Under NOMA the statement should read, "In the search for empirical truth, science is the best tool we have." Moral and spiritual truths may be objective but are not empirical.
Is God in control? 2nd Attempt
59,192 Views |
605 Replies |
Last: 5 yr ago by quash
What if it's Doctor Strange?quash said:Oldbear83 said:"Objective truth" depends on an objective source, Ergo, a human in a lab coat is no more trustworthy than a human in a cassock. In both cases you would do well to listen with discernment.quash said:Sam Lowry said:A precision tool does not always work better than a blunt instrument. That's why we have blunt instruments.quash said:Sam Lowry said:As you said, science is a tool. Science-based morality makes just as much sense as socket wrench-based morality. It's a meaningless expression.Waco1947 said:
Waco "What does your moral God bring to the table?"
Sam: "Morals"
Hmmm?
Then?
"Sam,?Do you see a difference between just wanting to be moral and, through action, being moral?
"Sam,?would your answer beAbsolutely!"
Me:" Then who is actually moral? Is it the person who wants to help his neighbor because he believes it is right and yet does not help, or is it the one who wants to help his neighbor and actually does it?
And where is God?
Me, Fred, It is the one who loves his neighbor with real deeds that is the moral person?
No, it's not. The quality of the tool is a matter of great importance. A precision tool works better yhan a blunt instrument. You make better moral choices with better evidence.
No doubt. But in the search for objective truth science is thr best tool we have. If I'm dying from an infection I want antibiotics, not prayer.
The guy in a cassock might be useful if he's Jesuit.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Sam Lowry said:
Under NOMA the statement should read, "In the search for empirical truth, science is the best tool we have." Moral and spiritual truths may be objective but are not empirical.
No, I'll stick with objective truth.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
I don't deny scripture. I deny that the Bible is dependent on a God who moves tectonic plates. To be a Christian one must accept the Bible as the word of God On faith not phuysics. I don't scripture. I deny your interpretation of the God of your scripture. Your scripture is only doctrine. My scripture lives out life in fsith, love and and discipleship ))))))))))))Oldbear83 said:First, why don't you want to know what is right?((((((((((((((((( Because we are losing generation to faith because insist in fairy tales I. A miracle sense. I believe in the stories from a faith sense - God interacting in a real worl relationship. Not a fairy tale world. The scripture is truth about faith not physics. You may believe otherwise and people respond. Good on you. I find people most interested in faith and discipship not super natural powers))))))))))))Waco1947 said:I'm not looking for the "right answer," I am looking for your answer. Does God control physics? If so, how do you know?Oldbear83 said:Waco, that has been answered many times.Waco1947 said:
God's Do you believe it? Oldbear
What does it mean to you?
Is God in control of physics?
I am trying to understand how people arrive at this faith statement.
I am not asking because I missed it in seminary but I am asking how disciples on this forum came to believe it.
1) Is God in control of events,
2) relationships
3) physics (physical forces - gravity, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc)
You either believe Scripture, or you do not.
Focusing just on Jesus, if He really did walk on water, change water into wine, heal the blind and lame and raise the dead, then absolutely God controls physics and all natural laws.
If you deny Scripture, then you are no Christian and therefore have much bigger problems than losing an argument here.
Second, I have made my answer plain. If you didn't read it, that would only be because you ignored it.(((((((((((((( My apologies. Yes you have))))))))))))
Denying Scripture makes sense for an atheist, but is anathema for an ordained minister.
Oldbear read some Tillich, H Richard Niebuhr and Schubert Ogden. Lordy there's a world of theology that just don't know. That's onnyou you not me. I read orthodox Christianity and it wanting in reality.
Great if you live it but it does not I have to
"Stick with"? If you do, it would more like "start looking for".quash said:Sam Lowry said:
Under NOMA the statement should read, "In the search for empirical truth, science is the best tool we have." Moral and spiritual truths may be objective but are not empirical.
