Prophecies about South Africa

[alanb]

What I have noticed is that it is always extremely easy for a "scientist" to interpret and prove and explain everything in retrospect. It is easy to bash something written hundreds of years ago with todays knowledge. It takes somone with extreme mental ability to still believe in something regardless of all of the physical evidence available today. You have said it before, science is a hypothesis until proven correct or not.

Maybe you should try and read the bible, and use your fantastic analytical ability to interpret/ the message, knowing what scientific/academic information was available in the days of Christ?

It seems you are defending the existance of nothing?

Gweilo, you're saying we shouldn't confuse "The Faithful" with the facts because they have already made up their minds. Is the extreme mental ability you refer to that one needs to believe in something in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary called "mental retardation" by any chance?

[celeste]

Hi Dax

It's just a healthy debate, I don't think anyone is upset or offended here but you must do what you think is best.

[AllisonW]

Dax, your point is noted and I will endeavor to be as unoffensive as possible in my comments. I have tried to indicate to people all along that this is a debate. Healthy discussion is good for all unless you are not secure in your viewpoints and are threatened by the doubts that the presented information causes you. At the end of the day i dont expect you to change your opinion, but i do have the right to point out gaps in your thought process. I dont know why people find this offensive. I am truly not offended with any of your comments. I am comfortable that i can in a logical, rational, scientific manner put my views across. I also dont know why people find my views aggressive. Views that differ from yours need not be offensive or aggressive.

Alida: I dont want this to become a bilateral between the two of us, but let me try to respond to you:

1. I may appear difficult but i still dont understand. I have always been told that the bible cannot be questioned. Now i am being told that some parts are not relevant. I dont understand this. Can you point me out the verses of your text that actively disregard the old testament?

2. I feel no shame in trusting science to explain my world experiences. You are correct - we are just living our lives and when we die its over. I understand that you may be going through an existential crisis but this does not mean that it gives your fantasy any creditability

2. Please take the time to read my posts on free will. If god KNOWS your entire life before you are born then you do not have free will. If you are implying that man has some control over his life and can go against god then god is certainly not all powerful. Try it for yourself.

Right now, this minute, exert your free will.

Do something, anything at all, that you don't think God could have possibly known you were going to do.

Can you do it? Can you surprise God?

If you can, then God is not omniscient - he is not all-knowing. And if he is not omniscient, then how can he be omnipotent - unlimited in his ability?

If you cannot, then how can you think you have free will? You cannot do anything other than that which God already knows you are going to do.

As an example, let's say you are walking down a corridor:

At the end of the corridor are two identical doors. Does God knowwhich door you will take? If he does, is it at all possible for you to take the other door? You have no choice in the matter, you have no free will.

If God does not know exactly which door you will take, then he quite simply is not omniscient.

This line of reasoning has been used on several occasions when debating religion with theists, and the effect is quite suprising. Theists are quite happy to debate many aspects of their beliefs, but when it comes to free will, the mental barriers slam down into place. People get unreasonably upset by this argument and simply refuse to discuss it any further. It's very odd. I can only suppose that it is because it exposes such a gaping hole in their deeply-held beliefs that they simply refuse to let themselves think about it, because they know that their beliefs will not stand up in the face of this sort of simple logic.

I have explained this many times but i will repeat this clearly: Please examine it:

The logical problem of Evil goes like:

1. God exists. (premise)

2. God is omnipotent and omniscient. (premise — or true by definition of the word "God")

3. God is all-benevolent. (premise — or true by definition)

4. All-benevolent beings are opposed to all evil. (premise — or true by definition)

5. All-benevolent beings who can eliminate evil will do so immediately when they become aware of it. (premise)

6. God is opposed to all evil. (conclusion from 3 and 4)

7. God can eliminate evil completely and immediately. (conclusion from 2)

1. Whatever the end result of suffering is, God can bring it about by ways that do not include suffering. (conclusion from 2)

2. God has no reason not to eliminate evil. (conclusion from 7.1)

3. God has no reason not to act immediately. (conclusion from 5)

8. God will eliminate evil completely and immediately. (conclusion from 6, 7.2 and 7.3)

9. Evil exists, has existed, and probably will always exist. (premise)

10. Items 8 and 9 are contradictory; therefore, one or more of the premises is false: either God does not exist, evil does not exist, or God is not simultaneously omnipotent, omniscient, and all-benevolent (i.e. God is omnipotent and omniscient but not all-benevolent, omnipotent and all-benevolent but not omniscient, or omniscient and all-benevolent but not omnipotent.

