Christian bronies: meet, greet, and mingle!

[Vinstar59 59]

 

 

"Your whole argument seems to hinge on the idea that there couldn’t have been any death before the fall. Death of nephesh chayyah creatures, to be more precise. We don’t argue that plants and insects, etc., didn’t die before the Fall, and “what about skin cells” has always been a ridiculous straw man argument: we believe that certain forms of cell death would have had to be programmed at creation, as they are necessary for all multi-cellular life. Broadly speaking, there was no death of vertebrates." Another article on the CMI website (yeah, I like these guys ), The Carnivorous Nature and Suffering of Animals, answers questions about parts of creation being carnivorous. It's a very long read, and I don't pretend to have gone through it all, but I did think this quote kind of gives the gist of the article: "But however much, or little, pain and suffering there is in nature, the Bible indicates that the present state of things is not the ideal—God did not make it this way originally. Also, it was God who subjected the whole creation to ‘futility’ and its bondage to decay." It would have been very easy for an omnipotent God to change creation after the Fall.

 

 

 

"To summarize, the age of the earth was derived from the rock layers, which have fossils in them, which puts death, suffering and disease before the Fall. The Bible is clear that there was no death before Adam (Romans 5:12)."

 

 

The "death" referred to in Genesis and in Romans is not the same death you perceive it to be. It refers to the death of the soul. When we are in unity with God, our souls thrive and are made whole. By sinning, we cause ourselves to be incompatible with God, as God is with out sin, thus we no longer are allowed to be in unity with Him, thus our soul dies. The serpent did not lie when he said "You surely will not die." as Adam and Eve did not drop dead on the spot after eating the fruit. However, the serpent did deceive them as that was not the death the tree would cause. Having broken their unity to God through sin, Adam and Eve's souls no longer could reside with God, thus why they were banished and thus why they experienced "death". Their sin barred them from God so that even after death, their souls would remain alone and would die without the love of God.

 

In order to be redeemed of our sins, a just sacrifice had to be given in it's place. This is where Jesus comes in. 

 

After dying for our sins, Jesus gave us the ability to reestablish our relationship with God. The gift is freely given and can also freely be refused. Sin is still sin. While we now are able to seek and receive forgiveness for our sins, our souls remain dead so long as we continue in our sinful behavior and seek no forgiveness to allow us to be reunited with God.

 

 

 

I believe the Bible explains historically how everything was made.

 

 

The Bible is not a scientific document nor is it a historical one either. It is the Word of God, period. However, the Word of God is not bound to a book. In fact, what was the Bible before it was written down? Testimonies given from the heart. Jesus is the Word of God made flesh and the Bible is the Word of God, but God can speak through more than just a book. God can speak to us through loved ones, nature, dreams, prayer, beauty. If a Christian gives a story of how he encountered God in his life, can God not be speaking there? Can He not be reaching out to those He seeks through this man, just as He did with men in the Bible? The Word of God is said to be alive for a reason! It's not just static words on a page, it's a disclosure of truth from the Holy Spirit through other people. 

 

Truth can also come in many forms as it can be truth with out being "true". The parables Jesus used to teach were not events that actually happened, but those parables contain truths about us and about God, which is why Jesus used them. It's not always black and white. The Bible is no exception to this. It used to be nothing but stories told, shared, and then eventually written down before being put together into what is today the Bible.

 

The Bible is a resource, a library for those stories touched and divinely inspired by God. God lives in those words not because it's the Bible, but because of the truth and beauty that original authors witnessed as God revealed Himself to them and they in turn wished to convey it to those who'd listen.You can't give the Bible a label of "science book" or "history book" because it is none of those. It is the Bible, period. And you can't look to the Bible for all the answers, because it doesn't have them all, nor is it supposed to. That's not it's purpose. It's a collection of human testimony inspired by God, not a book of facts and rules. The Bible is not "God and the Universe for Dummies". 

 

When Jesus sent out the twelve, did He say "Here take this book called the Bible. It contains everything you need to know about Me and My Father. Now go, read it to people. And if something contradicts it, it's false." No, He didn't. He sent the Holy Spirit to be with them as they shared what they had seen, to teach what Jesus taught them, and to be able to discern what was truth and what was false. It was only years after that when the Church decided it would be smart to collect the written account of these stories and translate them to the native tongue of the land so that others could hear these same stories more easily and be able to understand them. It wasn't put together to say "This is our faith and this is what we believe is true." That would be the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

 

Now I'm not saying things in the Bible didn't historically actually happen, I'm just saying that not all of it literally happened. The Bible is meant to share God and His love for us, not to tell accurate historical events.  

 

 

 

Evolution + The Big Bang and the Bible both try to give explanations to the origin of life, the universe, and everything. The Bible is a historical document with a reliable eye witness account, from God. Evolution is one interpretation of the evidence we have around us today. I don't see why they cannot be compared.

 

Because evolution and the big bang do not state who or what caused it/created it, only that this is what might have been the events that followed after. I agree that saying everything was created by "chance", that creatures are the way they are because of "survival of the fittest" just seems a bit far fetched, but I won't deny that creatures changed over time, that they indeed have a lineage of previous species they "evolved" from. I won't deny the astronomical science that can show how the stars and planets all function and relate to one another. I won't deny that life and the universe follow a distinct pattern that can be observed and theoretically traced back to their origin holding to that pattern. The fact that the universe is so old and yet still all together despite evidence, "evidence", saying otherwise is just more proof to me that God exists and is active in our universe. Or that His design for the universe was just THAT good.