No, I'll stick with objective truth.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Read Scripture, Waco. Not just what some SJW says is relevant,Waco1947 said:I don't deny scripture. I deny that the Bible is dependent on a God who moves tectonic plates. To be a Christian one must accept the Bible as the word of God On faith not phuysics. I don't scripture. I deny your interpretation of the God of your scripture. Your scripture is only doctrine. My scripture lives out life in fsith, love and and discipleship ))))))))))))Oldbear83 said:First, why don't you want to know what is right?((((((((((((((((( Because we are losing generation to faith because insist in fairy tales I. A miracle sense. I believe in the stories from a faith sense - God interacting in a real worl relationship. Not a fairy tale world. The scripture is truth about faith not physics. You may believe otherwise and people respond. Good on you. I find people most interested in faith and discipship not super natural powers))))))))))))Waco1947 said:I'm not looking for the "right answer," I am looking for your answer. Does God control physics? If so, how do you know?Oldbear83 said:Waco, that has been answered many times.Waco1947 said:
God's Do you believe it? Oldbear
What does it mean to you?
Is God in control of physics?
I am trying to understand how people arrive at this faith statement.
I am not asking because I missed it in seminary but I am asking how disciples on this forum came to believe it.
1) Is God in control of events,
2) relationships
3) physics (physical forces - gravity, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc)
You either believe Scripture, or you do not.
Focusing just on Jesus, if He really did walk on water, change water into wine, heal the blind and lame and raise the dead, then absolutely God controls physics and all natural laws.
If you deny Scripture, then you are no Christian and therefore have much bigger problems than losing an argument here.
Second, I have made my answer plain. If you didn't read it, that would only be because you ignored it.(((((((((((((( My apologies. Yes you have))))))))))))
Denying Scripture makes sense for an atheist, but is anathema for an ordained minister.
Oldbear read some Tillich, H Richard Niebuhr and Schubert Ogden. Lordy there's a world of theology that just don't know. That's onnyou you not me. I read orthodox Christianity and it wanting in reality.
Great if you live it but it does not I have to
All of it.
Jesus quoted the Old Testament all the time. You have never stopped to consider why.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
So you're trying to privilege one magisterium over the other by claiming that only one can have access to objective truth. That's always where the trouble starts.quash said:Sam Lowry said:
Under NOMA the statement should read, "In the search for empirical truth, science is the best tool we have." Moral and spiritual truths may be objective but are not empirical.
No, I'll stick with objective truth.
Oldbear83 said:"Stick with"? If you do, it would more like "start looking for".quash said:Sam Lowry said:
Under NOMA the statement should read, "In the search for empirical truth, science is the best tool we have." Moral and spiritual truths may be objective but are not empirical.
No, I'll stick with objective truth.
It started in the Enlightenment.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
It started with Platoquash said:Oldbear83 said:"Stick with"? If you do, it would more like "start looking for".quash said:Sam Lowry said:
Under NOMA the statement should read, "In the search for empirical truth, science is the best tool we have." Moral and spiritual truths may be objective but are not empirical.
No, I'll stick with objective truth.
It started in the Enlightenment.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
You can't rewrite history. Mengele was Catholic. "More to the point" there is no evidence his efforts were less effective due to prayer. By all appearances his efforts were only impeded by his lack of resources, and the efforts he did undertake were unconscionable. Where is the efficacy of prayer in that. I have no doubt there were a lot of cries and prayers to God by his victims. Surely Mengele's work is a monument to the failure of prayer. You're defense of prayer is putting yourself in the position minimalizing the consequences of Mengele, which I don't think you intend.Sam Lowry said:Please. Mengele was no Catholic. I actually thought about choosing a different example on the remote chance that someone would try to make something of his religious upbringing, but then I was like, "Nah...there's no way anyone would reach that far."TexasScientist said:His work, unfortunately, was way more effective than prayer. I imagine all of the people he worked on were praying for different results to no avail. BTW - Mengele was a Catholic.Sam Lowry said:Dr. Mengele was eminently qualified and competent.quash said:Sam Lowry said:Then you'd better pray the doctor is a good Catholic and not a Malthusian.quash said:Sam Lowry said:A precision tool does not always work better than a blunt instrument. That's why we have blunt instruments.quash said:Sam Lowry said:As you said, science is a tool. Science-based morality makes just as much sense as socket wrench-based morality. It's a meaningless expression.Waco1947 said:
Waco "What does your moral God bring to the table?"
Sam: "Morals"
Hmmm?
Then?
"Sam,?Do you see a difference between just wanting to be moral and, through action, being moral?
"Sam,?would your answer beAbsolutely!"
Me:" Then who is actually moral? Is it the person who wants to help his neighbor because he believes it is right and yet does not help, or is it the one who wants to help his neighbor and actually does it?
And where is God?
Me, Fred, It is the one who loves his neighbor with real deeds that is the moral person?
