Not lame - a serious issue.

How far will God let Satan distort this world to trick us into loosing our salvation?

Do we really want to worship a God gives us senses and intellect, then lets us have all our senses interfered with, and then blame us for believing our senses?

Will He let Satan introduce deceptive material into the Bible? Perhaps the whole Sabbath thing is a Satan-introduced deception! Will God protect the Bible but not the geologic record?

Consider people living in the time of David or Job. They had no Bible to guide them. Did God then let Satan have free rein over all their senses without the compensating Bible?

No, I don't believe a worthy of worship God would allow that level of deception.

We aren't talking about little things here. We are talking about continents, about hundreds of feet deep of ice, about the DNA inside all life, and the White Cliffs and the Grand Canyon and the Gobi desert.

There is no evidence in the Bible that God lets Satan have that much free rein over the material of the planet.

/Bevin

I do not believe God is a liar but again I AM NOT THE ISSUE.

Proactive, personal attacks on other members is highly unacceptable and speaks more about the one making the attacks than the one being attacked.

Now, in high school debate, they taught us that when our opponent gets personal and starts attacking us, it is because we have already won the debate and they have no substance left to argue with. Such is the case here.

The Bible is clear about orgins. (It may be wrong but that is another issue) Creationists believe we can trust God's Word. Their critics do not. If we have to bastardize His Word by twisting and spinning it to say something that is consistent with what non-believing, atheistic scientists believe then it ceases to be God's Word and becomes the word of the non-believing, atheistic scientists.

An evolutionist claiming to believe in the Bible is the epitome of someone trying to have it both ways. I have sympathy for the gays that claim the Bible justifies their lifestyle because I understand that homosexuality is a disorder that one doesn't choose for themselves. For goodness sake, believing in evolution is something an individual chooses. If they are going to take the word of non-believing, atheistic scientists over the Word of God they should at least have the intellectual honesty and courage to come out and admit they believe the Bible is not a reliable rule of faith.

I think that God will let satan go as far as what he can get away with. Including impersonating the return of Jesus. I think that that is in the Bible or is it something that EGW mentions. I have no problem with the earth being old. From what I get out of reading Genesis is that the world was without form and void. So the possibility that the age of the earth is older than we think is something I can live with. But as far as the evolution of man I can't except that. There is nothing there that says that God took something that was already there and improved on it and Man was formed. I Believe that somethings in the Bible have to be excepted by faith and faith alone.

pkrause

Shane, let us review how you have characterised my position















and now you say

I do not believe God is a liar but again I AM NOT THE ISSUE.

Proactive, personal attacks on other members is highly unacceptable and speaks more about the one making the attacks than the one being attacked.

/Bevin

It is EGW in The Great Controversy, it is not in the Bible.

It has similarities to, but is not the same as, allowing Satan to distort all the geological and archaeological evidence in the world, nor have you addressed the issue of pre-Bible-books-written times.



Can you accept a billion years of life and death on Earth? The issue is NOT the age of the original rocks, the issue is the multiple correlating evidences of many more than a few thousand years of life and death - fossils, metamorphic rocks, oil, ice cores, DNA, ...

/Bevin

Notice how I word things in the third person and not the second person. That is because I am not getting personal but discussing an issue in general. Just look at the examples quoted: "a reasonable person" "Many today" "Those clinging" "One has to".

Now I admit sometimes I get close to going second person with comments like "This is a dishonest cop-out." That is getting pretty close to the line and perhaps crossing it. I may have been able to better express myself. However the point is, I was commenting on the position expressed in the words and not the other person. I didn't say, "you are dishonest". The expression used was dishonest but as far as anyone here knows, the other poster, in this case bevin, may have just been repeating something he heard from another without giving it enough thought. I have been guilty of repeating dishonest things without giving it enough thought, but that doesn't make me a dishonest person as my intent was not to deceive others with false information.

We should always give each other the benefit of the doubt and not make personal attacks. We are trying to have a healthy exchange of ideas here and not shut down discussion. When a person tells another that believing in short-age creation makes God a liar... that is pretty much trying to shut down a discussion using cyber-bully tactics.

It seems that some here have had bad experiences in the face-to-face church experience and want to come into cyber space and lash out. I realize many ex-Adventists have an ax to grind but I don't think being a cyber bully is an appropriate way the channel those resentments.

As opposed to the tactics you were using??? Attacking my spirituality and deliberately dragging in the gay issue? Categorizing the issue as skeptics = little dogs nipping at the heals of a giant truth?

Let us start again.

I seriously doubt the Hope Channel program will address the two major issues

(a) Why is there no solid geological evidence for a global flood?

(b) Why is there such extensive and solid evidence for long-age evolution?

It would be very helpful to the SDA denomination and other Christian's if shows such as this one grapple with the real and very serious issues here.

It will be very harmful if they continue the current practise of attacking the Christian walk of people who don't resolve the conflict with a "my literal understanding of Genesis and my belief in the inerrancy of inspired material tells me all this evolution stuff is nonsense".

The Faith and Science Conference was a good step, the wrap up by the administrators was a disaster.

I wonder which way this reality show will go...

/Bevin

Personally attacked again. I realize when someone is losing an argument they get personal and start attacking those they disagree with but this is getting a little old. Let's try to have a healthy exchange of ideas here.

The tactics I am using a speaking in the third person. I am not using the second person. At no time do I address those that disagree with me directly. Yes please, go ahead an use me as an example. Use my tactics. Avoid ever using the word "you" when disagreeing with another member in the forum. Excellent idea!



Millions of souls are lost because of evolution. That concerns the church. The church has to take on the issue. Those that embrace evolution must viewed as opposition as were those that tried to distract the Nehemiah's workers while they were rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem. Either we get up on the wall and help build or shut up and go about our own business.

The church has a mission to call men and women to worship the Creator. This is the first of the Three Angels' Messages. This is the reason we keep the seventh day Sabbath. The church is like a freight train charging in the world with this last day message. Taking on the lies of evolution is a large part of this mission.

Of course there are some difficult problems with short-age creation. Every honest creationist will admit that. However there are also some very major problems with evolution. As a wise organization, the church should first deal with creation's strengths and evolution's weaknesses. They certainly shouldn't be taking advice from their opponents trying to call them down from the wall.



This statement really needs to be qualified. There is the issue of credibility and motive that needs to be considered. A wise old teacher once told me, always consider your source.

Sounds like someone trying to call the workers off the wall. No thanks, I have a wall to build.

You are indeed building a wall

Curiously, people get into heaven on a road

/Bevin