What Fellowship has Light with Darkness?

I read this article and I did comment on it. I think it's good that someone like Collins is trying to bring two opposing sides together. But it can't be done because the two sides are incompatible. Religion involves belief, faith, and superstition. Science involves reason, logic, and evidence. Science by it's own definition cannot have any supernatural forces involved, otherwise it ceases to be science. That is why, Valiant, you are wrong in your assertion that the bible gives a framework for science. The bible isn't a science textbook. It is a religious text. It can't be turned into a book of science and it doesn't help it contains things even those outside the scientific community know are wrong.

The real issue I see here doesn't have to do with science conflicting with god. It has to do with science conflicting with the stories about god. It's biblical literalism, not god, that science contests. When it comes to god, science is silent on the issue. The stories of the bible like Genesis, Exodus, and other such tales are the matters science conflicts with. And people latch onto these stories as if they were god himself.

So I ask you, Valiant, what is more important? God and the holy spirit or the book? Because one isn't the other even if the book was divinely inspired. It's still a book with pages, words, and the writings of man. It isn't god incarnate. Are you worshipping god or are you worshipping a book? That's big question. All your misgivings about science and macroevolution are secondary and I have already explained them so I won't bother again since you don't accept it either way.

If I thought you wanted to know, then I would answer you. But it has become increasingly apparent that your purpose here is not to know, but to find fault and accuse. We have been more than tolerant with you as you have disparaged the name of Christ as a liar and the Bible as myth, yet you continue to label us intolerant for giving you the doctrine of Christ.

If you cannot abide with the purpose of the blog, then we request again that you go elsewhere. We are not interested in your worldview. You cannot fix our perceived flaws. I appeal to your understanding of liberty. Do we as Bible believers not have the right of association with like minded brethren?

With a feigning interest, you have abused our willingness to testify of our faith. We will continue to pray for you because we love you as a fellow image bearer of God.

I'm not just asking questions to ask them, Valiant. I sincerley do want to know. Is worshipping god more important than worshipping the stories about god or not? Because I think it brings up a very prominent issue about biblical literalism. For you see, it is literalism from which this controversy has stemmed. It is literalism that creates the evolution debate, the debate on homosexuality, and debates on prejudice towards non-believers like myself.

I don't call Christ a liar. I don't insult the bible. I just see it differently than you. To me, I see it as a religious text like any religious text like the Quran and the Maharbarta of India. If you take offense to how I see it, I'm sorry. But like I've said before, I am a non-believer. I see the world differently than you do. But I still seek to understand other worldviews different than my own. That's why I come here. And as Caday once pointed out, these are public forums. You can't expect everybody who participates to have your same convictions.

One of the problems with these debates is that neither side seeks to understand each other before trying to be understood. It makes it very hard to relate to one another and will lead to prejudice. Just look at the comments on that article. Look at how venomous both sides are towards one another. That's what happens when people don't try and understand. Because they always fear what they don't understand.

It seems to me that your assessment of Jack's intentions is done using a priori reasoning. It would not hurt if you took him at his word and did your best to prove what you want him to believe.

There’s nothing “natural” about this world or universe we live in, jack. Rather, everything you see about you is “super” natural.

Everyone would agree that it was supernatural when Jesus changed water into wine. But it’s no less supernatural to take a dead seed and place it into the ground where it springs to life and turns into a plant that produces a grape that ferments into wine. That event is just as supernatural as when Jesus produced wine from water, maybe even more so. So then, because everything in this world is supernatural and men can clearly see that it is, all men are “without excuse.” Romans 1:20. It’s also why those, like you, who “seeketh after a sign” they can SEE are called “wicked,” because they have all the signs they need in the world to begin with.

Tell me, jack, when God created the woman, since there was no pain at the time, why did God cause a deep sleep to come upon Adam? It wasn’t as an anesthetic. It’s because God started creating, again. Whenever God creates, it always falls outside the realm of man’s experience. Science was in a deep sleep when God created the universe, they can never know or discover how God did it. It must be revealed by God.

Observing the universe and then simply running things “backwards” to where everything is squeezed down into some fantastically small point smaller than the size of a pencil point is wildly bizarre and just as wrong. We’ve heard it all before and we’ve heard it enough from you.

Gary Gordon.

You’re truly the “thorn in the flesh” the Apostle Paul wanted removed, so ValiantForTruth will endure until God removes you. I suppose you’ll grab your head again and accuse me of threatening you; but we both know I could pull a gun and it still wouldn’t faze you.

Caday5 seems to think ValiantForTruth hasn’t done his “best” to convince you of what he wants you to believe, so he says “pretty please” try again; but you don’t even believe him when he says something as simple as “please leave,” so we have no expectation that you’ll believe anything. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone as thick as you are.