 

Which is more impressive, God just "poofing" everything He imagined into existence, or that He planned out what He wanted, created a base material and energy for all those things to be built out of and created a simple set of rules and structures for them to follow knowing full well that when enabled, it would create everything He planned, which is what we see today. To me, that just sounds awesome. 

 

As a final word, when it comes to topics of conflict between religion and science, I usually like turn to this quote:

 

"no real disagreement can exist between the theologian and the scientist provided each keeps within his own limits. . . . If nevertheless there is a disagreement . . . it should be remembered that the sacred writers, or more truly ‘the Spirit of God who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men such truths (as the inner structure of visible objects) which do not help anyone to salvation’; and that, for this reason, rather than trying to provide a scientific exposition of nature, they sometimes describe and treat these matters either in a somewhat figurative language or as the common manner of speech those times required, and indeed still requires nowadays in everyday life, even amongst most learned people" 

 

Take Care and God Bless.

[Flutterspark 48]

@,

I would be careful, Evolution does not explain how we where created just merely the journey from the origin of life to where we where today. Currently there is no real explanation for the creation of the universe. Even the big bang is very very vague and not really a fully fleshed out theory . I will go over Romans 5:12 ! thank you for answering in such a detailed way !

Thank you for pointing that out. It's pretty sad that the Big Bang is often taught and regarded as fact in today's society, despite it's vagueness.

Thank you for making me think more thoroughly about exactly what I believe!

@,

Indeed, it is really nice to hold a civil debate with someone. I get stressed out about debates really easily, and I'm very glad that nothing has become heated.

@[member=Mister G],

I'm loving the jargon!

 

Even if the earth did exist for billions of years, and even if evolution gets proven (they're both still theories), they will never ever disprove God. That's what I believe

Fortunately, Evolution is forensic/origins science, as I mentioned before. It can never be "proven". And you're right, science can never prove or disprove God. Science studies just the physical world, but it cannot study the things behind and beyond the physical.

So rest assured!

@@Vinstar59,

Hey, and welcome! That's a very indepth response to my arguments, thank you!

 

The "death" referred to in Genesis and in Romans is not the same death you perceive it to be. It refers to the death of the soul. When we are in unity with God, our souls thrive and are made whole. By sinning, we cause ourselves to be incompatible with God, as God is with out sin, thus we no longer are allowed to be in unity with Him, thus our soul dies. The serpent did not lie when he said "You surely will not die." as Adam and Eve did not drop dead on the spot after eating the fruit. However, the serpent did deceive them as that was not the death the tree would cause. Having broken their unity to God through sin, Adam and Eve's souls no longer could reside with God, thus why they were banished and thus why they experienced "death". Their sin barred them from God so that even after death, their souls would remain alone and would die without the love of God.

I think that by this argument, you are implying that there must have been physical death before the Fall, if it was only our souls that were affected.

This comes back to the points I have already been discussing, such as "Why did God call a world with death 'very good'?"

Why can we not say that sin brought spiritual death for humans as well as physical death for all creation?

 

The Bible is not a scientific document nor is it a historical one either. It is the Word of God, period. However, the Word of God is not bound to a book. In fact, what was the Bible before it was written down? Testimonies given from the heart. Jesus is the Word of God made flesh and the Bible is the Word of God, but God can speak through more than just a book. God can speak to us through loved ones, nature, dreams, prayer, beauty. If a Christian gives a story of how he encountered God in his life, can God not be speaking there? Can He not be reaching out to those He seeks through this man, just as He did with men in the Bible? The Word of God is said to be alive for a reason! It's not just static words on a page, it's a disclosure of truth from the Holy Spirit through other people. Truth can also come in many forms as it can be truth with out being "true". The parables Jesus used to teach were not events that actually happened, but those parables contain truths about us and about God, which is why Jesus used them. It's not always black and white. The Bible is no exception to this. It used to be nothing but stories told, shared, and then eventually written down before being put together into what is today the Bible. The Bible is a resource, a library for those stories touched and divinely inspired by God. God lives in those words not because it's the Bible, but because of the truth and beauty that original authors witnessed as God revealed Himself to them and they in turn wished to convey it to those who'd listen.

You bring up some interesting points here. I actually agree with all of what you're saying in this section, apart from one point. I agree that God uses the Holy Spirit to impart His truth to us, both through the Bible, and through His creation. I also agree that we need to be more clear on what we mean when we say "truth". As you allude to, something can be "true" as in "fact", not fiction. Something can also be true as in that it agrees with God's eternal Truth.

The point I disagree with is what you go on to discuss further:

 

You can't give the Bible a label of "science book" or "history book" because it is none of those. It is the Bible, period. And you can't look to the Bible for all the answers, because it doesn't have them all, nor is it supposed to. That's not it's purpose. It's a collection of human testimony inspired by God, not a book of facts and rules. The Bible is not "God and the Universe for Dummies".

Firstly, why couldn't you give the Bible a "history book" label? God's Truth can be just as apparent in a real-life story (a.k.a history) as it is in one of Jesus' parables.

Secondly, why would you say that you can't look to the Bible for all the answers? I'm not talking about answers to questions such as "Should I stay at home today?", I'm talking about answers concerning questions about God's Word and His truth. All answers you find from other sources will either agree or disagree with the Bible. If an answer agrees with the Bible, God's Word, than it is God's truth. If it disagrees with the Bible, it is false. In the end, you are still looking to the Bible for the final decision.

2 Timothy 3:16 (NIV):

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,"

This verse backs up what both you and I have mentioned, that the Bible is definitely from God. Therefore, it must be both "true" and True, because our God is Truth. Any other sources must be tested against something solid that we know is from God. Answers that the Holy Spirit puts in our hearts will still agree with, and be backed up by, the Bible. So it does have all the answers when one gets to the root of the matter.

