Choosing a faith

I do enjoy it when a home-schooled creationist that believes in global floods, talking snakes and that H.sapiens were put on earth 6,000 years ago explains the Theory of Evolution to us.And yet he can't explain why the same god made homosexuals, paedophiles and psychopaths - all of which he paints with the same brush.

You have misdirected your Christian focus,in my opinion. My focus is Jesus. Your focus is in disproving evolution. To start with, who is "us"? Is that EvC Forum and yourself? More likely it is from a book you are reading defending Biblical Creationism and/or Intelligent Design. The us is you and the author and your fellows at your church who discus such stuff all of the time. As I have told you before, very little of that argument interests me. As a believer, my default position is that literally everything came from God through Jesus Christ. That includes satan, though IF Jesus was with the Father in the Beginning, and IF through Him ALL things were created, Jesus Himself created an archangel known as Lucifer who actualized potential evil by choosing it. You can lump evolutionary "teaching" into one large sub group that contains cancel culture and wokeism which is revisionist human-centric thinking based on feelings and the fairness but im still not on board. And if, as you say, I am a closet evolutionist, know that I will keep that firmly in the closet. I am a Cosmological Creationist. You can take Dr.Henry Morris, the Discovery Institute, and all of your fodder that you educate yourself with and keep it in the closet as well. I have no interest in that discussion so quit preaching it when addressing me.

Upon reading it and without consulting any commentaries from others, it seems to me that Jacob wanted to get paid and devised a plan to acquire some of Labans livestock. He wisely chose the blemished and inferior livestock and had the wisdom to feed them some medicine which made them stronger as long as they remained separate from Labans flock. And yet Jacob knew enough to find the right medicine. (Genesis 30:37.) He also knew enough to separate the flocks. Would the flocks have done this on their own?
​

Jesus, and the Bible teaches that the unrepentant sinners
would be burned up, that they would be left neither root
nor branch. That they would be ashes under the feet of
the righteous. Malachi 4.Jesus does say that the sinners will be cast in a fire that
shall not be quenched.To be quenched simply means that nobody or nothing
will put that fire out. But it will burn itself out after all
combustible material has burned up.What is left is ashes, just as Malachi stated in chapter
four. They will be reduced to nothing but ashes under
the feet of the righteous.Flesh and blood humans will not last very long in the
intense heat of that consuming fire. And spirit beings
do not have nerve endings.It is a consuming fire, not a preserving fire. Fire does
not preserve.Besides the fire not being quenched, Mark states that
"the worm dieth not."Mark is not trying to tell us that worms are immortal,
or that the fire will not burn them up.Besides Sheol in the OT, there are three Greek words in
the NT that are interpreted as hell, and they all have
different meanings.Tartaroo is interpreted as hell one time. It refers to either
a place or condition of restraint for falling angels.Hades, much like sheol in the OT, refers to the grave.
Never is burning fire associated with Hades.Gehenna (valley of Hinnon) is the third Greek word that
is interpreted as hell. Gehenna is associated with the
burning fire.Gehenna was a deep ravine on the SouthWest side of
Jerusalem. It was where the Jews burned their refuse.
The fires in this ravine never went out.Besides trash, the bodies of dead criminals were often
thrown in the ravine.The ravine had ledges on which sometimes the garbage
or even dead bodies would land on. But this did not
prevent their total destruction.On these ledges were worms (skolex, better interpreted
as maggots) that would totally devour all that landed on
them.Jesus used Gehenna fire as the final fate of all
unrepentant sinners. The second death refers to total
annihilation.The valley of Hinnon was a foul-smelling place. It the OT
it was a place where children were burned as a sacrifice.
A deed that God said He never thought of, nor did it
enter His mind.Never does the Bible state that sinners would endure
ever-lasting punishing, which is a continuing act.They are to receive ever-lasting punishment. Permanent
death is an ever-lasting punishment.Ever-lasting, forever, etc...refers till the end of an age.I once believed in a hell where sinners suffered in
extreme pain for eternity. And it made me hate God.
How could anyone love such a God?And, it makes God out to be a sadistic tyrant. Those
who accuse God of this do not love Him, nor do they
understand all the Bible has to say about this.There is much more to say concerning this. But this
should help for now.