No, it's not. The quality of the tool is a matter of great importance. A precision tool works better yhan a blunt instrument. You make better moral choices with better evidence.
No doubt. But in the search for objective truth science is thr best tool we have. If I'm dying from an infection I want antibiotics, not prayer.
Praying for a doctor is about as useful as praying for healing. I choose a doctor on his medical competence, not where he goes on Sundays.
More to the point, his efforts were ultimately less effective. Prayer gave people the courage to shelter his potential victims and the moral sense to reject his worldview. Like other "science-based" ideologies, it was destined to survive only as an example of hubris and failure.
I'll be here when you're ready to talk seriously. Your doubling down on the Catholic thing tells me it may be a while. Furthermore, we've yet to establish scientifically that there was anything wrong with Mengele's actions. So we're getting ahead of ourselves debating their effectiveness.TexasScientist said:You can't rewrite history. Mengele was Catholic. "More to the point" there is no evidence his efforts were less effective due to prayer. By all appearances his efforts were only impeded by his lack of resources, and the efforts he did undertake were unconscionable. Where is the efficacy of prayer in that. I have no doubt there were a lot of cries and prayers to God by his victims. Surely Mengele's work is a monument to the failure of prayer. You're defense of prayer is putting yourself in the position minimalizing the consequences of Mengele, which I don't think you intend.Sam Lowry said:Please. Mengele was no Catholic. I actually thought about choosing a different example on the remote chance that someone would try to make something of his religious upbringing, but then I was like, "Nah...there's no way anyone would reach that far."TexasScientist said:His work, unfortunately, was way more effective than prayer. I imagine all of the people he worked on were praying for different results to no avail. BTW - Mengele was a Catholic.Sam Lowry said:Dr. Mengele was eminently qualified and competent.quash said:Sam Lowry said:Then you'd better pray the doctor is a good Catholic and not a Malthusian.quash said:Sam Lowry said:A precision tool does not always work better than a blunt instrument. That's why we have blunt instruments.quash said:Sam Lowry said:As you said, science is a tool. Science-based morality makes just as much sense as socket wrench-based morality. It's a meaningless expression.Waco1947 said:
Waco "What does your moral God bring to the table?"
Sam: "Morals"
Hmmm?
Then?
"Sam,?Do you see a difference between just wanting to be moral and, through action, being moral?
"Sam,?would your answer beAbsolutely!"
Me:" Then who is actually moral? Is it the person who wants to help his neighbor because he believes it is right and yet does not help, or is it the one who wants to help his neighbor and actually does it?
And where is God?
Me, Fred, It is the one who loves his neighbor with real deeds that is the moral person?
No, it's not. The quality of the tool is a matter of great importance. A precision tool works better yhan a blunt instrument. You make better moral choices with better evidence.
No doubt. But in the search for objective truth science is thr best tool we have. If I'm dying from an infection I want antibiotics, not prayer.
Praying for a doctor is about as useful as praying for healing. I choose a doctor on his medical competence, not where he goes on Sundays.
More to the point, his efforts were ultimately less effective. Prayer gave people the courage to shelter his potential victims and the moral sense to reject his worldview. Like other "science-based" ideologies, it was destined to survive only as an example of hubris and failure.
If true, that disqualifies him as a Catholic under Catholic doctrine?Sam Lowry said:Mengele made his position clear, even stating in his journal that he "had to liberate Germanic history from Roman and Catholic influences."LIB,MR BEARS said:
Some of the same people that are quick to say OU's QB is NOT a homophobic person because he made a lame statement when he was 14 or 15. Will take the opposite stance that a person is Catholic or Lutheran as an adult be cause they were as a child.
TS I believe has said before that he was raised in the church but he doesn't claim it now. Different rules for different folks I guess.
Being vehemently anti-Catholic pretty much disqualifies you from being Catholic, yes.TexasScientist said:If true, that disqualifies him as a Catholic under Catholic doctrine?Sam Lowry said:Mengele made his position clear, even stating in his journal that he "had to liberate Germanic history from Roman and Catholic influences."LIB,MR BEARS said:
Some of the same people that are quick to say OU's QB is NOT a homophobic person because he made a lame statement when he was 14 or 15. Will take the opposite stance that a person is Catholic or Lutheran as an adult be cause they were as a child.
TS I believe has said before that he was raised in the church but he doesn't claim it now. Different rules for different folks I guess.