 

When Jesus sent out the twelve, did He say "Here take this book called the Bible. It contains everything you need to know about Me and My Father. Now go, read it to people. And if something contradicts it, it's false." No, He didn't. He sent the Holy Spirit to be with them as they shared what they had seen, to teach what Jesus taught them, and to be able to discern what was truth and what was false. It was only years after that when the Church decided it would be smart to collect the written account of these stories and translate them to the native tongue of the land so that others could hear these same stories more easily and be able to understand them. It wasn't put together to say "This is our faith and this is what we believe is true." That would be the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Now I'm not saying things in the Bible didn't historically actually happen, I'm just saying that not all of it literally happened. The Bible is meant to share God and His love for us, not to tell accurate historical events.

Paul, in the verse I just quoted, 2 Timothy 3:16, said that all scripture is "God-breathed". In John 14:6 (NIV), we read:

"Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.""

God is Truth. He is also perfect. How could Truth breath scripture that is not true? And if scripture is true, and I believe that it is, why shouldn't we as Christians say "this is what we believe is true"?

The Bible is presented as history. Would our perfect and truthful God cause an inaccurate (i.e. false) history to be written? I think not.

 

Because evolution and the big bang do not state who or what caused it/created it, only that this is what might have been the events that followed after. I agree that saying everything was created by "chance", that creatures are the way they are because of "survival of the fittest" just seems a bit far fetched, but I won't deny that creatures changed over time, that they indeed have a lineage of previous species they "evolved" from.

The problem with Evolution, is that it fails on a basic level. It is beyond far-fetched.

 

I won't deny the astronomical science that can show how the stars and planets all function and relate to one another. I won't deny that life and the universe follow a distinct pattern that can be observed and theoretically traced back to their origin holding to that pattern. The fact that the universe is so old and yet still all together despite evidence, "evidence", saying otherwise is just more proof to me that God exists and is active in our universe. Or that His design for the universe was just THAT good.

Your logic confuses me a bit.

Firstly, while life may seem to follow a certain pattern today, whether it be an Evolutionary one or not, we must remember that this is a post-Fall world. We can't look at a different and imperfect world, and use it decide how the world was before the Fall.

Secondly, how can you first say that the universe is very old, and then turn around and state that there is evidence saying otherwise? Evidence does not speak for itself, it must be interpreted. An old earth/universe is just one (faulty) interpretation of the evidence. One can take that same evidence and use it for the interpretation of a young earth/universe.

 

Which is more impressive, God just "poofing" everything He imagined into existence, or that He planned out what He wanted, created a base material and energy for all those things to be built out of and created a simple set of rules and structures for them to follow knowing full well that when enabled, it would create everything He planned, which is what we see today. To me, that just sounds awesome.

So you're saying that God planned billions of years of death and suffering? How could a good and perfect God intend such a thing? I certainly hope what we see today is not the creation God called "very good".

God just "poofing" everything he imagined into existence sounds pretty amazing and incredible to me. And the fact that God made living things so that they could multiply, and by natural selection, split into many different and wonderful species. The fact that Creation attests to His glory even after the Fall and a global flood is just spectacular.
 

As a final word, when it comes to topics of conflict between religion and science, I usually like turn to this quote: "no real disagreement can exist between the theologian and the scientist provided each keeps within his own limits. . . . If nevertheless there is a disagreement . . . it should be remembered that the sacred writers, or more truly ‘the Spirit of God who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men such truths (as the inner structure of visible objects) which do not help anyone to salvation’; and that, for this reason, rather than trying to provide a scientific exposition of nature, they sometimes describe and treat these matters either in a somewhat figurative language or as the common manner of speech those times required, and indeed still requires nowadays in everyday life, even amongst most learned people"

Don't you think that the Creation itself is yet one of many things that points to salvation and God? Romans 1:20 (NIV):

"For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

There is no "truth" found by man that can contradict God's truth. Anything that seems to conflict is revealed to be untrue under close examination.

 

Take Care and God Bless.

Thank you, and you too.

I hope I have provided sufficient explanations for my disagreements with your arguments. I don't not wish you any ill-will. I merely wanted to show that our God and His Word defeats every supposed "contradiction" that man has ever and will ever come up with.

@Everypony,

Thank you to everyone who participated in this debate! It has been a very deep discussion that has caused me to think very carefully about what exactly I believe, and I hope you have been inspired to do the same.

I am unable to continue debating further, as it takes me a very long time to write these posts. Time which I do not have to spare on a regular basis.

I want to finish by confronting what seems to be the real root of all these arguments. Evolution.

Society has relentlessly pounded us, claiming that Evolution is fact. Evolution has contradictions with the Bible in many issues, and this causes many Christians to try and fit God's truth into a man-made, untrue mold. The relief for all of us is simply this: God's Word is true, and Evolution is false. Want to find out more? I beg you to do research of your own, and the following links will give you a great starting point:

15 Questions for Evolutionists - "15 fundamental questions that evolutionists have no satisfactory answers to."

Did God Create Over Billions of Years? - This article addresses the problems with accepting an Old Earth/Evolution and Christianity at the same time.

'No Death Before the Fall'? - This article goes into further detail about what exactly is meant by "death" in "Did God Create Over Billions of Years?". It answers a bunch of problems that people commonly have with the first article.

'It's Not Science' - Why Evolution is not the kind of science it is implied to be. This article cleared a lot of things up for me about the different types of science.

