem?
theearstohear 6 days ago
@theearstohear No, that is why you use real world situations to prove it. You can use real world situations to prove the mathematics, particularly in engineering, where you can see the real world effects of even very minor changes in mathematical formulae.
This cannot be done with the bible.
dangerouslytalented 6 days ago
@dangerouslytalented - Real world situations can never PROVE anything but they can substantiate usable portions of a hypothesis. This is because it is impossible to make all observations.
theearstohear 6 days ago
@theearstohear That is where falsifiability comes in, When you can set up a test that DISPROVES a hypothesis, you can pretty much throw that hypothesis out the window. And if that test does not disprove a hypothesis, and there is no other explanation, then that hypothesis becomes scientific theory, which is tested more and more, until it is scientifically proven.
This cannot be done with the bible.
dangerouslytalented 6 days ago
@dangerouslytalented - That's not entirely true. There is much about Newtonian physics that has been disproven but the model still works in a number of instances. The same is true of Einstein's relativity. What constituted proof in Newton's day has been shown to be incomplete observation in our day. Moreover, Newton and Einstein were both working with math and logic as unproven axioms.
theearstohear 6 days ago
@dangerouslytalented - So no biblical truths can be substantiated by observation? The bible establishes the existence of evil. We also observe it. All truth is presuppositional.
theearstohear 6 days ago
@theearstohear except that what is considered evil? Wiping out entire cities, when done by men, as in the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Blitz, is considered quite evil, but when god does it, like with Sodom and Gomorrah, why is that not considered evil?
dangerouslytalented 6 days ago
@dangerouslytalented - Irrespective of definition anyone who experimentally affirms the presence of evil does so through observation. God destroying cities is not evil because God is sovereign (Ps 115:3) and not evil (I John 1:5). I am willing to admit that I accept these truths because I accept the bible axiomatically - just as the scientist accepts logic and math axiomatically.
theearstohear 6 days ago
I believe that Flying Spaghetti Monster has created the Earth several thousands years ago. It was boiled for our sins.
McCruelAddictTheBest 1 month ago
@McCruelAddictTheBest Let me know when 2 billion people believe this, and I'll look into it. Pass the ketchup, please....
The1hope4all 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
McCruelAddictTheBest 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@The1hope4all
When Cristianity started only few people believed in it. So now Pastafarianism starts and only few people believe in it. In the future Pastafarianism will overcome Christianity. I love you FSM so much!!
McCruelAddictTheBest 3 weeks ago
@McCruelAddictTheBest Well, you've got a wonderful future ahead of you then, haven't you! I'm very happy for you. How often do they let you out?
The1hope4all 3 weeks ago
@The1hope4all
Please do not insult our religion.
McCruelAddictTheBest 3 weeks ago
@McCruelAddictTheBest And he spake unto them, saying: "Thou shalt not take thyself too seriously, for thereby cometh harm"
The1hope4all 3 weeks ago
@The1hope4all
Thank you, but anyway do not insult our feelings.
McCruelAddictTheBest 3 weeks ago
@The1hope4all You know, there was a time when jesus only had twelve followers...
dangerouslytalented 6 days ago
@dangerouslytalented Yes, of course. There was a time when he had no followers at all.
The1hope4all 6 days ago
look up Lawrence tisdall.
killerproctologist88 1 month ago
Carbon dating is totally unreliable, so why do people debate how many thousands, or tens of thousands or millions or bazillions of years ago something happened? Anyone who puts their faith in science over God, has more faith than me. When Christians start reducing the truth of scripture to allegory and metaphor, we risk watering the message down so that you may as well believe anything you want. There is only one truth...we just don't have all the details yet.
1692mar 1 month ago 2
This whole discussion misses the point. It's a mistake to think that the writers of Genesis 1-2 had any idea of the actual scientific structure of the universe. It is apparent that they took the ancient cosmology with which they were familiar, and used that ancient understanding of their world to communicate the truth about God. It's poetic and mythic literature - what's important is the theological meaning (God as loving creator, human beings as his image bearers and stewards of creation).
buppus 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@buppus ....that's stupid.......these ancient writers wrote the Bible under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit who was there and actually formed the earth. No one else was there.......just God. Genesis is His account to us of what He did. Believe it!!.......the Bible is for your good. You dismiss it at your own peril. If you do dismiss it there will come a day that you will regret doing so. Acts 17:30,31 Phil 2:9-11.
willpower242 1 month ago
@willpower242 Everything you have said is true, it was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the Bible is there for our good, and I believe it too. I don't believe, however, that the Bible was meant by God to be a science book, but I think he had other purposes in mind. There are things in the Bible which simply have to be allegorical or metaphorical, such as the "Four corners of the earth" and the "Stars falling to earth, for example.