Humanistic determination based upon scientifically derived objective truth. How do you establish with religion there was anything wrong with Mengele's actions?Sam Lowry said:I'll be here when you're ready to talk seriously. Your doubling down on the Catholic thing tells me it may be a while. Furthermore, we've yet to establish scientifically that there was anything wrong with Mengele's actions. So we're getting ahead of ourselves debating their effectiveness.TexasScientist said:You can't rewrite history. Mengele was Catholic. "More to the point" there is no evidence his efforts were less effective due to prayer. By all appearances his efforts were only impeded by his lack of resources, and the efforts he did undertake were unconscionable. Where is the efficacy of prayer in that. I have no doubt there were a lot of cries and prayers to God by his victims. Surely Mengele's work is a monument to the failure of prayer. You're defense of prayer is putting yourself in the position minimalizing the consequences of Mengele, which I don't think you intend.Sam Lowry said:Please. Mengele was no Catholic. I actually thought about choosing a different example on the remote chance that someone would try to make something of his religious upbringing, but then I was like, "Nah...there's no way anyone would reach that far."TexasScientist said:His work, unfortunately, was way more effective than prayer. I imagine all of the people he worked on were praying for different results to no avail. BTW - Mengele was a Catholic.Sam Lowry said:Dr. Mengele was eminently qualified and competent.quash said:Sam Lowry said:Then you'd better pray the doctor is a good Catholic and not a Malthusian.quash said:Sam Lowry said:A precision tool does not always work better than a blunt instrument. That's why we have blunt instruments.quash said:Sam Lowry said:As you said, science is a tool. Science-based morality makes just as much sense as socket wrench-based morality. It's a meaningless expression.Waco1947 said:
Waco "What does your moral God bring to the table?"
Sam: "Morals"
Hmmm?
Then?
"Sam,?Do you see a difference between just wanting to be moral and, through action, being moral?
"Sam,?would your answer beAbsolutely!"
Me:" Then who is actually moral? Is it the person who wants to help his neighbor because he believes it is right and yet does not help, or is it the one who wants to help his neighbor and actually does it?
And where is God?
Me, Fred, It is the one who loves his neighbor with real deeds that is the moral person?
No, it's not. The quality of the tool is a matter of great importance. A precision tool works better yhan a blunt instrument. You make better moral choices with better evidence.
No doubt. But in the search for objective truth science is thr best tool we have. If I'm dying from an infection I want antibiotics, not prayer.
Praying for a doctor is about as useful as praying for healing. I choose a doctor on his medical competence, not where he goes on Sundays.
More to the point, his efforts were ultimately less effective. Prayer gave people the courage to shelter his potential victims and the moral sense to reject his worldview. Like other "science-based" ideologies, it was destined to survive only as an example of hubris and failure.
The same way you establish it with humanism -- facts interpreted through faith. We're just calliing it different things.TexasScientist said:Humanistic determination based upon scientifically derived objective truth. How do you establish with religion there was anything wrong with Mengele's actions?Sam Lowry said:I'll be here when you're ready to talk seriously. Your doubling down on the Catholic thing tells me it may be a while. Furthermore, we've yet to establish scientifically that there was anything wrong with Mengele's actions. So we're getting ahead of ourselves debating their effectiveness.TexasScientist said:You can't rewrite history. Mengele was Catholic. "More to the point" there is no evidence his efforts were less effective due to prayer. By all appearances his efforts were only impeded by his lack of resources, and the efforts he did undertake were unconscionable. Where is the efficacy of prayer in that. I have no doubt there were a lot of cries and prayers to God by his victims. Surely Mengele's work is a monument to the failure of prayer. You're defense of prayer is putting yourself in the position minimalizing the consequences of Mengele, which I don't think you intend.Sam Lowry said:Please. Mengele was no Catholic. I actually thought about choosing a different example on the remote chance that someone would try to make something of his religious upbringing, but then I was like, "Nah...there's no way anyone would reach that far."TexasScientist said:His work, unfortunately, was way more effective than prayer. I imagine all of the people he worked on were praying for different results to no avail. BTW - Mengele was a Catholic.Sam Lowry said:Dr. Mengele was eminently qualified and competent.quash said:Sam Lowry said:Then you'd better pray the doctor is a good Catholic and not a Malthusian.quash said:Sam Lowry said:A precision tool does not always work better than a blunt instrument. That's why we have blunt instruments.quash said:Sam Lowry said:As you said, science is a tool. Science-based morality makes just as much sense as socket wrench-based morality. It's a meaningless expression.Waco1947 said:
Waco "What does your moral God bring to the table?"