If you want to learn about God, go to Church and remain silent.


Gary Gordon

Regardless of your crass, disrespectful, and just plain impolite words I'll try to be civil in my response. To say there is nothing 'natural' about the universe is to ignore the very definition of what natural is. By natural world I mean things that can be measured, quantified, observed, understood, and proven in an objective reality. Supernatural is the realm of the impossible, full of gods, goddesses, miracles, and angels. It cannot be put into the context of reason because it is assumed on faith. And that's fine. People can believe whatever they want. But when someone makes a claim and passes it off as truth, there will be those that point out the flaws in the claim. That is just the nature of discourse. That is part of why I am here.

Valiant has made many claims to me and some of them have been perfectly valid. But others have not. He along with you and others like Chiefest have made claims that are fallacious in nature. That is why they are not valid evidence. Look up fallacy to see why. You'll find there are a wide range of fallacies that contrast such arguments.

Saying that god's creation falls outside of natural understanding is a cop out. You can say that, but you can't prove it. Without proof, it cannot be understood as objective truth. It is relegated to the realm of belief and faith. Saying I'm without excuse simply because I don't believe as you or valiant is just arrogant because it assumes you're right and everybody else is wrong. And that's just not how it works.

As I've said before, I try not to make statements on Christianity, god, and religion in general. I respond to the claims made by individuals. So please don't take my responses as affronts to your religion. They are responses to you as an individual. I hope this clears things up.

Take care.
Jack.

To reduce everything to the supernatural would be to make the special interventions of God, such as Jesus's virgin birth, His miracles, and His resurrection normal events that should be apart of everyday life and would not serve to confirm his Deity.

Another approach to take would be to resist the temptation to reduce creation to merely the physical realm by acknowledging it as God's creation and thus dependent on God for its existence.

I don't "reduce" anything, but elevate all things to the glory of God. It's typical of your reasoning that by elevating all things to God, I thereby "reduce" His glory. Huh? Thanks, but no thanks, I'll stick with my approach.

Gary Gordon

caday5

I want to make this point separate from the other.

To say, as you did, that by elevating all things to the glory of God somehow "reduces" the "resurrection" of Jesus Christ to a "normal" event is breathtaking in its absurdity!

I've also read some of the other mindless things you've said in your discourses with Chiefest of Sinners. Discussion with you and jack is pointless so ValiantForTruth has asked you both to leave; but you feel you have a "right" to stay. That is the mindset of a Pharisee, not a Christian.

Gary Gordon

Explain how insisting on staying in public places resembles the pharisees.

Also, weren't the Pharisees known for putting down of others?

If you look up the word reductionism, the definition you will see has nothing to do with promotion or demotion, but it has everything to do with making one issue or principle explain everything about a subject. For example, it is reductionism when Pro-lifers say that the only issue in abortion is the right of the unborn child to live just as it is reductionism for pro-choice advocates to say that the only issue in abortion are the rights of the unborn child.

So when I say your view of the universe is an example of reductionism, I am saying that you attribute everything we experience from the universe to the supernatural so that it seems there is no natural or physical realm.

I believe you're missing the point, Gary. By thrusting god into every sphere you miss the point of faith. Even when I was a devout believer, I didn't apply god to everything because I understood there are constraints in reality. To thrust god into everything is to miss the point of god. Even as an non-believer, I understand that. Saying everything has a supernatural basis is ignoring the mechanisms of your own surroundings. It turns miracles into the mundane. It makes the supernatural not so super.

It's obvious you love god and love your faith. And that's fine. But thrusting into everything makes it less a faith and more of a self-indulgance in one's own belief. You lose perspective in that regard. And without perspective, it's hard to relate to others who are different and make claims that will be substantiated.

Well, there you go again. The word you used is “reduce.” I don’t even think people need to look it up to know what it means. Your meaning, then, is that by attributing everything to God (the Supernatural), I thereby reduce, diminish, decrease, curtail, lower in rank, and degrade the Glory of God to the rank of common. There’s not a child of God I know who doesn’t see the wonder (miracle) of the whole creation and glorify God for it. Those who don’t, like you and jack, are willfully blind. Men should wake up to the fact that nothing is normal in this world, but all things happen only by the power of His Almighty Hand.

But your argument isn’t with me, it’s with God Himself. “Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive GLORY and HONOUR and POWER: for thou hast created ALL things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.” Revelation 4:11.