The1hope4all 3 weeks ago
@buppus .........mythic......I think not. It is God's truth to us. Accurate in every detail.
willpower242 1 month ago
@willpower242 I agree wholeheartedly that it is God's revelatory truth, and by mythic I don't mean false - I mean a story that orients and gives meaning to life. But when you make the mistake of thinking the passage is intending to give us a play-by-play description, as if reviewing camera footage of the event, you actually derail the real significance and intended meaning of the story. The only reason this is even an issue is because of the fundamentalist/modernist controversy a century ago.
buppus 1 month ago
@buppus - You claim, "it is apparent that they took the ancient cosmology with which they were familar and used that ancient understanding of their world to communicate truth about God." But the bible says that "no prophecy of scripture is of any private interpretation" and that "Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (I Peter 1:20-21) It follows that your accusation of 'ancient understanding' is not leveled at the ancient writers - it's leveled at God.
theearstohear 1 month ago
Read through Gen 1 right now, and look where it talks about a "dome in the midst of the waters" - that was the ancient understanding, which we know now is incorrect. Then read Gen 2.. guess what... the order of creation is different, (human beings are made first, rather than last). If it's meant to be taken literally, then which one is right, and which one is wrong? It's not meant to be taken literally, because it's not doing science, it's doing theology.
buppus 1 month ago
@theearstohear - 1) the "science" of the ancient world regarding their understanding of the structure of the world is much different than the modern understanding, and because of that, 2) the story doesn't even make sense if you try to read it as if the author did know about the properties of space, the spherical shape of the world, and the inner workings of our solar system.
buppus 1 month ago
@theearstohear - there is no "accusation," I'm simply trying to point out that when you try to argue for a young earth/6 day creation, you're skipping past what the Bible actually means to say (the world is God's beloved creation) and making it about something which the author never intended (the world was created 6 thousand years ago, in 6 days), because
buppus 1 month ago
@buppus - If the point of Genesis 1 and 2 is to say "the word is God's beloved creation" then it wasted a lot of words imparting that message. Until you understand that theology is the study of God, God is omnipotent and sovereign and thus science is subservient to theology, you will be forever trapped trying to reconcile the virgin birth of Christ with a well established science that utterly refutes this position. The bible is superior to science.
theearstohear 1 month ago
@theearstohear - Theology can also use science, and many great theologians in fact do. Check out Alister McGrath for starters - this is a great 3 min clip: FNp0tYWR7XY
And for more on Genesis, here's the former Anglican Bishop of Durham in two more short pieces (this is what I was trying to say essentially): 3BP1PpDyDCw
ffWo7nzL66o
buppus 1 month ago
@theearstohear - Comparing science and theology is apples and oranges, and I really don't see them in conflict the way you seem to describe them. Science is a tool that must be interpreted through a philosophy. Science doesn't refute the virgin birth, but various philosophies like darwinian naturalism and epicureanism try to conscript science in the service of refuting it
buppus 1 month ago
@buppus - I have not set science at odds with theology, I have said that science is subservient to theology. For example: science cannot explain creation ex nihilo since that is inherently non-scientific. Christian theology has no such difficulty since it presupposes an ever-existing creator. Science is part of creation and is thus under God's dominion. If you do not believe that science refutes the virgin birth, then why is it a miracle? That's a ridiculous statement on your part.
theearstohear 1 month ago
@theearstohear - because the fact that you define the virgin birth as a "miracle" shows how wrapped up you are in the terms of western enlightenment philosophy. You're letting the assumption that the extrapolations from empirical observation - or "natural law" is normative for the universe, and any event that doesn't follow the "laws of science" then become violations of nature, and this is how the west has come to define "miracles." Science can't touch the virgin birth.
buppus 1 month ago
@buppus - Defining the virgin birth as a "miracle" has nothing to do with "enlightenment philosophy" as you assert. Rather it is the straightforward testimony of the prophet Isaiah who refers to it as a "sign". (Is 7:14) A young Israelite girl getting pregnant is not a sign; a virgin being with child is.
theearstohear 1 month ago
@theearstohear - Forgive me, but I'm not seeing a point here... I say Genesis 1-3 are not intended to be read as science (literal 6-day creation), and you insist that it is scientific in that sense, but then you proceed to tell me I'm trapped in a losing battle against science???
