How to identify a valid pastor.

[Faith]

Of course it is. I mean Jesus would have gotten banned, why not me!

He's clearly a waste of time. I'll just put him on ignore and save everyone, including myself, the stress.

You must stress out very easily.

 

[VeritatisVerba]

I agree with your main premise that we must reason to arrive at true doctrine, @VeritatisVerba, but I want an example of a doctrine that may have "internal inconsistencies" for more specific discussion.

Okay. Let's say someone believes in absolute divine immutability AND that God became a human man and died and rose from the dead with a new glorified human body complete with crucifixion scares that He hadn't ever had before and that He retains to this day and forever more.

If you don't like that one, we can discuss the notion of timeless existence.

Then there's the doctrine that says it's wrong to judge. Perhaps the single most idiotically self-contradictory doctrine any christian ever uttered.

If not that, then there are probably a hundred different doctrines that Christians commonly believe in that are flat out self-contradictory nonsense that the bible does not teach.

What I find in pastors and churches that have strayed from the truth as well as the cults is that they have set up their reasoning powers to be the arbiters of the truth more than the Bible's givens.

Well, that would be a terrific example of doing something that is irrational. There is no such thing as an "arbiter of truth". It's a childishly obvious contradiction in terms.

That's the danger I want to avoid. As John Calvin says, "Go as far as the Bible goes; then, stop." God through Isaiah says,

That's a laugh! I never knew Calvin ever said such a thing. It's an absolutely premium example of hypocrisy the likes of which can hardly be surpassed. The entire Calvinist system is extra-biblical. The whole thing has to be read into the bible.

Isa 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD.
Isa 55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.

It makes me want to vomit when someone quotes this verse in order to undermine the very thing that enables the person quoting it to have read the passage to begin with!

God's way are higher than ours - they aren't LOWER!

On what planet is the self-contradictory, the irrational, HIGHER than sound reason? Where are we exactly when we exalt insanity above a sound mind other than in the asylum?

1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion but of peace​

Someone might see "internal contradiction" in that passage, which is about God's grace, by thinking that the contradiction is that it doesn't fit my experiences that there is such a thing as God's grace that gives us free acceptance through Jesus. It's not a contradiction; instead, it's God's thoughts that are far beyond our limited, human thoughts.

No, it's a contradiction. Calvinist "grace" (i.e. the TULIP doctrines) removes all meaning from the entire chapter of Isaiah 55. Calvinist "grace" is the quintessential example of "human wisdom" that scripture repeatedly warns us about. It is precisely the opposite of doing what you are here advocating. Calvinism begins, not with scripture, but with Greek philosophy and proceeds to impose Aristotle's god onto scripture. It's foundational premise is immutability and it has been built, primarily by Augustine, almost entirely on that single premise, which is NOWHERE taught in scripture.

All of which I can prove, by the way.

 

[VeritatisVerba]

Prove it.

No. (Not that proving a negative is even possible - which this "scientific" Catholic would have known had his objections to biblical truths been honest ones.)

You are on my ignore list.

As of right now.

 

[Faith]

No. (Not that proving a negative is even possible - which this "scientific" Catholic would have known had his objections to biblical truths been honest ones.)

You are on my ignore list.

As of right now.

You already said that, then kept talking to me.

 

[Faith]

Okay. Let's say someone believes in absolute divine immutability AND that God became a human man and died and rose from the dead with a new human glorified human body that He hadn't ever had before and that He retains to this day and forever more.

If you don't like that one, we can discuss the notion of timeless existence.

Then there's the doctrine that says it's wrong to judge. Perhaps the single most idiotically self-contradictory doctrine any christian ever uttered.

If not that, then there are probably a hundred different doctrines that Christians commonly believe in that are flat out self-contradictory nonsense that the bible does not teach.


Well, that would be a terrific example of doing something that is irrational. There is no such thing as an "arbiter of truth". It's a childishly obvious contradiction in terms.


That's a laugh! I never knew Calvin ever said such a thing. It's an absolutely premium example of hypocrisy the likes of which can hardly be surpassed. The entire Calvinist system is extra-biblical. The whole thing has to be read into the bible.


It makes me want to vomit when someone quotes this verse in order to undermine the very thing that enables the person quoting it to have read the passage to begin with!

God's way are higher than ours - they aren't LOWER!

On what planet is the self-contradictory, the irrational, HIGHER than sound reason? Where are we exactly when we exalt insanity above a sound mind other than in the asylum?