Age of the Earth - This article provides 101 evidences for the young age of the Earth.

The Carnivorous Nature and Suffering of Animals - What about carnivorous animals? What were they doing before the Fall? Did animals hunt each other before the Fall?

Q&A Biology - Links to loads and loads of articles on Creation versus Evolution. There are even links to articles that are responses to objections people had with the above linked articles.

Again, thank you. It has been an honour to debate with you ponies. God bless you all.

Edited May 5, 2013 by Flutterspark

[Pokota 28]

 

 

So you're saying that God planned billions of years of death and suffering? How could a good and perfect God intend such a thing? I certainly hope what we see today is not the creation God called "very good"

From an LDS perspective, we as spirits agreed to all the death and destruction that comes along with giving Man and Woman the power to make our own decisions. We knew that the fall was going to happen, which was why we needed Jesus to be Jehovah from well before the word "go". (This makes more sense when you remember that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints believes that God made Creation so that Man may progress in the eternities, which requires a resurrected, perfected body)

 

As for the billions of years of death and suffering, I'm certain that God will reward the animals appropriately. Besides, it's really only Humans that kill wastefully.

[megakidicarus 0]

I'm the Founder of the original Christian bronies group founder on Facebook. Luthran missouri synod is my denomination, but really does that matter we are all Christian after all? I just actually found this site while googling Christian Bronies. 

[PlunderSteed 1,252]

Besides, it's really only Humans that kill wastefully.

 

For better or worse, humans are far from alone when it comes to killing for fun, boredom or a variety of other wasteful reasons.  Good ol' Felis Domesticus kill as many as 4 billion critters every year in the US alone.  When killing comes naturally to someone/something, it's just...the thing to do.

[Xan 22]

Well I'm Christian but I only say that because I believe In god, my own name is Christian so I can't se myself as being anything else, and if I'm not my mom will hunt me down and gut me even if she was dead she would find a way. Anyways asides from that I suck at following gods rules. I usually hate though that there is a lot of Christian haters out there that give us a bad name by being hypocritical and judgemental at the same time I hate it when atheists attack us or use their atheism as an excuse to do evil things. I usually don't care about what someone is I mean I remember when I found out my #1 guy I look up to was atheist but I didn't all of a sudden hate him and I still love his work that he does but yea to get to the point and not rant on about my own opinions or experiences with atheist, yes I am a Christian.

[Vinstar59 59]

 

 

I am unable to continue debating further, as it takes me a very long time to write these posts. Time which I do not have to spare on a regular basis.

 

I know how you feel. Why it has taken me so long to get back to this! =P

 

 

 

I think that by this argument, you are implying that there must have been physical death before the Fall, if it was only our souls that were affected. This comes back to the points I have already been discussing, such as "Why did God call a world with death 'very good'?" Why can we not say that sin brought spiritual death for humans as well as physical death for all creation?

 

Because death is not a bad thing. It's a part of life, part of it's design. Life is cyclical, it's all in balance and relies on one another. Like a phoenix, when life experiences death, it uses it to bring new life. It's a beautiful thing really and if you think about it, it reflects what Christ did for us on the Cross. Death to bring new life. With out death, life just makes no sense.

 

Now you could argue that death was painless before the fall and more like falling asleep, I could agree with that. Death in itself is only a transition for us. When we die, it is not our end. Death was never intended to be something feared or painful. It is now as a result of the fall, which is mainly due to the fact that we've fallen from God. Our souls fear death. They fear the emptiness that results from not being with God. When people claim there is nothing after death, I fear for them as that is exactly what will occur if they continue to ignore God. The pit of hell, the "eternal flames" could be a real thing, but what do I think hell is? Simply, the absence of God, of people, of everything God created. It's not so much a place as a state. There is with God in heaven or the nothingness outside. The torture and pain is to remain alone for all eternity. No love, no peace, no light. Blackness.

 

This, is what you fear. This is why death is seen as a bad thing. Before the fall, you simply were going to God. Plain and simple. Was nothing to fear. And in fact, you probably would not so much die but be assumed by God, body and soul. If you wanted to then argue that we didn't die because we simply get assumed, then ok. I'll agree we humans didn't die before the fall. God's creation, however, was built to die and be reborn. 

 

 

 

Firstly, why couldn't you give the Bible a "history book" label? God's Truth can be just as apparent in a real-life story (a.k.a history) as it is in one of Jesus' parables.

 

As I said, I'm not saying things in the Bible did not historically happen. The story of Moses historically happened. That was an actual event. David and Goliath, Noah and the Ark, Jonah and the Whale, same deal. But what of the book of Revelations? That is simply John writing down what he experienced in a dream, a vision given from God. Can you call this historical? He historically had the vision, but you can't call the events in the vision itself history. Or the psalms for example are a collection of prayerful songs. Were they used historically, yes. Written down historically, yes. Does that mean that what they literally say are actual historical events, not necessarily. Because it's in the Bible, does that mean that what the say are actual truths, yes. See what I'm trying to say?

 

History books lay out what transpired in the past as accurately as possible. The Bible lays out the story of God's relationship with His people. Details on the universe, the earth, and life around them are not it's primary focus. It's not explaining how earth was made, it's not a timeline for it, nor is it a historical document detailing the history of man. It is a love letter. It's a letter from God to us, His people, to show us how He has been with us since the beginning, since our fall, since our enslavement, since our exile. It shows us how no matter how much we screw up, He is by us every step of the way, and is still by us now, loving us. He calls to us, puts forth His hand and asks us to follow. That, is what the Bible is. That, is what it intends. 