I then demonstrate that science is neutral and it's actually the philosophy behind it which determines its interpretation, and you deny this claim with an out-of-context proof text? Your reasoning is circular at best.
buppus 1 month ago
@theearstohear
There are 2 virgin births? The baby in Is7 is born in ch 8. Every scholar knows the true meaning was "young maiden." The unknown writers of Luke and Matthew, estecially Matt, attempt to create a messianic prophecy which never existed.
Are you saying YWHW raped 13yr engaged virgin,reattached her destroyed hymen.He never even asked Mary or Joe if OK? YWHW did not even have the guts to tell Joe the evil he did and sent angel. Fact is,all sun gods had virgin births.
thedagonjones 1 month ago
@thedagonjones - The baby of Isaiah 7 is called Immanuel. The baby of Isaiah 8 is not. The baby of Isaiah 7 is born of a virgin. The baby of Isaiah 8 is not. When your understanding of a miracle of God is so depraved that you accuse God of rape, it is not difficult for me to affirm that you are a blasphemer. May the grace of God make you ashamed.
theearstohear 1 month ago
@theearstohear
Is this the same Immanuel spoken in Is8:8? IT IS little man. You always look for a sign, but you will get no sign. You are rebuked. I am a man of god and will not tolerate your insubordination for a monent. Your misunderstanding of God begatting(fucking until impregnating)is treasonous.The royal sperm flowed from heaven from YWHW's testicals into the egg of the child Mary whom he raped.It wasn't with her or Joe's concent.This is immoral and very evil.You r rebuked.
thedagonjones 1 month ago
@thedagonjones - I bet your mom's proud.
theearstohear 1 month ago
@theearstohear
Not as proud as your mom when you teach and cry about how YWHW told a many to kill and burn his second son.Gen22.Even though god instructed we are NOT to kill,Abram is applauded and is a man of BAD faith.He is wicked.God says he never commanded this bs.jer19:5,7:30,Lev20:1-5.You testify a lie against YWHW.James1 says YWHW willNOT tempt with evil.this is pure rotten evil.God knows everything and the heart.NOTEST required.
YOU R REBUKED in blood of Mithra Pauls god.
thedagonjones 1 month ago
@thedagonjones - I'm not sure what god you worship, but I'm certain it is not the god of punctuation.
theearstohear 1 month ago
@theearstohear
Whatever confused liar.If you had something to write,you'd know as in texting to abbrev to save space.Is this all you got?You are rebuked in the name of the sun god Jesus of Nazareth...no Bethleham as Nazareth was not build until the second century.Anyway,you are rebuked by this sun god and cursed on his sabbath sun day.Or would you rather wait until his sun solstice birth on Christmas or his death on the sun equinox with the sun god Tammuz and Easter?Which 1 fool?
thedagonjones 1 month ago
@thedagonjones - You would save a lot more space if you would eliminate the vowels and consonants from your messages. So this Bethleham, is that like a Honey Baked Ham or more like smoked country ham? You are truly a dimwit.
theearstohear 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@theearstohear
Anyway,YWHW never did get over the wondrfl raping of Mary.He is the Great Restorer.He restored her hymen as it was totally destroyed because of YWHW's huge cock and the power of thrusting all night.
Mary always treasured this brutal,sexual assault and hid the thrill in her heart.This would help her understnd the homosxual acts of Xman Jesus such as the young lad.