No, it's a contradiction. Calvinist "grace" remove all meaning from the entire chapter of Isaiah 55. Calvinist "grace" is the quintessential example of "human wisdom" that scripture repeatedly warns us about. It is precisely the opposite of doing what you are here advocating. Calvinism begins, not with scripture, but with Greek philosophy and proceeds to impose Aristotle's god onto scripture. It's foundational premise is immutability and has been built, primarily by Augustine, almost entirely on that single premise, which is NOWHERE taught in scripture.

All of which I can prove, by the way.

then prove it.

 

[Faith]

“Makes me want to vomit”.
”Save everyone including myself the stress” .

I cant wait to read what you post next. Oh, and Scripture should be capitalized.

 

[Lamb]

Of course it is. I mean Jesus would have gotten banned, why not me!

He's clearly a waste of time. I'll just put him on ignore and save everyone, including myself, the stress.

You agreed to our site rules when you signed up. Please be considerate in following them.

 

[Frankj]

Sorry, I messed up my c&p. But the article Adam, Eve and Evolution explains it. See you learn something new everyday.

So the argument they make is based on an idea of absolute linear time but they defer to science while science, Relativity, says there is no such thing as absolute time.

In fact, the cutting edge quantum theorists view of time is starting to realize that time itself is mutable with even past and future being mutable and not absolute.

Soon, maybe within ten or so years, it will be cutting edge to realize that all that really exists is the present, with past and future being supporting factors of the time equation of (extremally simplistically expressed) A=B=C where A is the past, B is the Present and C is the future with B being the only dynamic point that can change and when B changes (this is where Free Will is found) then A and C automatically readjust themselves to keep B true which gives the illusion of linear time instead of dynamic time.

So the real question would be does God exist inside the universe of time or does the universe of time exist within God?

Because if he exists outside of it then his Word can be made unchanging, but if he exists within it the both He and his Word can change according to the will of men and whatever view of the universe happens to be at the time.

Ask your priest about that.

 

[VeritatisVerba]

You agreed to our site rules when you signed up. Please be considerate in following them.

My intent was not to "call him a name" like I'm some 6th grade school boy, picking a fight in the school cafeteria.

Psalm 49:10 For he sees wise men die; Likewise the fool and the senseless person perish, And leave their wealth to others.
Psalm 92:6 A senseless man does not know, Nor does a fool understand this.
Proverbs 7:22 Immediately he went after her, as an ox goes to the slaughter, Or as a fool to the correction of the stocks,
Proverbs 10:8 The wise in heart will receive commands, But a prating fool will fall.
Proverbs 13:16 Every prudent man acts with knowledge, But a fool lays open his folly.
2 Corinthians 12:6 For though I might desire to boast, I will not be a fool; for I will speak the truth.

Luke 12:16 Then He spoke a parable to them, saying: “The ground of a certain rich man yielded plentifully. 17 And he thought within himself, saying, ‘What shall I do, since I have no room to store my crops?’ 18 So he said, ‘I will do this: I will pull down my barns and build greater, and there I will store all my crops and my goods. 19 And I will say to my soul, “Soul, you have many goods laid up for many years; take your ease; eat, drink, and be merry.” ’ 20 But God said to him, ‘Fool! This night your soul will be required of you; then whose will those things be which you have provided?’

It was Jesus was speaking there in that last where He states "But God said to him, 'Fool', putting those words presumably into the mouth the Father Himself. Was God calling this man a "name"? in the sense your rule was intended to prevent?

Perhaps those who make the rules (and those who enforce them) should think things through, not allowing the rule to do their thinking for them, and see if Jesus Himself would have been gigged for the same "infraction".

If using the term "fool" in a manner consistent with it's biblical usage is against your rule then I'll follow it, but that doesn't mean it's not a senseless rule (i.e. "senseless" in the Psalms 49:10 & 92:6 sense).

 

[VeritatisVerba]

So the argument they make is based on an idea of absolute linear time but they defer to science while science, Relativity, says there is no such thing as absolute time.

In fact, the cutting edge quantum theorists view of time is starting to realize that time itself is mutable with even past and future being mutable and not absolute.

No.

I understand why you say this but it's born out of a conflation of two entirely different and not interchangeable concepts of time. The sort of time science is talking about isn't the same thing as what normal people are talking about when they discuss time. Scientists are talking about clocks. Specifically, in physics, time is defined by its measurement. Time is what a clock reads. That is seriously the definition they use. You can look it up if you don't believe me.

