Discussion about Jesus’s death which now encompasses creationism and the second coming. Thread 2

[ZoggyStirdust]

Continues from here if anyone wants to

www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5318577-to-not-understand-why-christians-think-jesus-died-for-our-sins?page=40&reply=143772264

There were otherwise smart people who are convinced that the Cottingley Fairies were real. There are many people who believe that the Angel Moroni supplied golden books to Joseph Smith. There are millions that believe Mohammed ascended to heaven on a winged horse. Lots of people believe all sorts of things.

The best process we've found to work out which beliefs are true is science. And evolution is a branch of science that has an immense amount of evidence to support it regardless of what the charlatans at Answers in Genesis want you to think.

Answers in Genesis isn't accurate.

Do you believe that to be an unbiased source?

Why? They have scientists working for them

No, but most sources have some bias. It doesn't mean what they are saying isn't true

It's not only Answers in Genesis
creation.com/en/articles/the-way-it-really-is-little-known-facts-about-radiometric-dating

There’s ’some bias’ and then there’s a website dedicated to a young earth creationist perspective that looks at data through than lens as a starting point.

They also say things like the following:

“There is no dual citizenship in Christ. A Christian cannot have one foot in the world (embracing a gay identity) and one foot in the church.”

“First, we must starve sin. This means we must not cultivate gay friendships, live in gay culture, call ourselves gay Christians, or engage in sin of any kind that fuels and feeds our affinity for homosexuality.”

And they say the following about a 10 year old rape victim’s abortion:

”Is abortion justified in cases like these?
The value of a life is not determined based on how that life was conceived.No! Again, the value of a life is not determined based on how that life was conceived. And, as above, the child should not pay for the sins of the father. Sexual abuse is a great evil—sexual abuse at the hands of a family member or other trusted person is even more repulsive. These are circumstances no one wants, and the guilty party should be fully prosecuted for their crimes. But, again, the unborn child is guilty of nothing more than existing, and that’s certainly not a reason to end someone’s life!”

Not sure I would be quoting that site as an unbiased authority on anything to be honest. They sound like cruel, homophobic, misogynistic types to me. I wouldn’t want to align myself with them in any way but appreciate you may share their views while I don’t.

I don't share all their views, but I do agree with their young earth creationist perspective. That was the first site that came up when I searched, but there are many scientists who believe in creation .
I am pro-life mainly but I definitely don't agree with them about the 10 year old rape victim, or the bit about not having gay friends.

I still don’t think you’re understanding the scientific use of the word “theory”. It describes an explanation that has been proven.

there is no scientific evidence backing up the biblical position. None at all.

I have to admit to some frustration when talking to creationists (not something I do often tbf) in that they are stubbornly refusing to look at a fact, and are the that their beliefs have equal standing to scientific ones. That’s absolutely not the case. All beliefs are equal but you can’t claim parity between a belief with no evidence and a proven fact!

the earth is not young! That’s just a fact!

It's not a fact though. There is evidence so support a young earth. This guy is a university professor and a creationist:
andymcintosh.org/

Perhaps, in that case, you could provide some empirical, verified facts that support creationism.

And while we are at it, let’s postulate that the earth was created, a few thousand years ago and didn’t evolve. How do you reconcile the literally millions of verifiable bits of evidence that point to the existence of life on earth billions of years before that. Are we to accept that god created life on earth, waited a few billion years, thought ‘what we need here is mankind’ , created mankind, had a rethink and drowned almost very living creature and person and then started again? And we are meant to believe that without a scintilla of evidence?

This thread, or its predecessor at least, started out as an interesting debate on religion and Jesus’s death. Religious beliefs help people make sense of the world, their lives and their place in it. People are free to believe or not believe, and no one has judged anyone for taking the view they have. It’s been, broadly, a sensible and balanced debate. But, once we wander into the realms of ignoring 5 billion years of history and evidence of life on earth to suit a story then I’m sorry, but your position is not credible. Unless, of course, you have some evidence that has evaded the rest of mankind and the scientific community…

edited for typos. More remain I am sure, I’m only human ;)

No there is no evidence to support a young earth. Not one piece.

there is a lot of evidence of the true age of the earth and evolution. It’s scary you are denying that.