Thnx my bro.The disciple whom Jesus loved also got ass fucked openly showing affection. l8<o
thedagonjones 1 month ago
@theearstohear
YWHW explicitly commands NOT to kill in Gen9.YWHW commands NOT to drink blood. As paganism cleverly advanced, it shows YWHW commanding murder of Isaac,woman and children.It then teaches to pretend to drink blood and pretend to eat human flesh.This is wicked immoral stuff.We are not to think impure thoughts.If we lust,we have committed adultry in our hearts by the thought police. But we can break YWHW's laws by pretending to drink blood. This is heathen.
thedagonjones 1 month ago
@thedagonjones - You're a sick sad little man, you have my pity.
theearstohear 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@buppus
"But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him.
And going out of the tomb, they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich.
And after six days Jesus told him what to do, and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body.
And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God." Secret Gospel of Mark
Jesus was a homosexual.
thedagonjones 1 month ago
@theearstohear - Science can't touch the virgin birth because it is beyond the bounds of science by definition (it's not a repeatable/testable event). Furthermore, saying that because nature normally works one way does not mean that it must always work that way. Only a very flawed worldview would hold that. A biblical worldview says that God sustains all of creation continually, that nature's breath is provided by God, and so the virgin birth is God working in cooperation with his creation.
buppus 1 month ago
@theearstohear - obviously there's a lot more to it than that, and I'm not trying to write a commentary on YT comments for a John Piper clip... and the way you describe theology sounds like you think it is a type of science - one that discovers God instead of the physical world, and I think that is a category mistake.
buppus 1 month ago
@buppus - Theology is a type of science (which means knowledge). It has axiomatic presuppositions (God, biblical truth) just as natural science does (math, logic). It posits systematic arguments based on the precepts that stem from its axioms, just as natural science does. The only theology that is not science, is bad theology (paradox theology); in the same way that bad science (self contradictory nonsense) is not science. Have you ever considerted theology in this way?
theearstohear 1 month ago
@theearstohear - there are strands of theology that attempt to function as science, and generally, theologians do well to abide by the flow and functions of logic, but when you're talking about logic you're not talking about science, you're talking about philosophy. Science is a formal method of empirical observation and experimentation. It deals with the material world. Philosophy/theology explore the meaning of things. Science is not theology, theology is not science. They are very different.
buppus 1 month ago
@buppus - Logic is an axiomatic pillar of science and also of all good theology. Theology deals with the material world as well. If God is the creator, he created the material world and thus theology deals in this realm as well. The parting of the Red Sea, the worldwide flood and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah were all acts of God that have to do with the material world. And so the material world distinction simply does not hold true.
theearstohear 1 month ago
@theearstohear - I never made any such claim. I said that Theology deals with the meaning of things - that means the material world as well as everything else.
You simply cannot make a claim, however, that theology is science, as science is by definition empirical, while theology is not limited by the empirical category. That is not to say that theology doesn't deal with the empirical (it certainly does), simply that it deals with meaning, and not just classification/observation. It is prior.
buppus 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It's a Young World After All...Paul Ackerman
Luke 4:23-38.
Somebody please show these verses to John Piper .........he is obviously not reading his Bible!!
willpower242 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Calvinism/Doctrines of Grace/Reformed Theology are from the pit of Hell.....they are heresies that make God Almighty a sinner and not just a sinner but the Author of ALL sin.
Every child raped....every women beaten...every person murdered...every deceitful business deal...every cruelty man has done, was authored by God. It is a blasphemous false religion and many otherwise fine Bible teachers are promoting it today. MacArthur, Sproul, Piper, are some of them. Flee and Repent of Calvinism!!
willpower242 1 month ago
Well, finally my personal opinion is there are major problems for old earth view. If we assume old earth and notice it is almost impossible for an animal to live 1000000 years, then there must exist death before Adam sinned. Thus, wager of sin excludes physical death. If so then Jesus did not die physically, a contradiction.
But I believe Piper has studied more and thus I respect his position :)
mlequimatiaslequi 1 month ago
We also made a mistake and punished both Galileo and Copernicus when they said earth is not centre of universe.
This means, we need to be humble and admit our interpretation of Bible might be wrong.
Thirdly, I believe Dr.Piper has studied also about this and we don't know how much he has thought before leaning towards one side of view.
Piper can be wrong (he is human) but let us be humble and study more before saying 'why a godly preachers speak like this'.
mlequimatiaslequi 1 month ago
First of all, I lean to the young earth view.
