1. The KillerFrogs

God Has A Plan For Your Life

Discussion in 'Scott & Wes Frog Fan Forum' started by ThisIsOurTime, May 4, 2020.

  1. #241 Eight, May 14, 2020
    Last edited: May 14, 2020
    don't understand the question.

    death, disasters are all part of the natural cycles of life.

    for example, earthquakes, floods, wild fires, tornadoes, death are all part of the natural order and sometimes that does include some very, very tragic situations.

    what i have always found interesting is that people will watch a nature show and see how brutal the natural world is to other species and don't correlate those same physical laws applying to the human species.

    this world is exceptionally flawed in that humans as much as any other species are bound by the physical laws and subject to the whims of nature.

    bad [ Cumbie’s red zone playcalling ] is going to happen and while that sounds depressing no more so than the believe this world and our species are the byproduct of an accidental chain of events and therefore could be eradicated just as easily by another accidental chain of events.

    why is their pain? why is their suffering? why do bad people thrive at times and flourish? maybe it is a reminder that some believe that the world in this form was never meant to be our home, it will never be our home, and the ultimate end for everyone on the world in this form is death. period.

    you want definitive answers beyond that i am not your man. i do know you aren't the first to ask such and won't be the last. i believe that those are david's words in psalms where he cries out to god asking where he is and why has he turned his back on him.

    one of my best friends was furious with god when his first wife and one of their daughter was killed by two kids street racing and he still gets angry with god at times about it so no one is letting god off the hook.

    all this might not sound logical to you, to steel, but i will say that for me with faith the most logical things are often what is most illogical to the world
    tcudoc likes this.
  2. I have a lot to get caught up on this thread, but for now let's look at this one.
    Since you only quote the Bible (Hebrew and Christian) and no other sources, I am guessing that when you say monotheism you mean specifically the Abrahamic God. If that's the case then you are definitely incorrect.
    First, I forget, are you a Young Earth Creationist? I'm pretty sure you take the entire Christian Bible as literal truth. If these statements are true, then there really is no other point in you continuing to read because you will dismiss what I say as being against what the Bible says and therefore, isn't true. If I'm wrong and you actually do accept archaeology and what it concludes, then read on.
    Second, I am going with the concept of monotheism as the belief in only one God, or, at the absolute bare minimum, the belief that there is a supreme God above all other existing gods and it is the only deity to be worshiped (a distinction the Bible seems to indicate in the 1st (2nd in the Talmud) Commandment handed down to Moses). There is another concept of monotheism that believes in many deities (each handling specific aspects) but that there is one god that rules over all of them as well.

    We start with the fact that the Talmud was written somewhere around the 6th or 5th century B.C.E. There were very definitely polytheistic religions before that happened. The reason I bring up this is that this marks the basically the earliest written source of Abrahamic tradition by its followers.
    Of course, while we have very little evidence to declare it an undeniable fact, Abraham himself lived about 1500 years earlier than this. There is much in the Hebrew Bible that has some reputable archaeological backing, the stories in the first five books do not fall in this category, particularly going all the way back to Abraham and before.
    But let's look at Abraham for a second. If he lived around 2000 B.C.E., then there were already Sumerian, Minoan, and Egyptian pantheons were already in play (the oldest surviving pyramid in Egypt began construction about 600 years before Abraham). And that's just in the known Biblical world. Stonehenge, though not completed, was already over 1000 years old by the time Abraham showed up.
    Abraham and his descendants are debatable in the archaeological world, but the tales before that are almost undoubtedly, with little significant debate, just stories and not actual literal events. Flood stories, for example, are found throughout Mesopotamia with the Epic of Gilgamesh being one of the oldest. It should be noted that this Sumerian story dates as early as as 2150 B.C.E. and is in fact an example of a polytheistic culture where one god wants to destroy the world and another warns Gilgamesh in an attempt to spare him.
  3. I'm agnostic on whether there is a young earth or old earth. For example, there is disagreement on how long the days exactly were. As for interpreting the bible, there are parts that are metaphorical and there are parts that are literal. I lean towards a literal Genesis. And of course, I accept archaeology. It has vindicated the bible in many cases. The issues of dispute usually centers around dating methods rather than the findings themselves.

    The claim the bible makes about itself is it goes back to the original man and woman, Adam and Eve. That would be before these other polytheistic cultures you are talking about. The claim is that Adam first instituted celebrations during the solstices and these were re-instituted with Noah. You asserting that the Epic of Gilgamesh was written before the Torah or Talmud doesn't undermine that claim. These cultures had oral tradition and the bible is believed to be God inspired.

    The rest of your post is you asserting you don't believe the other stories in the OT based on some opinions of some archaeologists. However, opinions vary.

  4. TIOT, do you believe in dinosaurs?
  5. Yeah. You may find this enlightening.
  6. [​IMG]
  7. Thanks for forwarding this video. It sounds just like a Saturday Night Live episode. Amazing that a someone could actually believe this.
    Todd D. likes this.
  8. I like that he says there are "two schools of thought". No there isn't. There are silly people who believe silly things that run contrary to all available evidence, but don't pretend like they stand on equal footing.
  9. Opinions vary.
  10. I mean, in the sense that the wrong answers on my high school chemistry test were "differences of opinion", sure? That's better stated as "That's wrong" though.