Nonsense. He taught the disciples to pray: "Thy Kingdom come on Earth as in Heaven". He often refers to Himself as the "son of man" which is an obvious reference to Daniel 7:13-14 where the son of man is to preside over the Kingdom. Firstly Jesus denounced the sacrifices saying that He desires mercy not sacrifice. But the problem wasn't the sacrifices themselves, but the fact that the Temple authorities were getting rich on the backs of the poor. They would tell them that the sacrifices were necessary to essentially appease a deity that needed appeasing, and then would sell the pigeons or other animals and then would use the meat from the sacrifices for their own benefit. to the poor at inflated prices.Of course by sellin Yahweh as a deity that needed appeasing they were were presenting a very different deity than God the Father that Jesus represented. It goes back to the point I made when I started this thread. It isn't the name we use to refer to out deity that matters, but the character or nature of that deity.Also the money changers made money by forcing the locals to exchange the local currency to Roman coinsRead Mark 12:38:40 to see Jesus' criticism of the so called teachers of the law.The situation in the Temple was very similar to what was going on the Rome leading up to the reformation. Maybe, but it is a consistent message throughout all the Gospels and into Acts. One simple phrase that somewhat covers it is Jesus saying that "those who live by the sword, die by the sword". OK So you equate turning over the tables of the money changers to the faction advocating violent revolution. I just don't quite see it that way to say the least. It is part of all 4 Gospel narratives and in my view does make sense. The Romans to a great degree governed using local puppet leaders, (in this case Herod), to maintain control over the populace. It seems to me that throwing an occasional crumb to the general population would help keep the peace.

quote:

---

Nonsense. He taught the disciples to pray: "Thy Kingdom come on Earth as in Heaven". He often refers to Himself as the "son of man" which is an obvious reference to Daniel 7:13-14 where the son of man is to preside over the Kingdom.

---

You may call it “nonsense” but the fact is that your quote comes from John 18:36 and is said to Pilate - after Jesus’ arrest just as I said. And nothing you say above contradicts that.Funnier still the Kimgdom of Daniel 7:37 is an Earthly Kingdom.

quote:

---

Firstly Jesus denounced the sacrifices saying that He desires mercy not sacrifice. But the problem wasn't the sacrifices themselves, but the fact that the Temple authorities were getting rich on the backs of the poor

---

None of which answers my point that the sacrifices are required by scripture. Which cannot be said for indulgences.

quote:

---

Maybe, but it is a consistent message throughout all the Gospels and into Acts. One simple phrase that somewhat covers it is Jesus saying that "those who live by the sword, die by the sword".
​

---

Aside from the undertones of violence in the teachings attributed to Jesus, it is not as consistent as you think.Matthew 10:34 Luke 22:36

quote:

---

OK So you equate turning over the tables of the money changers to the faction advocating violent revolution. I just don't quite see it that way to say the least.

---

I do not. I do see it as something more significant than merely calling the Temple a “den of thieves” and far more likely to cause the Temple authorities to have Jesus arrested. As I have explicitly said. And that is what you are disagreeing with.

quote:

---

It is part of all 4 Gospel narratives and in my view does make sense.

---

You are going to have to explain how it makes sense that a Roman official would customarily release a prisoner condemned to crucifixion, just on the word of the crowd. Especially an official known for insensitivity and brutality.Then you are going to have to explain why it is never mentioned by anyone else. Especially Josephus.

quote:

---

The Romans to a great degree governed using local puppet leaders, (in this case Herod), to maintain control over the populace.

---

You’re talking nonsense again. Judaea was under direct Roman rule and had been since Archelaus was deposed in 6 AD.

Hi Phat
I just thought I'd comment on this and you can take it for what it's worth. We know that Jesus was born of a woman and grew like any other human.I see it this way. John 1 puts it most succinctly when he says that "the Word became flesh", clearly referring to Jesus. In my view the "Word" represents God's nature, His purpose and His hope for us. His Word is a non-material characteristic that flows throughout our world. Jesus the man perfectly embodied the Word in establishing a link between God's heavenly dimension and our own earthly dimension.So, I think a better way of putting it might be to say that Jesus the man perfectly imaged the "Word' which had existed from the beginning of time.I think that sometimes as Christians we are so focused on shouting out that Jesus is God that we ignore the Biblical message that Jesus was human as well. Jesus going to the cross on belief and faith, is very different than going to the cross with supernatural knowledge of the resurrection.