 

 

 

Secondly, why would you say that you can't look to the Bible for all the answers? I'm not talking about answers to questions such as "Should I stay at home today?", I'm talking about answers concerning questions about God's Word and His truth. All answers you find from other sources will either agree or disagree with the Bible. If an answer agrees with the Bible, God's Word, than it is God's truth. If it disagrees with the Bible, it is false. In the end, you are still looking to the Bible for the final decision.

 

Because God didn't give us the Bible for all the answers. I explained what it was for above. ^ But, He did create something to guide us in all things. The Bible? No. He gave us His Church. He created a Church to shepherd and guide His people. He then even goes to appoint a leader for that Church, Peter. This is where divisions break out between Christians, but if you want to know what contains the all the answers concerning God and His truth, it is the Church. 

 

Now you did say "All answers you find from other sources will either agree or disagree with the Bible. If an answer agrees with the Bible, God's Word, than it is God's truth. If it disagrees with the Bible, it is false." We agree on this. That is 100% a true statement. But then you said, "In the end, you are still looking to the Bible for the final decision." This is where I must call you wrong. The Church is the final place you go to make a decision.

 

You must first know what the Bible truly says. With out this, the Bible is left to everyone's personal interpretation. The Church holds the authority to discern what the Bible truly says. We also know that it can speak to each of us differently. This isn't bad as God can be speaking to you personally at that time, which is good. But, with out some other authority to compare that message to, you risk interpreting something wrong and distorting the truth being revealed. With out the authority put in place by God, Christians become divided as a result.

 

http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/how-do-we-know-it%E2%80%99s-the-true-church

 

 

 

"Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.""

 

Amen to that!

 

 

 

God is Truth. He is also perfect. How could Truth breath scripture that is not true? And if scripture is true, and I believe that it is, why shouldn't we as Christians say "this is what we believe is true"?

 

Never said scripture wasn't true, or at least I did not intend to. Let's return to what I said about truth. I said that "Truth can also come in many forms as it can be truth with out being "true"." Let's look at this phrase as an example.

 

"For you are dust, and to dust you shall return." What does this mean? That I am literally made of dust and shall return to more dust? I'm made of skin and bone and muscle. Obviously this statement is false, right? But what if I looked at it in the way it's meant to read? "For you are dust" refers to the fact that my body is a product of the earth. The earth is dust and rock. The plants use this dust to grow, which feed the animals and feed us. We feed on the animals, which feed on the dust feeding plants. It also is referring to Genesis when it says that God made us from the clay of the earth and breathed life into it. The phrase is not saying we're literally dust, but if you look deeper, it says that we are...dust. I know that makes little sense, but hopefully you understand what I'm saying.

 

"and to dust you shall return." This refers to our eventual death. We shall be buried back into the earth and return to the "dust". We also decay after death, and as time rolls on, we eventually become actual dust and a part of the earth we came from. This is the truth the statement contains. In here we can find factual truth backed by science, "we decay and turn to dust", and truth about us as people of God, "we are God's creation and will eventually die." 

 

Lastly, why do we say this on Ash Wednesday? Because it sounds depressing? No, because it is a reminder to the truth that we will die. We must be ever vigilant as death can be around the corner. We must always remain in communion with God so that we can be with Him in heaven after we pass from this world into the next. This is the focus of Lent, to look inwards at our faults and see what we can do to grow closer in holiness to God. That is why we begin Lent with ashes on our forehead and say the phrase, "For you are dust, and to dust you shall return."

 

That is what I mean. The Bible is not to always be taken at face value like we did this phrase. It then becomes false. You can't just take the dictionary definitions of words and interpret them as the true meaning of the words in the Bible. Some words have a deeper meaning, a Godly meaning. Are we actually made from clay of the earth? Maybe, but is that what the Bible is trying teach us there? It means to show the love God puts into making us, like a potter does with his clay. We can't understand making people from nothing, but forming clay is something we can recognize. (It also makes pot making a lot more meditative when you think about that verse while doing it.) 

 

The truth the Bible teaches is also not the only truth to be had. All that the Bible teaches is truth, yes, but it is not all the truth there is to be found. I guess I should rephrase what I said before and say that what you shouldn't say is "This is our faith and this is what we believe is the only truth. All else is false."

 

 

 

Your logic confuses me a bit. Firstly, while life may seem to follow a certain pattern today, whether it be an Evolutionary one or not, we must remember that this is a post-Fall world. We can't look at a different and imperfect world, and use it decide how the world was before the Fall. Secondly, how can you first say that the universe is very old, and then turn around and state that there is evidence saying otherwise? Evidence does not speak for itself, it must be interpreted. An old earth/universe is just one (faulty) interpretation of the evidence. One can take that same evidence and use it for the interpretation of a young earth/universe.

 

I admit that as of late I have been...pondering this more and where I used stand on such things. I'm not saying I all of the sudden believe in young earth and "poof" here's the animals, but I do need to really think about all the possibilities. It's kinda all in flux right now, but if anything is still true, it's that God created all and it follows His design.   

 

 

 

So you're saying that God planned billions of years of death and suffering? How could a good and perfect God intend such a thing? I certainly hope what we see today is not the creation God called "very good".

 

Death, yes. Suffering, no. With the death thing, just read above where I mentioned it earlier. Suffering was not introduced till the fall, for man and creation. Our sin caused our suffering. What's beautiful though is how God can take our suffering and make it something good, something worth going through, like He did with the Cross. He does not wish suffering upon us, but since we have to deal with it due to our fall, He can change it be a good and not just a bad. A way to grow closer to God. Next time you suffer, turn to God and see what you can learn from Him through your suffering.