Christianity is compatible with evolution because it doesn’t require a literalist interpretation of scripture. It has a long history of biblical exegesis, so it is Christine scholars who have carried out forensic analysis to discover evidence of date / likely linguistic and geographical origin / authorship of different passages. There are two different creation stories in Genesis with different origins st different points in history and different theological emphases beyond understanding the origins of everything we experience.

"And I have a lot of time for believers who can sensibly discuss what they feel gods role is, in the framework of what is known"

@ZoggyStirdust

While I'm open-minded to the idea that there could be some involvement within such processes from deities, I wouldn't say I actively believe that to be the case or am tied to it in any way.

I believe all gods and goddesses exist, but that belief is not predicated on them being involved in creating/developing the physical universe. Could they, or at least some, of them have had some kind of part? Again, I'm not totally dismissive of the idea, but nor do I think it needs to be the case either.

Is this thread only about Christians who believe in creationism? Catholics eg believe in evolution.

Interesting. God(s) kind of existing in the world alongside us, neither having created it or ruling it.

No it’s just that’s what the last one was discussing when it ran out of space. No doubt this will evolve (ha) too

I don’t believe in god but I love the idea of different gods for different things. I could even get on board for that 😄

I’m a Catholic, I also believe in evolution. I don’t believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. But I believe in the existence of Jesus Christ, and the events of his execution. I believe in His teachings and I’m open minded about the existence of an overarching God and afterlife, although if it was scientifically disproven I would accept that (hard to prove a negative though). I feel Jesus with me, and when people ask how, I guess it’s like asking how you know you love your kids/spouse - you just do. It’s a feeling within you that can’t be proven but is very strong. I feel more connected to him than an omnipotent God, I guess because He knows our struggles and lived them Himself.

@BunnyLake

Yep, that's pagan polytheism. :)

Yes, though like I said, I don't reject the possibility of deities having some kind of role in the development of the physical world. But the idea isn't necessary for my theism.

There will be events preceding Christ's return to Earth. He will take His believers up into Heaven without coming down here Himself. The church calls this the Rapture, but that word isn't used in the Bible.

Straight after the Rapture, the Antichrist will be revealed. The seven year Tribulation then begins. The first half, 3.5 years, will be increasingly horrible. The second half, the Great Tribulation, will be dreadful. A large proportion of the population will be killed.

That will end with Christ's return. He will come in glory, as an adult. Everybody will know that He is Lord. People who have become believers between the Rapture and Second Coming and who have survived the Tribulation (many will have died) will join Jesus in His thousand year reign on Earth. Non believers will be sent to Hell.

It's important to know that the Bible says non believers cannot accept Jesus and His salvation once He returns. To be saved, people must accept Jesus before His return. To be taken to Heaven before the Tribulation, they must be saved before the Rapture.

Timing -

Second Coming is 7 years after the Rapture.

The Rapture could happen any time now. All Bible prophecies required to precede it have already been fulfilled. With the world in such turmoil and the increasing pace of political, military and societal change, it looks as if the Rapture will happen soon.

Disclaimer. Some Christians have different interpretations, but I believe this one is the majority view.

This link may help:

www.thelivinggospel.org/studies/end-times/the-second-coming

BTW this site offers a free ebook on the Rapture, and a special offer of two more ebooks for $0.99. I got the freebie, but the page didn't work for the $0.99 offer for me.

Just because your local Starbucks may have an archaeology graduate working there doesn't make that Starbucks a historic dig site.

What AiG does is not science. As part of their "Statement of Faith" on their website are these words:

No apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field of study, including science, history, and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture obtained by historical-grammatical interpretation.

In other words, any evidence that don't fit in with their interpretation of the Bible is automatically regarded as false. THAT'S NOT SCIENCE. That's apologetics. Your misinterpretation of what they do as being science is why your understanding of evolution is so deeply flawed.

I hadn't read that, I agree, it doesn't sound scientific or open minded! Other sources I quoted though, such as the professor from Leeds, are likely more reliable.

with that level of detail, when is it happening?