    For example, that video says something along the lines of "if the meteor hit that killed the dinosaurs, there would be no way for life on Earth to recover" That's not a "matter of opinion". That's false. The hypothesis of the K-T impact does not suggest such devastation as to render the Earth permanently uninhabitable.

    He is free to interpret scripture as he sees fit, and if he wants to suggest that scripture references pre-human dinosaurs, then so be it. Suggesting that the fossils are products of animals that co-existed with mankind, however, runs contrary to all available evidence available to us and isn't a path to increasing our wisdom. Trust me on this. I'm Catholic. We already did the "let's ignore science because Scripture says otherwise" with Galileo**. It doesn't end well.

    (Yes, I know it's more complicated than that. This is a joke.)
    satis1103 and Eight like this.
  11. No disrespect, but I did not find that enlightening, I found it completely ridiculous. I can’t believe that a real person could actually believe that, it’s the silliest thing I’ve ever watched.
    talor and Eight like this.
  12. What exactly are your beliefs? And be honest what was your true intention behind asking the question in the first place since nobody was talking about dinosaurs? Was it to learn about other points of view or were you using it to derail the conversation and mock others you disagree with?
  13. The 1 minute apologist should apologize that it took over 3 minutes.
    talor likes this.
  14. Brother, I understand the Catholic/Orthodox point of view. And feel free to share your beliefs. But I am not interested in having a game of denominational football here. That is not why I posted the thread or am participating in this thread. People can decide for themselves such things in time after careful study. By analogy, I am like a fisherman trying to catch fish. I am not concerned with cleaning the fish and cooking them at this time. I am just trying to get fish on the boat. Those other things can be worked out later.
    Todd D. likes this.
  15. LOL, I had the same thought. There is another guy who has a youtube channel called "The Ten Minute Bible Hour" who routinely has videos over 10 minutes. What can you do? hahaha
  16. Most fishermen don't try to coax the fish into the boat with circular arguments and misogyny.
  17. Smh... so let me get this straight... he - and by virtue of sharing and endorsing, you - point to translation differences as part of the reasoning used to connect gaps in the young earth, dinosaurs-were-around-with-us theory. But if I were to suggest that a lot of the things we see in the gospels were mistranslations - the most common example being the question of whether Jesus claimed true divinity - "Son" of God (as in exclusive only son) versus "son" of God (i.e. all of our human brothers and sisters), while he may respectfully discuss it I imagine he would eventually reject that theory.

    Again... hits but not misses. Point to evidence that supports, but minimize similar evidence that does not.

    My annoyance with you OP is not your set of beliefs. They are no more ridiculous than anybody elses, and no more provable. My annoyance is the continual insistence on having the answer, on the fact that you're right and all us other poor souls are misled or mistaken. I am perfectly ok with a "good question, not sure, here's what I believe, you believe what you want". But that's not the nature of this. At all.
  18. I understand and appreciate this. My point is that once you start denying things that are true, your credibility takes a hit and makes your job all that harder because it leads to "If they're wrong about this, how can I trust them to be right about the other parts of their message?"

    As Cardinal Bellarmine, himself a rather staunch geocentrist, said during the previously referenced Gallileo affair: "I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the center of the world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun, then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary, and say rather that we do not understand them, than that what is demonstrated is false"
    Showtime Joe 2.0 and Eight like this.
  19. Well, I don't claim to be perfect or an amazing apologist or evangelist. I have my limitations and have some biases from personal experience and have a lot to learn in my own spiritual journey. Another person with more experience and understanding probably could make better arguments. And 10 years from now, I would hope that my arguments and understanding has improved as well. But no matter how good the speaker is, we know from the bible in the Parable of the Sower that some people will receive the message and others will not and others will receive the message only to be pulled away from it by friends and circumstances. Ultimately, it isn't about me and my persuasiveness, it is about the Word of God and people's willingness to receive it. But we are called to evangelize and share the Gospel and we do know the bible says the Word never returns void. So even though my arguments may not hit all the right notes with you, perhaps there is another who feels differently or can see beyond my limitations.

    That all being said, for my edification, which arguments do you think are circular arguments and where do you think I am promoting misogyny?
  20. There's really no point in debating TIOT. He dismisses science because it's been known to be wrong. He dismisses the findings of trained archaeologists and historians as a difference of opinion. The Bible has all the answers and is to be believed literally, even when it is demonstrably incorrect (which then becomes interpretation or some other nonsensical explanation about how the Bible wasn't actually wrong, it just presented things in a way the people could understand).
    You can't have a real discussion with someone who just out of hand dismisses actual evidence and then provides "evidence" of their own in the form of suspect "experts" with an agenda.
    satis1103 and Brog like this.

Share This Page