Secondly, in order to understand all, we need to consider all things, as all opinions are still restricted by common grace of God (we are not in hell yet) and therefore, have some degree of truth. BUT, we need to see everything towards biblical point of view.
As an example, Solomon said (or at least the obvious way to interpret what he said) pi=3 somewhere in Book of Chronicles. It turns out pi=3.1415... It is quite a major difference.
mlequimatiaslequi 1 month ago
Misleading people like that... you are a sick fuck.
ActionFigureJesus1 1 month ago
It seems that you have affirmed that there are realities that exist outside the realm of science. Once there you have opened up the possibility that this reality could be superior to the physical world that science deals in. Next Mother's Day say, "Mom, I love you so much, but it's really just a bunch of chemical reactions in my head, you know, like when you pop open an RC Cola." That's the Hallmark Holiday Card of the year for sure! I believe the bible, but it's not all applicable today.
theearstohear 1 month ago
@theearstohear Philosophy begins where science ends. Abstract concepts like ethics are not scientific, but they are deduced rationally. The process of testing and observation may not tell us everything about everything, but that doesn't mean we need the supernatural to explain what's left. Philosophy is a far more sophisticated approach than religious pandering.
BigMikeMcBastard 1 month ago
@BigMikeMcBastard - You say, "the process of testing and observation may not tell us everything about everything, but that doesn't mean we need the supernatural to explain what's left." True, but it doesn't prove that we DON'T need it. You do affirm that science does not have all the answers and that's progress if you'd consider the ramifications of that. It creates fissures in your reliance on science, but it might make telling your daughter you love her a little less antiseptic.
theearstohear 1 month ago
@theearstohear If you can explain something through testing an observation why would you resort to supernatural explanations? How do you decide what the correct supernatural explanation is? If we want to resort to the genesis of the universe, for example, how do we decide between the myths of Christians or the myths of the vikings? Or the myths of Islam? Or Scientology? On what basis do we prove or disprove one religion over the other? We can't. So, we disregard them out of hand.
BigMikeMcBastard 1 month ago
@BigMikeMcBastard - I would not likely look for another answer but God also has dominion over the natural world. That something is provided through natural means is no proof that it was given by God. I choose the truth of the bible because I accept it axiomatically by faith, in the same way that you accept scientific observation in a universe so vast it defies cognition, based on axiomatically accepted math and logic, and on the assumption of uniformity which observation cannot prove.
theearstohear 1 month ago
@theearstohear I said specifically I don't believe that science tells us everything about everything, citing philosophical matters specifically as something science is mostly mute on. What I am asserting is that when it comes to the fields which science applies to, science is the final word. Why is it the final world? It's because a world in which no evidence of any kind of God can be tested or observed to include is a world where the existence of God can be discounted.
BigMikeMcBastard 1 month ago
@BigMikeMcBastard - So creation ex nihilo is not science and something else is required to account for the nanosecond prior to the singularity. I'm good with that.
theearstohear 1 month ago
@theearstohear Not having the answer to something yet is no reason to defer to supernatural authority to explain it. And even if you were to, you'd be picking your creation stories out of a hat. There's no reason to believe the Christian God was responsible over some other agency.
You aren't circumcised on a whim, really. The early Jews who comprised the Christian religion debated at length whether circumcision would still be required of them. It isn't because of what Jesus said.
BigMikeMcBastard 1 month ago
@theearstohear And to bring it all home... if all of the evidence points toward an Earth 4.54 billion years old and none suggests it's less than 10k years old, then what any given religious text implies about the age of the Earth doesn't matter, and John Piper is perfectly reasonable to go with an old Earth rather than a young/created Earth. That, again, is because science is the best method we have for understanding the physical world, and the age of the Earth is within its scope
BigMikeMcBastard 1 month ago
@BigMikeMcBastard - I'd estimate 6k years, then again, I believe the bible. If you don't, I accept that, but (returning to the original point of this thread) I do NOT understand why a preacher like John Piper, who claims to believe the bible, and in the supernatural, would side with SCIENCE on the age of the earth. Surely, even if you disagree with me on this, you can see the point that I'm making. I mean, he's not a physicist, he's a man who claims to believe the bible is the word of God.