 

 

 

Don't you think that the Creation itself is yet one of many things that points to salvation and God?

 

 

I do. It's why I love nature and it's beauty. Why I love to look up into the night sky, to learn of the wonders of space and time. I see God's hand print on it all and I sit in amazement and wonder.

 

 

 

There is no "truth" found by man that can contradict God's truth. Anything that seems to conflict is revealed to be untrue under close examination.

 

 

Amen, I believe the same.

 

God Bless.

[Joy 60]

So, hi!

I'm a young 13 year old Pentecostal Christian. I don't think my church is officially Pentecostal, per say, but we believe in a few of the same things.

I've grown up in a Christian family, I am (unwillingly) homeschooled, and have gone to the same small church that meets in a Christian school for many years now.

So yup! I'm not sure what else to say......

[. eris . 1,661]

I'm the Founder of the original Christian bronies group founder on Facebook. Luthran missouri synod is my denomination, but really does that matter we are all Christian after all? I just actually found this site while googling Christian Bronies. 

 

You found this site by googling Christian bronies? That's...so awesome I can't even explain how awesome that is! :3 Thanks, and welcome to the group! I hope you enjoy this site.

[Vinstar59 59]

Noticed we were talking about music earlier and wanted to share a personal favorite of mine. These two are the same song. One is entirely instrumental and the other is completely vocal. In my opinion, both are equally beautiful. You can decide for yourself, but I love both of these pieces equally. Also, the vocal is actually a Latin chant! I'll give a translation below the video so you know what they are saying. Quiet beautiful and both, in my opinion, give glory to God. Samuel Barber FTW!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izQsgE0L450 

-you may recognize from the movie Platoon. 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkObnNQCMtM

-you may recognize from the game Homeworld. (fantastic game!)

 

Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. 
Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. 
Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, Dona nobis pacem.

 

Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world, have mercy on us.

Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world, have mercy on us.

Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world, grant us peace.

 

Granted they repeat sections...a lot, so it's kinda hard to follow, but at least when you hear one of the sections, you have an idea of what it means.

Edited April 24, 2013 by Vinstar59

[Flutterspark 48]

@@Joy,

 

Nice to meet you, Joy. God bless you.

I am (unwillingly) homeschooled

Awww, I'm sorry to hear that.

 

I'm homeschooled, and I really enjoy it. I understand that there are many different ways to homeschool, though, and it doesn't suit everyone.

Edited April 24, 2013 by Flutterspark

[RockinRarity 1,605]

My parents teach at a Catholic school. It is different from other Catholic schools in that the uniform does not involve plaid skirts, there are no nuns, and it is not connected to a particular church, but it is still orthodox in what it teaches about Catholicism and they have Mass twice a week in the gym.

 

At any rate, my mom in particular doesn't like homeschooling. She finds that a lot of people who are homeschooled are behind academically. Someone who is supposed to be in 8th grade may only be at a 6th grade math level, and a 7th grade science level. She has gotten lots of homeschoolers in her 7th and 8th grade classes, and while some of them do fine, others struggle a lot.

 

I personally find that some homeschooled people are socially naive and awkward. Only some. But when your parents only ever let themselves teach anything, that could potentially cause your parents to shelter you, a lot.

 

I am not totally against homeschooling, but there is a right way to do it.

[Mister G 101]

My religion isn't really denominational. We called this "born-again Christianity" alluding to what Jesus said to Nicodemus.

We don't do the sign of the cross, we don't do some things that Catholics or any other denominations do.

[Joy 60]

I'm not totally naive and shy. I have the tendency not to approach someone I don't know out of my own will, but lots of people are like that.

I can admit I might be awkward sometimes. But I'm not thaaat bad.

I'm not taught by my parents. I use a program where I read lessons on the internet, and at the bottom I answer questions. It's a fairly decent program where I can call teachers that are a part of this and ask questions and get help. It's better then my previous curriculum.....*shudders* They were videos, with textbooks. Giant talking mascots, with painted background. From BJU.

My problem is I have too much time, and I don't know what to do with it, so I slack off. I want to be busy, haha.

And then, it's not so easy to get in college with a homeschool diploma.

Plus, I'd like to have some part of a social life. 

 

I'm not sure about what level this kind of schooling is, but it could be on pace.

Honestly, I've only met two people besides me and my brother who don't like homeschooling. It frustrates me, haha.

 

I think there might be a chance that I'll be able to go to high school in the next few years. 

Have any of you heard of Adventures in Odyssey?

[TheFabulousPony 102]

Wow, there are quite allot more than I expected haha I am Wiccan, I tend to see quite allot of Wiccans/Pagans and other.. erm.. "not so common" (if I can put it like that..) religions within the fan base for some reason.

[Vinstar59 59]

One side of my family is homeschooled and they actually were ahead of their age in education. My cousin went to college the same year I did, but she was 3 years younger than I was and was beyond socially ignorant. She is now a completely different person, in a bad way. I have friends however that are also homeschooled and weren't socially ignorant and they are just fine. There is a right and wrong way to school. Doesn't matter if it's public, private, or from home. Personally, I've been through private Catholic school, public high school, public college, and I'm now schooling from home online. I'm kinda a bit of everything.

[I used to be a stranger 7,993]

This post has been redacted by the author.

Edited May 6, 2021 by Blue

[TheFabulousPony 102]

The internet attracts weirdos. "Normal people" are a minority on internet communities, since the majority of people who would actually commit to spending their free time on a forum such as this one are people who are already dedicating an incredible amount of time to squandered computer activities anyways.