In normal parlance, on the other hand, time is a convention of language used to convey information about the duration and sequence of events relative to other events. It is not a thing in the ontological sense, it is an idea, a concept, an abstraction. Similarly, space is also an abstraction. It is a convention of language used to convey information about the size and location of objects relative to other objects. It also does not exist in an ontological sense. This similarity of the concepts of time and space is what allows them to be similarly manipulated when you treat them like dimensions in a mathematical equation but doing so alters what you're actually talking about.

You cannot conflate the two without creating confusion and error. They are two quite separate things. The measurement of something is not the thing itself. The easiest, most intuitive way to see that they are different is to note that nothing and no one ever leaves the present moment. No matter how fast or slowly it ages relative to something or someone else, no matter how fast a clock is ticking relative to someone else's clock. It all exists NOW and only now and in that sense, time is quite fully absolute.

 

[tango]

Yes, it is 100% true.

Simply reasserting your point doesn't change anything. I see little purpose in continuing to engage with you, since that's about all you're doing here.

 

[tango]

So actual new species have emerged from mutations in a matter of weeks?

What are the names of some of them so I can read more about them?

Micro evolution, otherwise known as adaptation, can be demonstrated in a few weeks in a laboratory using microbes. I forget the details of the research, I read a paper describing an experiment in about 1990 written by some researchers in the United Kingdom. Being over 30 years ago I forget the full details. If I recall the research was based on an idea by a Dr Herbert.

I know it's not much to go on, all I can say is that I read the paper and remember the outline of what it did and what results it demonstrated.

 

[Frankj]

Evolution is not the same as environmental adaption of a species, it is a new species developing from an old one through mutation, being different enough that it is unique and breeds true only with itself.

So a goldfish is not a new species of crucian carp but just a carefully and deliberately bred variety of one that will return to being a crucian carp if left to breed in the wild.

Same with bacteria, an adapted or modified one is just a new variety of the original caused by either natural or artificial selective breeding.

And it's a far cry from bacteria modifying themselves to survive environmental changes and some little monkey thing turning into a Man.

I fail to understand why people fail to take the Bible as true at its word and always seek, through science or whatever is convenient, to prove it doesn't really mean what it clearly says but means something very different instead.

 

[Faith]

Frankj, I don’t need to ask my priest about that. I’m satisfied with what CA has to say about it.

 

[VeritatisVerba]

Simply reasserting your point doesn't change anything. I see little purpose in continuing to engage with you, since that's about all you're doing here.

That's a laugh.

The proper response would have been for you to prove me wrong by presenting the evidence you seem to think exists. I then would have proceeded to demonstrate how whatever it is you came up with isn't the evidence you think it is. This is the only way in which such a discussion could substantively proceed because it would not be possible for me to prove the negative claim I've made. The burden of proof is on the one making the affirmative case, which would be you (or whomever it is that foolishly believes in the flatly preposterous idea of theistic evolution).

I've been doing this sort of thing for a VERY long time, Tango. I can assure you of two things....

1. There isn't ANY evidence for evolution - it just does not exist. Every example you can point to is almost certainly the result of question begging interpretations where the so-called “evidence” presupposes the truth of evolution and interprets data through that framework. The entire field is altogether unscientific from start to finish in that it is neither observable, testable, nor repeatable. It's founder was an atheistic racist looking for reasons to justify both his hatred for God and his bigotry and his work was used by virtually every despot in the world to justify eugenics and slavery. How anyone calling themselves "Christian" could stand to be within a hundred miles of his theory is beyond comprehension.​

​

2. That you will not ever find anyone who presents more substantive material than I do. If you post on theology forums for the rest of your life, it won't ever happen. That doesn't mean I feel obligated to prove every point or claim that I make. Quite often the claim itself is either sufficient by itself and other times making the claim is as much or more substance than the person I'm interacting with has earned and still other times I just might not be in the mood.​

Regardless, you can choose to engage or not. Either way, it doesn't reflect on me. I suspect that if you believed such evidence actually existed, you'd simply shut me up by presenting it. Pretending to blow me off as frivolous or feckless is laughable and reflects on you, not me. My posts are all still right here for the whole world to read.

 

[Frankj]

I don’t need to ask my priest about that. I’m satisfied with what CA has to say about it.

One of the things we are warned about in the last days is people seeking out their teachers with itching ears that tell them what they want to hear instead of true doctrine (2 Timothy 4:3-4)

This is something it is critical for all of us, those calling ourselves Christian, to be highly aware of in these times lest we find ourselves being led astray from the truth of the Word and into a different doctrine based on something else, walking the wide road instead of the narrow one without realizing we are doing it.