theearstohear 1 month ago
@theearstohear But in a situation such as this, does it matter? Like Piper said, both views have merit, and because this isn't a Huge issue, why fight? I personally take an old Earth view, but if its new Earth, then fine.
zz060210 1 month ago
@zz060210 - Yes, it does matter. If you take the evidence of natural science to be sufficient to bend your interpretation of Genesis in favor of an old earth, this same approach applied elsewhere would reject the virgin birth of Christ. Why accept science to modify scripture in one place and reject it in another? Both instances require the supernatural to support the bible's claims. It undermines the authority of scripture which Piper purports to uphold; it's a pandora's box.
theearstohear 1 month ago
@theearstohear As for the Bible, is there a part of it that I missed where it said "ignore these sections after X date is reached"? Who decided when which parts should no longer be applicable? Do you imagine this shoot-from-the-hip approach to the Bible might not be a sign that it is not the immutable word of God? Does the fact that most humans do not accept it as a holy book, and those that do can't even agree on fundamental points within or around it, is a sign of the same sort?
BigMikeMcBastard 1 month ago
@BigMikeMcBastard - Well actually, yes. This is explained in Hebrews among other places. In the New Covenant, Christ fulfilled the old covenant (Heb 8:7-13) for his people, thereby saving them (Heb 10:14). I am not talking about a "shoot-from-the-hip" approach to the bible, which I'm sure you have often encountered, I'm talking about right division of scripture (II Tim 2:15). Any assertion based on what "most..accept" is so fallacious that I'm certain you KNOW this is no proof at all.
theearstohear 1 month ago
@theearstohear So you do or do not believe that a woman found not to be a virgin on her wedding night should be stoned to death? When did you decide this and on what basis do you contradict a revelation from God? Or, less extreme, working on the sabbath. Eating shellfish. How about divorce? The list of things that are in the Bible which I doubt you give any weight to is staggering, and the idea that this book is somehow better than "science" is a fairly silly thing I think.
BigMikeMcBastard 1 month ago
@BigMikeMcBastard - I am not a national Israelite so the old covenant was never made with me. Stonings, Sabbaths, shellfish, Moses divorce - all Old Covenant, all made with Israel, not with me. By the hermeneutic that would apply this to me, I could equally make you responsible for paying my mortgage. That this seems silly to you - maybe, but no more so than your hamfisted assertions regarding the covenants of scripture.
theearstohear 1 month ago
@theearstohear That's not true at all, and in fact there was quite a lot of debate during early Christianity about which of the Hebrew laws the Christians were to follow, including circumcision and so forth. This is at least in part because Jesus was referenced several times as holding the Hebrew Bible in high regard and indicating he wasn't there to replace the Old Testament (Matthew 5:18-19) and that it would always apply (Luke 16:17).
So disregarding the OT is folly.
BigMikeMcBastard 1 month ago
@BigMikeMcBastard - You have a remarkable capacity for coarse thought - I have not suggested that the OT be disregarded. I am saying the Old Covenant does not apply to me. God's holy standard represented by the OT law is always in place, but man could not keep it. Christ fulfilled it for his people. That is why "there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." (Rom 8:1)
theearstohear 1 month ago
Piper's "old earth" theory is unable to accommodate that death came as a result of sin (Rom 5:12) nor that the creatures were just as explicitly created as Adam was. More waffling on biblical truth from Piper.
theearstohear 1 month ago
@theearstohear It is a strenuous thing to reconcile the decidedly unscientific, faith-based approach of Biblical literalism with the inquisitive, logic-seeking faculties of the human mind. Piper has unfortunately allowed his more rational nature to poison what might otherwise be blind, unthinking faith and turn it into a bizarre mish-mash, the kind which elucidated all sorts of important discoveries about the world before The Enlightenment. But cut him some slack anyway won't you?
BigMikeMcBastard 1 month ago
@BigMikeMcBastard Science and Religion are both faiths based on the axiomatic acceptance of their initial presuppositions which are inherently unprovable. I have a hard time cutting Piper slack on this matter because if science is this influential in your hermeneutic you don't have any valid way of affirming the virgin birth of Christ. If you affirm the virgin birth, young earth seems like a no brainer.
theearstohear 1 month ago
@theearstohear If you would like to debate the premise that our senses are inherently unprovable and the world as we know it may be entirely illusory I am sure you'd have a gander of it in a philosophy class. However, as of yet we have no reason to doubt our ability to perceive the world (within reason) and scientific inquiry has lead to this very moment, which is so far the peak of human civilization.