Sam: "Morals"
Hmmm?
Then?
"Sam,?Do you see a difference between just wanting to be moral and, through action, being moral?
"Sam,?would your answer beAbsolutely!"
Me:" Then who is actually moral? Is it the person who wants to help his neighbor because he believes it is right and yet does not help, or is it the one who wants to help his neighbor and actually does it?
And where is God?
Me, Fred, It is the one who loves his neighbor with real deeds that is the moral person?
No, it's not. The quality of the tool is a matter of great importance. A precision tool works better yhan a blunt instrument. You make better moral choices with better evidence.
No doubt. But in the search for objective truth science is thr best tool we have. If I'm dying from an infection I want antibiotics, not prayer.
Praying for a doctor is about as useful as praying for healing. I choose a doctor on his medical competence, not where he goes on Sundays.
More to the point, his efforts were ultimately less effective. Prayer gave people the courage to shelter his potential victims and the moral sense to reject his worldview. Like other "science-based" ideologies, it was destined to survive only as an example of hubris and failure.
TS, you were raised in a family of faith yet you claim there is no God. On the religious aspect only, substitute yourself for Hitler or M*****. How does your argument play now?TexasScientist said:If true, that disqualifies him as a Catholic under Catholic doctrine?Sam Lowry said:Mengele made his position clear, even stating in his journal that he "had to liberate Germanic history from Roman and Catholic influences."LIB,MR BEARS said:
Some of the same people that are quick to say OU's QB is NOT a homophobic person because he made a lame statement when he was 14 or 15. Will take the opposite stance that a person is Catholic or Lutheran as an adult be cause they were as a child.
TS I believe has said before that he was raised in the church but he doesn't claim it now. Different rules for different folks I guess.
I have read "all of it." But cosmology and physics don't change OT to NT. You pile up a million examples in the Bible but all rest a questionable cosmology. A powerful being controlling all. Heck that's true of all ancient religious claims. Claims are not proof.
^^ Confirms Waco is not a Christian ^^^Waco1947 said:
I have read "all of it." But cosmology and physics don't change OT to NT. You pile up a million examples in the Bible but all rest a questionable cosmology. A powerful being controlling all. Heck that's true of all ancient religious claims. Claims are not proof.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
With all due respect, I'm confused by your theology, philosophy, logic and reason.Waco1947 said:
I have read "all of it." But cosmology and physics don't change OT to NT. You pile up a million examples in the Bible but all rest a questionable cosmology. A powerful being controlling all. Heck that's true of all ancient religious claims. Claims are not proof.
Do you believe that God, who is outside of Time and Space, created the universe Ex nihilo is NOT omnipotent (All Powerful) enough to affect the laws of physics or do you argue that he does NOT affect the laws of physics?
Because?Oldbear83 said:^^ Confirms Waco is not a Christian ^^^Waco1947 said:
I have read "all of it." But cosmology and physics don't change OT to NT. You pile up a million examples in the Bible but all rest a questionable cosmology. A powerful being controlling all. Heck that's true of all ancient religious claims. Claims are not proof.
It only confirms that you think you are the final judge.
Pro Tip. You are not.
Nope, you cannot reject God's word yet claim to be God's servant.Waco1947 said:Because?Oldbear83 said:^^ Confirms Waco is not a Christian ^^^Waco1947 said:
I have read "all of it." But cosmology and physics don't change OT to NT. You pile up a million examples in the Bible but all rest a questionable cosmology. A powerful being controlling all. Heck that's true of all ancient religious claims. Claims are not proof.
It only confirms that you think you are the final judge.
Pro Tip. You are not.
Not my rules, so getting mad at me won't change anything, Waco.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Arrogance "No not my rules. God's"
Speaking for God.
Speaking for God.
You reject God's word in Scripture, Waco.Waco1947 said:
Arrogance "No not my rules. God's"
Speaking for God.
That is where the arrogance come in.
I believe and obey. You sneer and defy, to the point that you pretend God will condone the death of babies, will countenance, even bless taking His name in vain.
Seriously, God help you, son.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
God is love is rejecting God's word? Please say more?
