Communism Gaining Ground?

[Timebuilder]

YES!!!! I would love to learn of the existance of God. I don't want to just assume he is there because the Bible says he is. Until I can really, I mean touch, see, smell some evidence of God outside of the Bible, I cannot take his existance for granted.

An open heart is the first step. You have to seek Him, even though TV says that he may appear in your high school cafeteria serving lunch. "What if God were one of us?" Well He wouldn't be God. Even as Jesus, he was 100% man and 100% God. That's as close as He decided to come to being "one of us".

Try seeking Him first in prayer, ask Him to reveal Himself to you in a way that will overcome your doubts. He won't provide something that you can show to others, but He just may give you the conviction of the heart to be willing to trust Him.

And that is the second step.

 

[Typhoon1244]

Impressive...a thread about politics AND religion. All without (much) personal derogatory commentary.

Crizz, you ignorant slut...!

( Is that better? )

 

[skyking1976]

An open heart is the first step. You have to seek Him, even though TV says that he may appear in your high school cafeteria serving lunch. "What if God were one of us?" Well He wouldn't be God. Even as Jesus, he was 100% man and 100% God. That's as close as He decided to come to being "one of us".

Try seeking Him first in prayer, ask Him to reveal Himself to you in a way that will overcome your doubts. He won't provide something that you can show to others, but He just may give you the conviction of the heart to be willing to trust Him.

And that is the second step.

I want proof that he really exists. Plain and simple. Sorry T.B. I guess my neck is thicker than some....

 

[Timebuilder]

BBQ!!!!

I had some VERY tasty ribs the other night, at a chain restaraunt of all places. It was called "Doc Holliday's" , about six miles north of MDT on rt 283.

Mmmmm.

Ans Skyking, as long as we are "off topic", where did you get that "sniper kitten" avatar?

 

[skyking1976]

In email... you want it... the actual pic is about 4 X bigger.

 

[Timebuilder]

I want proof that he really exists. Plain and simple. Sorry T.B. I guess my neck is thicker than some....

The Bible describes a point in time where "For it is written: "As I live, says the Lord, Every knee shall bow to Me, And every tongue shall confess to God." (Romans, 14:11)

It's always better to kneel sooner as opposed to later. After the return of the Lord, the time is up.

Try prayer. You may be surprised.

 

[Typhoon1244]

After the return of the Lord, the time is up.

I just remembered a bumper sticker I saw once: Jesus is coming...look busy!

 

[Timebuilder]

The sticker I remember from the seventies said "Jesus is coming.......and, man, is He pi$$ed!!!

 

[Traumahawk]

Once you stop taking the Bible literally, it all falls into place. It's a book of fables, folks, not a technical manual.

NU UH! My great great great great great great great (a few more greats) grandparents were on Noah's Ark. According to them, It was a little crowded, you know, having 2 of EVERY animal on earth. Noah also forgot shovels, so after that they reserved tickets on Carnival Cruise lines for the next flooding of the ENTIRE WORLD...

T-hawk

 

[TonyC]

WOW. Go to sleep, wake up, visit a day care center, find out your company has an MD-10 burning on the airport, spend a day at the union office, and before ya know it -- the thread goes from 2 pages to 4. It's gonna take a while to get caught up, but I'll try to take it a little bit at a time.

My point is that that you're trying to put creationism on the same level as evolution.

This is simply an illogical arguement. Although evolution is still a theory, creationism (at least the way the bible describes it) has been disproven by science.

Ahh, but it is. You see, Evolution as a theory of the origin of man has nothing in the way of stature over Creation as a theory of the origin of man. Let's talk about THEORY again.

Theory, as it applies to science (not a general definition from webster's, let's use the scientific definition) requires three things.

1) It must be supported by events, processes, or properties that can be observed

2) It must be useful in predicting the outcome of future natural phenomena or laboratory experiments

3) It must be capable of falsification. That is, it must be possible to conceive of some experiment, the failure of which would disprove the theory.

You might insist that Creation has not been witnessed by human observers, it cannot be tested experimentally, and as a theory it is nonfalsifiable. I would point out that the General Theory of Evolution also fails to meet all three criteria. No one observed the origin of the Universe or the origin of life. Similarly, no one has observed the conversion of a fish into an amphibian or an ape-like creature into a man. Neither creation nor evolution is testable, in the sense of being observable experimentally. Both, however, can be stated as scientific models.

So you see, from the standpoint of honest science, both deserve the same status.

As science has PROVEN, there are such things as radioactive decay and carbon dating.

Carbon dating based on the half-life of radioactive elements of life is inherently flawed and horribly innacurate. I don't believe you'll find many modern scientists placing their entire faith (did I say faith? yepp) in evolution based purely on carbon-14 dating methods. In the first place, it has not been, nor can it ever be, established by direct observation what the half-life of carbon-14 is under varying conditions (heat, light, moisture, etc.).

I wish I had the specific account with me right now (I'll try to get it if it'll make you feel better) but I can tell you of an account of a test of the carbon-14 dating accuracy. Scientists took two samples from a recently deceased bovine (that's a cow - - still warm), one from the flank, and another from the head, and sent them off to the lab for dating. The two samples came back with certificated results - - official seal of the laboratory included. One sample was dated as being several tens of thousands of years old. The other - - from the same warm carcus, mind you, was dated over a million years old. Some system, huh?

Examination of various fossils has PROVEN the last dinosaurs walked the earth approximately 7 million years before anything that resembled a human being showed up.

On the contrary, we have fossilized footprints of dinosaurs and humans side by side. Amazing how little press they get.

You need to understand that creationism is not a theory. There is not evidence to even consider it anything more than a common idea. Face it. The bible is not a scientific journal. It is meant as a guideline for morality and perhaps a family tree of sorts.

IN the strictest sense, Creationism is not a theory - - as I explained above. In the strictest sense, Evolutionism is not a theory, either.

I'm not going to sit here and tell you that religion or your faith is wrong because it isn't. The point Typhoon and myself is trying to make to you is that your spiritual belief system is conflicting with your logical thought process. Just imagine for a moment if the book of Genesis never existed. What would you believe?

My logic is quite in tact. I'm even able to stick to the subject of the matter without attacking you.