Both of you are here only to oppose the Truth of God’s Word. Jack promotes Godless evolution and whatever else he can pull up from hell. You promote a worldly social gospel of equality for all and when you’re not doing that, you’re twisting and torturing Scripture every step of the way. I stand with Paul, the Lord reward you according to your works: 2 Timothy 4:14.

Oh yeah, to answer your other question; because all men who come to this blog are under the simple authority of ValiantForTruth, even if it’s only voluntary. That should be obvious from the fact that he is the creator of this blog; just like you’re under the authority of God because He is the Creator.

Gary Gordon

I understand that you think you are attributing everything to God by saying everything is supernatural, but can you give me biblical verses that say there is nothing natural because everything is supernatural? We know from the Bible that everything does come from God, that is not the point of contention here. But don't we also know from the Bible that from God has come the natural world and the spiritual world. That supernatural only has its meaning in contrast to the natural world and that God intervened supernaturally, that is above what is natural, when he sent his Son to die and rise from the dead for us. BTW, historically speaking, the Church has never smiled on the elimination of the distinction between the two nor has it agreed with the idea that there is just the supernatural world.

You might not not like the term reductionism but it is a standard term dealing with how people view issues.

Gary, you're playing the victim again. Caday and I are not attacking your faith. It's your claims and your narrow interpretation of it that we are contesting. At no point have I directly accosted god or any deity for that matter. I only counter the claims you make in regard to god and the supernatural. It's you I respond to. Not god. Saying otherwise is deflecting your personal responsibilities from these points that Caday and I make, many of which are valid.

You seem to see anything as godless rhetoric taken up from hell, but that's just prejudice and downright irrational. I am not here supporting any agenda for atheism or non-belief. I am here strictly to respond to the comments made that only reinforce erroneous prejudices. I'm not telling you, Valiant, or Chiefest to repent your faith and follow something else. You're the ones who are telling me I'm doomed and will suffer eternally and if I know what's good for me I'll convert. So whose preaching to who here?

I'll make the same point to you that I made to others. The claims you make about people like me who don't believe in your narrow interpretation of god as you are based solely on prejudice. If you got to know anybody like me personally, you would see it's not as clear cut as so many make it out to be. But you don't even try to understand where people like me are coming from. You just try to get me to understand you. Problem is, it goes both ways. And when someone doesn't even bother to try and understand, that denotes only one conclusion. They are afraid. Because no matter what one believes or doesn't believe, they will always fear what they don't understand.

Take care,
Jack

The idea that is widely held by today’s Churches and which you are making a case for is the idea that the supernatural works of God are only those interventions of God in this world which are made solely by extraordinary means, that is to say, miracles. The implication is that everything else in nature is to be explained by “natural laws.” Nature is in control of all things, not God, unless he operates outside of those laws of nature via miracles. I whole heartedly deny that.

At the root of that belief is the idea that we can understand natural phenomena whereas miracles lie outside of our understanding. That premise is also false and I attempted to show that in my explanation of a dead seed converting to wine. Although we can understand many things in creation, the fact remains and always will, the most basic concepts of it lay outside of our comprehension. It will always lie outside of our comprehension because God is infinite and we are finite.

Gary Gordon

In Hebrews 1:3 God upholds “ALL things by the word of his power,” so that a sparrow doesn’t “fall to the ground” because of the laws of nature, but solely by the will and providence of God. That “the very hairs of your head are all numbered,” comes about NOT by the laws of nature, but solely by the providence of God, Mt 10:29-30.

Anyone, then, who would believe the truth of Scripture, that God directly controls every single thing that happens in this world, understands there is no difference whether it’s by “miracles” or “natural phenomena.” All is God’s work. All of God’s works are equally beyond human understanding. All are divinely wrought no matter if God is directing the orbits of planets or changing water into wine.

It is true that God usually works by “ordinary” means because he has created an orderly world. It is also true that when God works by miracles, the purpose is to call attention to something by way of a sign. The point of contention between you and I (and any Church that “has never smiled on the elimination of the distinction between the two”) is when you tell me to suppress (reduce) the truth of the power of his Godhead in order to highlight the miracle all the more. Since a sign can only be seen by those who can see. I “reduce” nothing when I say ALL things are supernatural

To suppress that knowledge, as you would have me do, is exactly what brings about the wrath of God upon those who do in Romans 1:18ff; so enough of your foolishness.

Oh yeah, you wanted a verse from the Bible? Romans 1:20 says that just from looking at the creation men can see the invisible (supernatural) things of God. If everything I observe in the creation points me to the “invisible” God, I would say everything “natural” speaks “supernatural.”