Yes it does lol. In all reality, there is no such thing as normal, but the internet certainly does attract the stranger folk or the more.... urban(?) folk haha

[Flutterspark 48]

In favor of homeschooling,

 

I have known homeschoolers from three different countries, and I have had experience with several different types of homeschooling myself.

 

I want put it out there that it is very difficult to make assumptions about what homeschooling actually is. This is because there are so many different things that come under the term "homeschooling" and there are many, many different reasons that kids get homeschooled.

 

I know a guy who for several years was taken out of school and did only "natural learning". I was homeschooling then, but I was still skeptical. Natural learning for him basically meant he had no curriculum whatsoever. And how well did it work for him? He was really fast at maths, he was very artistic, he enjoyed playing strategy and thinking games, he was very socially adept, mature for his age, he took up the saxaphone and when we last parted he was doing very well with it. His family owned a small piece of land that they grew vegetables on to support themselves, and he knew a lot about plants that way. He wasn't planning to go to university, but he already had most of the skills he needed to support himself as an adult. Why was he pulled out of school in the first place? The teachers gave him a hard time because he raced ahead of the other students in arithmetic. Additionally, he was bullied.

 

Now, there is the complete other end of the spectrum, where a kid is doing school... at home. The full school curriculum but at home.

I would label this "distance education", but even that term has a range of meanings.

 

The majority of homeschoolers I know, some of them now back at school, are very bright and/or very creative people. Often they are very far ahead of other school children. Yeah, there are some socially awkward ones but they are the minority. Plus, socially awkward kids get homeschooled because they can't work well in a traditional environment. They were not pulled out for no reason and then became socially awkward because they homeschooled.

 

One of the reasons that many kids like homeschooling, is because they get the freedom to go at whatever pace suits them. Faster for things they are good at, slower for things they find difficult to understand. Mind you, not all homeschoolers have this freedom. I'm talking about the ones somewhere in the middle of the spectrum between "school... but at home" and "complete learning freedom".

 

As I have been saying, often kids who are homeschooled have a lot more free time and/or curriculum flexibility than kids at school. There are many kids who use this position to learn. Learn of their own free will. Think about that. Children and teenagers taking up new skills and hobbies just because they want to. Yeah, there are school kids who do that too, but can you imagine how much easier it is when you don't have school hanging over your head all the time?

 

My mother decided to try homeschooling me because I was bullied. It was in a large portion due to the fact that I was a Christian. The funny thing was that it was supposed to be a Christian school.

 

There were ups and downs, but in the end, I am incredibly glad that I'm homeschooled. I have an entirely new view on the educations system, I've met loads of amazing people who were also homeschooling, and I've had the flexibility to be able to take up programming.

 

In the first 6 years I was homeschooled, I and my family were overseas. Several locations in the UK, and eventually Virginia in the US.  Through all that, I never once felt like I wasn't having enough social interaction. Home education groups, homeschool networks with frequent homeschooling events, etc. I also had a fair amount of interaction with school kids as well: Youth groups, Scouts, swimming classes, etc. Now I'm back in Australia, and technically doing "distance education". The Australian government doesn't like the term "homeschooling" very much. The distance ed school I'm with acts as a shield between you and the government, so that you can homeschool legally. They also provide meetups once or twice a week for the students, with classes like drama, dance, singing (optional), critical thinking (i.e. playing puzzle games), etc. There has certainly been no lack in social interaction!

 

I hope this has been informative. I don't wish to get into another debate, because this issue has nothing to do with salvation. But, I hope I have given you a glimpse into a very interesting world of education.

 

It all boils down to this: Please, give homeschoolers some love.

 

EDIT:

 

@@Vinstar59, 

 

Listening to the music you posted.... Wow.

 

@@TheFabulousPony, 

 

It's very open of you mention that you are Wiccan! I'm kind of impressed, as I can imagine that most threads with  a large number of Christians on them would immediately grab pitchforks.

 

It's also nice to meet another Australian brony.

Edited April 25, 2013 by Flutterspark

[DR Leper Lupinstein 410]

sup brah, name's randy 24,m,chicago. i am an Orthodox Christian. think of Catholicism with married priests, a little more traditional, and much more happier and loving. 

 

hey guys, this week is Holy Week in the Orthodox Christian Church. Today we Celebrated Holy Thursday with the 12 Gospels describing the Passion. check out these pics... they are beautiful. there will be more through the rest of the week on into Easter.

 

1) is a pic of the cross with the Iconostasis (icon screen) and the Theotokos (Virgin Mary) with other icons.

 

2) Going up to venerate the icon of Christ

 

3) Full view of the crucified Christ

Edited May 3, 2013 by Dr. Leper Lupinstein

[DR Leper Lupinstein 410]

here's some of my shots from the services of good friday. man it was just beautiful the morning vespers, the removal of christ from the cross, and the candlelight lamentations service was almost surreal. the processions and the lamentation hymns were absolutely uplifting. and the Kouvouglion (tomb) was just amazing.

Edited May 4, 2013 by Dr. Leper Lupinstein

[RockinRarity 1,605]

snip

Let me make this clear. I also have met several homeschooled people, and homeschooling has worked out well for them.

 

I was to make two points.

 

One is that you mention that kids who are socially awkward because of homeschooling are pulled out of schools for being socially awkward in the first place. What if I were to tell you that, sometimes, people do become very sheltered and socially naive and awkward because their parents never put them in a school environment in the first place? I know, there are several factors that make someone unsociable, but I do not see how separating someone from people his/her own age helps. I know that there are home school groups and church groups and stuff, but an introverted person needs to be challenged sometimes. I am an introvert, and I know for a fact that if I were homeschooled, I probably wouldn't have had any close friends for most of my childhood. My best friends were friends that I made through school. I was not that close to church friends, and I only ever made two friends on my street, and they moved.