Scripture is God speaking to us. You, Waco, by rejecting the Word, depend on what you hear from men, and this leads you into not only error but evil.Waco1947 said:
God is love is rejecting God's word? Please say more?
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
No proof. Just s biased witness which truenof all religions. Why the Christian myth and not Toltecs,
There is not independent source as to God's all powerful abilities. Just the Bible andvits bissed and to refer to it proof is circular reasoning. Our faith is finally not dependent on an all powerful ZHod but on a God who loves us us. That's my premise. Tell me I am wrong.
There is not independent source as to God's all powerful abilities. Just the Bible andvits bissed and to refer to it proof is circular reasoning. Our faith is finally not dependent on an all powerful ZHod but on a God who loves us us. That's my premise. Tell me I am wrong.
How do you explain the origins of the universe?Waco1947 said:
There is not independent source as to God's all powerful abilities.
How do you know that God is Love?
I stated in an earlier post that I don't understand your logic, etc.
What your post makes clear, Waco, is that you have rejected Christianity. Yes, you keep insisting how great a follower of Jesus you are, but your context is pure SJW. That is, you pervert the Gospel to a political platform, and have repeatedly denied Scripture when it conflicts with what you want to do.Waco1947 said:
No proof. Just s biased witness which truenof all religions. Why the Christian myth and not Toltecs,
There is not independent source as to God's all powerful abilities. Just the Bible andvits bissed and to refer to it proof is circular reasoning. Our faith is finally not dependent on an all powerful ZHod but on a God who loves us us. That's my premise. Tell me I am wrong.
All people make choices, so if someone prefers the Toltecs to Christ that is their decision. But they may not continue to pretend to be a follower of Christ if they reject Scripture. Someone is welcome to model their life after Hitchens or Crowley if they so decide, but they may not also claim to be in fellowship with the Christ.
You keep falling back on 'God is Love', which is easy since no one disagrees with that statement. But you never think through how that love manifests. A good father loves his children, but will teach them, sometimes strictly, against criminal behavior and self-destructive behavior. A good father loves his children but will use discipline when they do wrong.
Abortion is morally indefensible.
Demanding money from the person who earned it, to give to someone who did not earn it, is stealing.
If you want to be Christian, you must follow the Christ of the Bible. To alter Christ's teachings is blasphemy.
You are wrong when you deny these truths, Waco. And I tell you this as a brother who sees you walking a deadly road.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
"God is love". I talk about love. Therefore, I'm a Christian.
US currency has pictures of Presidents. I have a picture of a President. Therefore, it is currency.
47 logic. Flawed logic. False teaching. Counterfeit
US currency has pictures of Presidents. I have a picture of a President. Therefore, it is currency.
47 logic. Flawed logic. False teaching. Counterfeit
I am not a "great" follower of Jesus - I am a disciple like you who believes God is love and is present because the Bible tells me so and who believes the Great Commandment to love God, neighbor and self because the Bible tells me so.
I don't believe God moves tectonic plates. Nature simply happens and God goes with us through it. God will not deny me entrancevinto Gid's Eternal Kingdom based on your a man made doctrine. God will have one one question "Do love me and did you feed my sheep?"
There is No proof that moves tectonic plates but Just s biased witness which true of all religions. Why should the Christian myth be believed and not the Toltecs?
There is not independent source as to God's all powerful abilities. Just the Bible and it's biased witness and to refer to it'd proof in the Bible is circular reasoning. Our faith is finally not dependent on an all powerful God but on a God who loves us. That's my premise. Tell me I am wrong.
I don't believe God moves tectonic plates. Nature simply happens and God goes with us through it. God will not deny me entrancevinto Gid's Eternal Kingdom based on your a man made doctrine. God will have one one question "Do love me and did you feed my sheep?"
There is No proof that moves tectonic plates but Just s biased witness which true of all religions. Why should the Christian myth be believed and not the Toltecs?
There is not independent source as to God's all powerful abilities. Just the Bible and it's biased witness and to refer to it'd proof in the Bible is circular reasoning. Our faith is finally not dependent on an all powerful God but on a God who loves us. That's my premise. Tell me I am wrong.
I've asked twice, in two different threads... Do you believe that your "God who love us" created the universe ex nihilo?Quote:
There is not independent source as to God's all powerful abilities. Just the Bible and it's biased witness and to refer to it'd proof in the Bible is circular reasoning. Our faith is finally not dependent on an all powerful God but on a God who loves us. That's my premise. Tell me I am wrong.