So, no. Science is not faith-based in any realistic sense of the term.
BigMikeMcBastard 1 month ago
@BigMikeMcBastard - Science cannot prove its own presuppositions of both math and logic. Both math and logic are accepted axiomatically. Belief is involved in the acceptance of axiomatic truth. I'm comfortable affirming and discussing my reliance upon faith in the God of the bible and his word as an axiomatic presupposition. Are you a big enough McBastard to admit as much about the unprovable axiom's science?
theearstohear 1 month ago
@theearstohear Actually math is the one area of science that is absolutely certain and what it proves is considered real "proof". It is impossible to disprove 1+1=2. Hooray for math.
As for the rest, when we have any reason to doubt our ability to use the scientific method to discover how the world works we will reassess our faculties and the truths they might reveal. Until then, enjoy your electricity, your antibiotics, your air travel, and your Internet.
BigMikeMcBastard 1 month ago
@BigMikeMcBastard - I'll accept this as a McBastardly admission that your science is based on the axiomatic presuppositions of math and logic. All observational science is inferential since it is impossible to make all observations. Honest scientists do not turn a blind eye to the reality of the presuppositional and axiomatic basis of their endeavors. Enjoy your fascination with the accomplishments of human science, meanwhile, the heavens declare the glory of God. (Ps 19:1)
theearstohear 1 month ago
@theearstohear And the Bible is based on... what? Absolute truths? Which is why you ignore entire swaths of it I assume? Or are you writing this from prison after having stoned someone to death?
BigMikeMcBastard 1 month ago
@BigMikeMcBastard - It is a revelation from God (II Tim 3:16). None of the bible is to be ignored (Matt 4:4); it is all written FOR us, but it is not all written TO us. The word of God must be rightly divided to be properly understood and applied to our lives (II Tim 2:15). My belief is based on the presupposition that the bible is word of God and I freely admit that. Do you honestly believe that science has an explanation for love, or beauty or justice? Or are these just meaningless?
theearstohear 1 month ago
@theearstohear Love, beauty and justice are generally left to the domain of philosophers as they are abstract concepts for the most part. Science can describe physiological changes that occur when someone is in love, for example, but science does not seek to understand "justice". Or "the meaning of life". Science is not the entirety of human understanding.
However, as I implied, you obviously do not believe the entirety of the Bible. Explain that to me given what you've said here.
BigMikeMcBastard 1 month ago
I have never understood why Christians call themselves humble. Here's one that says to 97% (Pew 2009) of the scientific community who accept evolution, that they're wrong and instead proposes that we should believe the bible because its true and that its true because its in the bible.
FryderykFChopin 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@angryspidertv Well i'm not limiting God's power by saying He made it in 6 days. Why did Jesus rise again in 3 days? Why not 3 hours? Is it cuz He didn't have enough power to? No. But because He ordained it to be that time. I believe when it says 6 days, it's 6 days. Honestly, no reason to look deeply into it. Our knowledge is infinitely futile to God's. So if He says 6 days, then I'm sure we should take it in the way He implied it to be. 6 days. Grace and peace to you
JogaHenryBonito 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@angryspidertv Well i'm not limiting God's power by saying He made it in 6 days. Why did Jesus rise again in 3 days? Why not 3 hours? Is it cuz He didn't have enough power to? No. But because He ordained it to be that time. I believe when it says 6 days, it's 6 days. Honestly, no reason to look deeply into it. Our knowledge is infinitely futile to God's. So if He says 6 days, then I'm sure we should take it in the way He implied it to be. 6 days. Grace and peace to you
JogaHenryBonito 1 month ago
I just don't understand. How could evolution not even be an option when God is omnipotent? He can evolve anything.
Eliz279009 1 month ago
@Eliz279009 You really should read this book annomundi(dot)com/impossible_theology_leaflet_church_usa(dot)pdf
GordonCope 1 month ago
We will find out in heaven!
couyang95 2 months ago