 

I am also the kind of person that needs structure from am outside source. I do not necessarily need anyone breathing down my neck or anything, but I do need a base set of goals set by someone else so that I can be inspired to learn. There are pros and coins to the system as a whole, but I benefitted from the system.

 

The thing is that for every bright and creative person who is homeschooled, there are probably about a few dozen more of those kind of bright and creative students who go to private or public schools.

 

Homeschooling does have its benefits, for some more than others. It is simply not for everyone.

[AstralDrip 67]

I'm no longer Christian, though my mom was a Jehova's Witness and I grew up with a predominantly JW upbringing. I was just wondering if there are any witness bronies here that can tell me the general consensus on mlp in the denomination.

 

Has it been brought up in recent Awake! magazines or in your Kingdom Hall or is it still mostly unknown at this point? It does involve a lot of magic, so I assume its looked down upon but is it the kind of thing you risk getting disfellowshipped over?

[firesoxs 93]

Are we talking about homeschooling now? I was homeschooled from 3rd grade on because of ADD (I know it's the most over diagnosed disorder in the country but I really have it. It was actually so bad that the sound of the other kids pencils scratching on the paper distracted me) I am actually pretty introverted and even in the homeschool groups I didn't have many friends, just accurateness. Althought that might be because the homeschool group I was with, was privy to a lot of overbearing and overprotective mothers. I actually wasn't welcome in some peoples homes because I listened to Christian metal, apparently  some people don't consider music "Christian" unless it has Christ's name in the lyrics.

[Flutterspark 48]

@,

 

Wow! That is indeed a beautiful way to remember Christ's sacrifice.

 

@@RockinRarity,

 

 

 

What if I were to tell you that, sometimes, people do become very sheltered and socially naive and awkward because their parents never put them in a school environment in the first place?

 

Ok, yes. I see your point. I agree that their are homeschoolers who become that way because of their lifestyle and the enviroments that they are put (or not put, as the case may be) into.

 

 

 

I know, there are several factors that make someone unsociable, but I do not see how separating someone from people his/her own age helps.

 

However, school is certainly not the only way to achieve social interaction.

 

 

 

 

I know that there are home school groups and church groups and stuff, but an introverted person needs to be challenged sometimes.

 

Yes, homeschool groups and church groups. There are homeschooling sports groups as well. There are homeschooling science groups. There are all sorts of homeschooling groups.

 

How much social interaction you get is all based on what you choose to do. Homeschooling is not a social barrier unless you let it be one. Yes, there are families who may do social harm to their children by not encouraging interaction, but they do not represent homeschooling. If your style of homeschooling is doing your child harm, you need to try a different style.

 

I'm quite an introvert as well, and I used to be an even bigger one. I would come home from a full day of social interaction at school tired and exhausted. There was nothing wrong with that particularly. But, there was the addition of bullying. Even more, there was growing sense inside of me that while it was supposed to be a christian school, there was so much injustice going on. I began to hate going to school. I became very angry sometimes. I believe it also may have contributed to my lack of self-confidence in my pre-teens.

 

 

Yes, kids should be challenged and given opportunities to build character, but is going to school always the healthiest way to do that? For some it's absolutely fine. For others, not so much.

 

 

 

I am an introvert, and I know for a fact that if I were homeschooled, I probably wouldn't have had any close friends for most of my childhood. My best friends were friends that I made through school. I was not that close to church friends, and I only ever made two friends on my street, and they moved.

 

There are probably school kids who miss out on close friendships just because they go to school, and they don't get the opportunity to meet certain homeschoolers. That doesn't make going to school a bad thing. In the same way, if I was going to school I would not have met some very close friends of mine. None of this makes homeschooling any better or worse than regular schooling in this light.

 

 

 

I am also the kind of person that needs structure from am outside source. I do not necessarily need anyone breathing down my neck or anything, but I do need a base set of goals set by someone else so that I can be inspired to learn.

 

As I was saying in my previous post, homeschooling comes as a scale. A range.

 

For kids that like structure, and I'm one of those too, parents should give their children a level of structure.

 

The benefit of homeschooling is that this level of structure can be adjusted to suit your needs. Most schools do not give their students this freedom.

 

 

 

There are pros and coins to the system as a whole, but I benefitted from the system.

 

 

Exactly. The school system as we know it has pros and cons. It is not the be all and end all of education. Neither is homeschooling.

 

It's just that homeschooling represents an endless range of different learning styles. These styles also have pros and cons, and are not the be all and end all of education either. But, each family has the freedom to tailor a setup that suits the needs of their children. Some families succeed well at this. For some families, their children may actually be more suited to a school environment.

 

 

 

The thing is that for every bright and creative person who is homeschooled, there are probably about a few dozen more of those kind of bright and creative students who go to private or public schools.

 

Sure. I agree. The point I'm trying to make is that some of those bright and creative students at school, do not learn as well in the traditional manner. For those students, homeschooling may be beneficial to them in helping them to reach their full potential.

 

As well, there are many creative and bright students who are recognized as such because they learn really well with the school system style of teaching. Those kids should probably stay in school. (Unless, of course, there is some other reason they would do better at home. e.g. Bullying, parents want to teach them Christianity but there is too much anti-Christ stuff at school, etc.)

 

 

 

Homeschooling does have its benefits, for some more than others. It is simply not for everyone.

 

Eeyup. I completely agree.