 

[Faith]

One of the things we are warned about in the last days is people seeking out their teachers with itching ears that tell them what they want to hear instead of true doctrine (2 Timothy 4:3-4)

This is something it is critical for all of us, those calling ourselves Christian, to be highly aware of in these times lest we find ourselves being led astray from the truth of the Word and into a different doctrine based on something else, walking the wide road instead of the narrow one without realizing we are doing it.

You stick with your religion, I’ll stick with mine.

 

[Faith]

That's a laugh.

The proper response would have been for you to prove me wrong by presenting the evidence you seem to think exists. I then would have proceeded to demonstrate how whatever it is you came up with isn't the evidence you think it is. This is the only way in which such a discussion could substantively proceed because it would not be possible for me to prove the negative claim I've made. The burden of proof is on the one making the affirmative case, which would be you (or whomever it is that foolishly believes in the flatly preposterous idea of theistic evolution).

I've been doing this sort of thing for a VERY long time, Tango. I can assure you of two things....

1. There isn't ANY evidence for evolution - it just does not exist. Every example you can point to is almost certainly the result of question begging interpretations where the so-called “evidence” presupposes the truth of evolution and interprets data through that framework. The entire field is altogether unscientific from start to finish in that it is neither observable, testable, nor repeatable. It's founder was an atheistic racist looking for reasons to justify both his hatred fro God and his bigotry and his work was used by virtually every despot in the world to justify eugenics and slavery. How anyone calling themselves "Christian" could stand to be within a hundred miles of his theory is beyond comprehension.​

​

2. That you will not ever find anyone who presents more substantive material than I do. If you post on theology forums for the rest of your life., it won't ever happen. That doesn't mean I feel obligated to prove every point or claim that I make. Quite often the claim itself is either sufficient by itself and other times making the claim is as much or more substance than the person I'm interacting with has earned and still other times I just might not be in the mood.​

Regardless, you can choose to engage or not. Either way, it doesn't reflect on me. I suspect that if you believed such evidence actually existed, you'd simply shut me up by presenting it. Pretending to blow me off as frivolous or feckless is laughable and reflects on you, not me. My posts are all still right here for the whole world to read.

Are you here just to fight?

 

[Lamb]

My intent was not to "call him a name" like I'm some 6th grade school boy, picking a fight in the school cafeteria.

Psalm 49:10 For he sees wise men die; Likewise the fool and the senseless person perish, And leave their wealth to others.
Psalm 92:6 A senseless man does not know, Nor does a fool understand this.
Proverbs 7:22 Immediately he went after her, as an ox goes to the slaughter, Or as a fool to the correction of the stocks,
Proverbs 10:8 The wise in heart will receive commands, But a prating fool will fall.
Proverbs 13:16 Every prudent man acts with knowledge, But a fool lays open his folly.
2 Corinthians 12:6 For though I might desire to boast, I will not be a fool; for I will speak the truth.

Luke 12:16 Then He spoke a parable to them, saying: “The ground of a certain rich man yielded plentifully. 17 And he thought within himself, saying, ‘What shall I do, since I have no room to store my crops?’ 18 So he said, ‘I will do this: I will pull down my barns and build greater, and there I will store all my crops and my goods. 19 And I will say to my soul, “Soul, you have many goods laid up for many years; take your ease; eat, drink, and be merry.” ’ 20 But God said to him, ‘Fool! This night your soul will be required of you; then whose will those things be which you have provided?’

It was Jesus was speaking there in that last where He states "But God said to him, 'Fool', putting those words presumably into the mouth the Father Himself. Was God calling this man a "name"? in the sense your rule was intended to prevent?

Perhaps those who make the rules (and those who enforce them) should think things through, not allowing the rule to do their thinking for them, and see if Jesus Himself would have been gigged for the same "infraction".

If using the term "fool" in a manner consistent with it's biblical usage is against your rule then I'll follow it, but that doesn't mean it's not a senseless rule (i.e. "senseless" in the Psalms 49:10 & 92:6 sense).

It came across as name calling, and I'm not alone in seeing that. So please, be very careful in how you word things in the future.

 

[VeritatisVerba]

One of the things we are warned about in the last days is people seeking out their teachers with itching ears that tell them what they want to hear instead of true doctrine (2 Timothy 4:3-4)

This is something it is critical for all of us, those calling ourselves Christian, to be highly aware of in these times lest we find ourselves being led astray from the truth of the Word and into a different doctrine based on something else, walking the wide road instead of the narrow one without realizing we are doing it.

Guess what the one and only tool anyone has to successfully guard against being led astray from the truth (by whatever means)?