You refuse to answer simple questions.Waco1947 said:
I am not a "great" follower of Jesus - I am a disciple like you who believes God is love and is present because the Bible tells me so and who believes the Great Commandment to love God, neighbor and self because the Bible tells me so.
I don't believe God moves tectonic plates. Nature simply happens and God goes with us through it. God will not deny me entrancevinto Gid's Eternal Kingdom based on your a man made doctrine. God will have one one question "Do love me and did you feed my sheep?"
There is No proof that moves tectonic plates but Just s biased witness which true of all religions. Why should the Christian myth be believed and not the Toltecs?
There is not independent source as to God's all powerful abilities. Just the Bible and it's biased witness and to refer to it'd proof in the Bible is circular reasoning. Our faith is finally not dependent on an all powerful God but on a God who loves us. That's my premise. Tell me I am wrong.
Therefore, you are not honest.
You just keep repeating statements already addressed, Waco, which makes you either willfully ignorant of what is already here for your consideration, or you are maliciously ignoring anything that does not agree with your political screed.
It is, by the way, not wise to mock Scripture.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
IF the question is "Is God all powerful?" The answer is no. There is no evidentiary proof that there is a power more power that natural forces. The Bible say YES GOD but it only pints tonitself as evidence. That's not proof that hearsay.Oldbear83 said:You refuse to answer simple questions.Waco1947 said:
I am not a "great" follower of Jesus - I am a disciple like you who believes God is love and is present because the Bible tells me so and who believes the Great Commandment to love God, neighbor and self because the Bible tells me so.
I don't believe God moves tectonic plates. Nature simply happens and God goes with us through it. God will not deny me entrancevinto Gid's Eternal Kingdom based on your a man made doctrine. God will have one one question "Do love me and did you feed my sheep?"
There is No proof that moves tectonic plates but Just s biased witness which true of all religions. Why should the Christian myth be believed and not the Toltecs?
There is not independent source as to God's all powerful abilities. Just the Bible and it's biased witness and to refer to it'd proof in the Bible is circular reasoning. Our faith is finally not dependent on an all powerful God but on a God who loves us. That's my premise. Tell me I am wrong.
Therefore, you are not honest.
You just keep repeating statements already addressed, Waco, which makes you either willfully ignorant of what is already here for your consideration, or you are maliciously ignoring anything that does not agree with your political screed.
It is, by the way, not wise to mock Scripture.
And there it is. Waco places the creation above the Creator, and spits on Scripture while doing so.Waco1947 said:IF the question is "Is God all powerful?" The answer is no. There is no evidentiary proof that there is a power more power that natural forces. The Bible say YES GOD but it only pints tonitself as evidence. That's not proof that hearsay.Oldbear83 said:You refuse to answer simple questions.Waco1947 said:
I am not a "great" follower of Jesus - I am a disciple like you who believes God is love and is present because the Bible tells me so and who believes the Great Commandment to love God, neighbor and self because the Bible tells me so.
I don't believe God moves tectonic plates. Nature simply happens and God goes with us through it. God will not deny me entrancevinto Gid's Eternal Kingdom based on your a man made doctrine. God will have one one question "Do love me and did you feed my sheep?"
There is No proof that moves tectonic plates but Just s biased witness which true of all religions. Why should the Christian myth be believed and not the Toltecs?
There is not independent source as to God's all powerful abilities. Just the Bible and it's biased witness and to refer to it'd proof in the Bible is circular reasoning. Our faith is finally not dependent on an all powerful God but on a God who loves us. That's my premise. Tell me I am wrong.
Therefore, you are not honest.
You just keep repeating statements already addressed, Waco, which makes you either willfully ignorant of what is already here for your consideration, or you are maliciously ignoring anything that does not agree with your political screed.
It is, by the way, not wise to mock Scripture.
God help you son, your evil rules you.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Coke Bear said:I've asked twice, in two different threads... Do you believe that your "God who love us" created the universe ex nihilo?Quote:
There is not independent source as to God's all powerful abilities. Just the Bible and it's biased witness and to refer to it'd proof in the Bible is circular reasoning. Our faith is finally not dependent on an all powerful God but on a God who loves us. That's my premise. Tell me I am wrong.
Clearly 47's answer is no. His understanding of god does not allow such an event to happen. 47 is not one can not know if God did or did not create ex nihilism. 47 clearly states that god, does not have the power to create.