Gary Gordon

I respect the fact you don't believe man can understand natural phenomena, Gary. But the very fact that you're using a computer right now, living in a first world country, and eating food that's been artificially bred and modified flies in the face of that belief. None of these would be possible without an understanding of natural phenomena. But they are because mankind, even those who are religious, can use logic, reasoning, and science to understand the world around them. Attributing everything to supernatural forces defeats the very purpose of understanding because it negates the need for inquiry. Centuries of science prove your point wrong.

Saying nature is god's work is to negate the very nature of god himself. God is supernatural, hence he cannot be understood, grasped, or measured. But the forces that keep a sparrow up like air resistance, gravity, physiology, etc. can be understood and measured. It's been tested before in wind tunnels. I know people who have done it. Saying all the mechanisms are of god's hand is not a statement of fact, it's a statement of belief. You can't prove that and you can't even justify it other than saying it says so in the bible, a book that is full of things that are known to be wrong.

Playing with semantics doesn't prove your point either. Looking at natural forces and then calling them supernatural proofs is to ignore their meaning. It is likened to the idea of animism, the age old belief that supernatural spirits embody all things. You can believe whatever you want in that respect, but the fact remains it requires one to negate the very meaning of natural forces and the understanding thereof.

Best wishes,
Jack

We have an area of agreement, that it is all of God's Work. We have an area of disagreement, that it is all supernatural.

For example, John refers to the natural when he talks about who can believe in Christ:

"But to all who received him, who believed in in his name, he gave power to become children of God, who were born, not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God" John 1:12, 13

What is implied by the above passages, and there are plenty available to refer to, are two different realms. We can call the one realm the physical world or nature and we can call the other the spiritual world. Because of Adam's sin, the physical world has been corrupted and must be remade. Until then, man, in this physical realm, cannot, by nature, believe in Christ. Man needs God's supernatural intervention into his natural world to believe. If it was all supernatural and there was no distinction, we would see no passages like the one I just quoted.

You’re off on another tangent, again. We’re not talking about the difference between the physical realm and the spiritual realm. Rather, we’re talking about how God works in just the physical realm and concerning when He uses miracles or “ordinary” means of work.

When God works via miracles, in the common use of the word, there is no question they were meant to point men to the supernatural God. It only follows, then, that if Romans 1:20 says that the created world also points men to the invisible God, then it, too, does it by way of its miraculous nature. I maintain that to the fullest. ALL of God’s works are miraculous because ALL are incomprehensible in the sight of men, even if performed on a daily basis and no matter how much He binds them in “laws of nature.” But men suppress that truth by making the creation appear to operate via “ordinary” means apart from God, therefore, they say, there is no God.

You’re not suggesting that since the fall corrupted the physical realm, man therefore cannot believe without “God's supernatural intervention into his natural world” via miracles, are you? Man only believes because God has taken out the stony heart and replaced it with a heart of flesh. That child of God does not require a sign in the form of a miracle to believe. Rather, now, all of creation testifies to him. Job 12:7-10, Psalm 19:1-6. God changes man. He does nothing to his physical world, nor does He need to for him to believe.

Miracles were one of the “signs of an apostle,” 2 Corinthians 12:12, and have died out with the death of the last Apostle. According to Jesus in Mathew 24:24, miracles are now a sign to us that the Church or men performing them are false Christs and false prophets. See also, 2 Thessalonians 2:9.

Gary Gordon

Gary, I am enjoying your discourse. Please feel free to continue as you will. Thanks for giving us some of your time.

I am not off on a tangent, I am taking you at your word. I would also be careful with your last title, the process of a person repenting and believing in Christ is not the sign of the False Church. And yet, those works differ from God working through nature and the laws that govern the physical realm. Certainly all that we have comes from God, but God has many different ways of working.

"The process of a person repenting and believing in Christ," caday5, is this, "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Romans 10:17.

From the above passage, we see that faith (repenting and believing in Christ) comes by the Word of God, not signs and miracles, never signs and miracles.

Miracles cannot produce faith, they can only confirm it. Hence, a Christians faith is confirmed on a daily basis, thanks to the miraculous nature of the creation.

Gary Gordon

Then you should read the book of Acts and Galations 3 to see the connection between miracles and faith during apostolic times.

I’ve already made the connection between faith and miracles and it sure doesn’t change in apostolic times. Miracles can only confirm a faith that is already there. If miracles could produce faith, Jesus would have been working overtime producing “many mighty works” in Mt. 13:58.

“And he did NOT many mighty works there because of their unbelief.”

Also Mark 6:5-6, “And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them. And he marvelled because of their unbelief.”

Even if they found Noah’s ark on Mt Ararat and the miracle of the flood was staring jack right in the face, it still couldn’t produce a faith in jack since he’s unable to believe "Moses and the prophets."

Gary Gordon