Pollux, the rate at which radioactivity change can change.
We can do it in the lab.Certain kinds of radioactivity change have been
accelerated by a factor of one billion.If it can happen in a lab, it can happen outside, too.No one knows the balance of parent and daughter
isotopes in their initial condition.Many elements, especially uranium, is leachable in salt
water. The earth was covered with water at the
beginning of Genesis. It was coveted again by the
worldwide flood.Oftentimes the tester will ask how old do you want the
rock to be. Tell me how old you want it to be and I'll
tell you how much it started with.Rocks of known age have been tested in MSH and From
volcanoes in Hawaii that show ages of hundreds of
thousands to millions of years.If you asked me what 3 plus 5 is and I answered 367,400.
Would you ever trust me again? What if I replied that my
System works on really big numbers? Would you trust
me then?If RMD cannot give the correct age for known rocks, how
can it be trusted to give the correct age for any rock?It takes blind faith to believe in the reliability of RMD.C-14 is more reliable, but it has its limits. Anything older
that 100,000 years contains so small amount of C-14
that it is unundeniable.C-14 dating gives fairly good estimates on known age,
and agrees with age that creationists expect.The amount of C-14 in coal agrees with an age of four to
six thousand years.Coal beds that are hundreds of millions of years old
should not contain C-14.Dino fossils there are said to be 75,000,000 years old
should contain no C-14, but many of them do.Diamonds, that are said to have been formed more than
one billion years ago should contain no C-14, but they do.Diamonds are the hardest substance known to man, and
there is no way that C-14 could have gotten inside of them.

I'm recovering now from a bout of COVID, so I face a backlog of replies. However, the fact that you are repeating the same old lies about radiometric dating that we have already explained to you SEVERAL TIMES, means that I must start with this one first.Of course, you will ignore it as you ignore every reply -- your faith demands strict and absolute ignorance of you, so you must always guard yourself from ever possibly learning anything -- , but at least everybody else can learn from my replies and be able to see through your (literally) damnable lies. Yes, we are able to change the decay rate of some radioisotopes, but only of the lighter elements (eg, beryllium), NOT of the heavier elements. The half-lives of lighter-element isotopes are far too short to make them of any interest in radiometric dating (RMD), so they are not used in RMD and therefore make no difference in RMD.Furthermore, there are different kinds of decay which depend on different mechanisms. It is the isotopes that use electron-capture which are most susceptible to being changed.This is described very well in the classic article by a CHRISTIAN scientist, Dr. Roger C. Wiens (PhD Physics with a minor in Geology. His PhD thesis was on isotope ratios in meteorites, including surface exposure dating.): Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective (1994, 2nd edition in 2002). Did I fail to mention that he is a Christian?I even quoted the pertinent part of his article to you in Message 6 of the topic I created especially for you, Radiocarbon Dating Discussion with candle2: Dr. Wiens indicates that the changes induced are of the order of 1.5%, which is below the margin of error (about 2%) for the determination of decay rates, so such changes would make virtually no difference. This means that your claim of "radioactivity change have been accelerated by a factor of one billion." appears to be extremely exaggerated and a prime candidate for being an outright lie. Please support your claim with something at least resembling a specific case.For that matter, please tell us which radioisotopes had their decay rates changed in the lab.Assuming that the lying creationist source you had mindlessly pulled this claim from had bothered to list them.If you cannot (or will not) provide that list to us (or admit that no such list exists), then that is evidence that you are YET AGAIN lying to us. When you constantly lie to us, filling your nearly 500 posts with nothing be lies, would we trust you ever?Of course not.Why should we? And as a token acknowledgement of this topic's title, in choosing a faith, Why would anyone possibility choose your religion of lies or your God of Lies and Deception?Fuck your stupid god! That's right, FUCK SATAN!

No we don't. In fact there is no historical evidence. If there is present it.I know, I know.
I am a bit of a pain in the ass, but as you refuse to reply I am going to keep calling you out and demanding evidence.

Hi candle2
The old age of MSH volcanic products has been explained to you. Volcanoes can entrain old rock the lava is erupting through so specimens for dating need to be selected properly.Why should I not accept the evidence I mentioned from Lake Malawi and volcanic chains as supporting RMD?

Thank you for your reply to candle2 dwise1
Best wishes for a full recovery from Covid

Still with the same old stupid lies about C-14? Jessica H. Christ! What is wrong with you?We've gone over this about a dozen times now and you still keep telling the same lies that we have disproven in your face. I even started a topic for you, Radiocarbon Dating Discussion with candle2, explaining it. But what, you just pretend that none of that ever happened? You're not only willfully ignorant and willfully stupid, but you are also completely delusional.I've asked you repeatedly and you have refused to reply this same question: If you had any clue what you were talking about, you would be able to answer those questions. But you cannot, because you in fact have no clue.If you had even the most fundamental understanding of the radiocarbon dating method, then even you could immediately see how utterly bogus your claims are. But you lack even the most fundamental understanding. Sure, you insisted emphatically that you understood it, but that was just yet another of your incessant lies. The fact that underground radiation sources constantly generate trace amounts of C-14 has absolutely no bearing on the radiocarbon dating method which is instead based on the production of C-14 in the atmosphere. When are you ever going to get that through your thick inert skull? 
But this part deserves extra comment. "many of them"? No more than any rock might contain trace amounts of C-14 generated by nearby sources of radioactivity.But then we have the introduction of creationist deception, especially since only a creationist would submit a sample for the wrong test just so he can get a bad result with which he can then spin yet another creationist lie.One of the problems that could arise in a radiocarbon test is if the sample is contaminated with more recent organic material. That is why sample gathering and preparation practices are needed to eliminate and prevent such contamination. A bad result due to contamination does not condemn the method itself, but rather it does condemn the sample gatherer for either sloppiness or deliberate fraud. Deliberate fraud such as creationists have frequently been caught committing.Fossils are fragile, which is why they are excavated as a single unit encased in plaster to be disassembled painstakingly carefully under very controlled conditions in the lab. When a single fossil is extracted, it will be coated with a substance to help keep it intact. Commonly, shellac which contains organic materials which are contained in ""a resin secreted by the female lac bug on trees in the forests of India and Thailand.So when a creationist gets a fossil for pulling their typical "wrong dates" deception, that sample is already contaminated by the shellac coating it. Of course that will have C-14 in it and will yield a recent date, because of the contamination from the shellac coating. No shit, Sherlock!Deliberate creationist deception!

Dwise, enough of this pittle pattle crap. If you are so
desperate for a really looooooooong period of time, I
will give you, not 4.6 billion years, but 46 billion years.All I ask is that you prove to us how the first life came
about. Isn't this fair?I am generous to you. I am granting you ten times what
atheists say they need for life to get where we are today.There is no need to go back and forth.All I ask in return is that you prove to us how life began.Since you and other atheists state that life began by
blind chance, and that it is a FACT, and that it must be
accepted as fact, I challenge you to replicate it.In order for me, or any thinking individual, to accept this
as fact, we must by the sound reasoning of a rational
mind see it happen.How can anyone expect an individual to accept as fact
something that supposedly happened billions of years
ago?Isn't it funny that atheists and evolutionists can accuse
dates that they don't agree with as being contaminated.
But, dismiss contamination as an issue when they get
the dates they want.It is a fact that I can throw a football 50 yards at the age
of 70. It is a fact that I can replicate time after time.Now, replicate what you claim is fact, or admit that
you cannot. And if you cannot then quit teaching it as
fact in schools, museums, and universities.You've heard the old saying; put up or shut up.Isn't this fair?

And you want to preach that around here? First of all, very few if any of the EvC Peanut Gallery even believe that God is an absolute if they think about Him at all. Second, many of them buy into the revisionist counter history written by secular critics such as Richard Dawkins, Richard Carrier, the late Christopher Hitchens, and Danial Dennett.Thus...since they dont believe as we do that the Bible is an overarching narrative that spans much of human history and through which God speaks (through Jesus) it hardly does any good to threaten and/or frighten them with scriptures dealing with hell. Do you know who Ray Comfort is? Those types of evangelists have the most success with people who are not exposed to the mythicists, are not overly intellectual critical thinkers, and whom abhor the modern conservative Christians as hypocrites and ideologues. (Hence why Ted Cruz does not impress them) If you really want to gain even one soul for Jesus around this neck of the woods, you might consider being a closet evolutionist yourself. Or at least listen to the rational counterarguments rather than push your belief in Biblical Creationism. That boat is dead in the water. Our old member Faith (Connie) threw every dogma and intellectual retort into her arguments until she was finally banned from the forum for jumping on Trumps bandwagon and minimizing the risks of the Covid 19 virus. The typical response of a secular humanist/atheist in my experience is to tell you that they wouldn't even want to serve *your God* and would prefer to continue being secular humanists. In addition, they have no problem imagining that this life is all there is. Many of them have read the Bible. Perhaps you believe the scripture snippet which states that the word of God will not return void and that simply by reading it through your lens, they will receive an epiphany as to its truthfulness.My favorite scripture is Matthew 10:40. In other words, if they receive you (trust you, respect you, and have a right to disagree with you and not be forced to agree) they will receive Jesus, assuming that you yourself are a worthy vessel for the Holy Spirit.
​
​