Finally i want to reiterate the burden of proof as it forms part of the scientific method: (Quoted from Wiki): Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone stating a claim (SUCH AS THE EXISTENCE OF GOD) must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this." Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, either positive or negative, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it. In short, X is not proven simply because "not X" cannot be proven.

I actually laughed out loud when someone told me i should use my intellect to believe in the face of all physical overwhelming evidence. What does one even say to this flawed logic?

Thanks again for the dialogue.

Allison

[AllisonW]

Oh and sorry: To the response that you don't go to the dr because you have faith in god: I would wonder what your response would be if one of your children were seriously ill? Further question: Did you have your children vaccinated? Dont you think that is poor faith?

Regards,

Allison

[BasinOzson]

Allison duidelik gaan jy nie oortuig word nie. Soos iemand voorheen gese het. Het n Christen het niks om te verloor as hy doodgaan en die ongelowige was nog altyd reg nie. Maar as die ongelowige doodgaan en die Christen was nog altyd reg, het hy baie om te verloor....... dit is waarom ons Christene so passievol is om ander mense te probeer oortuig, want ons wil nie iemand verlore sien gaan nie. WAnt al glo mens nie in God of die duiwel nie, se die Bybel dat wie teen God is verdoem tot die hel sal word. Ek hoop nie jou kinders neem jou eendag kwalik nie. Ek glodat God hulle ook genadig sal wees en dat hul ook sal kan kies vir Hom. Jy het die Sleutel (Jesus) gehad om vir hulle te gee om Hemel toe te gaan.

Vir my is God n werklikheid. So werklik soos alles wat ek kan sien want ek sien Hom werk daagliks. Ek sien wonderwerke daagliks. Selfs mense met kanker wat volkome herstel.......

Alle vrede vir jou

[celeste]

Hi Allison

On the issue of God's foreknowledge of what a man will choose by exercising his free will eg. which door he will go through as you illustrate the answer is simple.

God knows the future and sees into it and because he has given us a free will he will not stop us from choosing the way in which we choose even if it is a wrong choice. He knows our decision before we make it but it remains our conscious decision. I admit there is a mystery in salvation ie. why some believe and others don't but as the scripture says "the things which have been revealed belong to us and to our children but the secret things belong to the Lord". The scripute also says that "God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance". Repentance is a turning away from our sin in realising its exceeding sinfulness and having faith in God. There is also a sense in which sin blinds us to our real lost state.

God does warn us of the consequences of our choices as he warned the people in Noah's day while Noah was building the ark. He warned that destruction was coming but they chose to be disobedient in not heeding the warnings over a 100 year period!

God is patient and very merciful and kind BUT He gave us the free will to choose who we will serve. Jesus said we cannot serve God and money. The latter can be various idols eg. living for self, hedonism and basically wanting to be king of our own lives. The end of this is destruction and the preaching of the good news that Jesus came to save us from our sins by washing us in His blood through faith and the warning to repent is His mercy in this age in which we live today.

The scripture about the blood sacrifice is in Hebrews (chapter 6 verse 18 to chapter 10 verse 22) and makes it clear that Christ Jesus entered once into the Holy place making an end of the annual sacrifices that were previously made by the Old Testament believers. Right in the beginning Adam and Eve covered themselves with leaves (their 'good works' religion) but God provided them with the skin of an animal to wear. Abel offered a better sacrifice of a lamb to God than His brother Abel who brought vegetables because "without the shedding of blood there is no remission". The wages of sin is death which is why Jesus is called "the Lamb of God who came to take away the sins of the world." Christ is our passover lamb and with His blood on the doorposts of our heart the second death (separation from God in hell) cannot hurt us because the price for a believer's sin has been paid in full by the shed blood of Jesus when He died on the cross. God will not punish our sin twice because Jesus has already been punished and was separated from the Father which is why He cried out loudly "My God, my God why have you forsaken me?" before He died. He also then said "Father into your hand I commend my spirit" just before he died. The fact that He rose from the dead was because He was sinless and legally death could not hold Him. He did not have any personal sin but instead chose to die for our sins. So God Himself paid the price for His own justice. It's like the judge in court case saying He will step out of the court room and take the conviction of the death sentence by fatal injection in place of the accused who he lets off scott free. This is the extent of God's mercy and love which reveals how God is calling all men everywhere to repent and believe the Gospel.

[celeste]

Oh and I do agree with Allison that to encourage people to believe in God "just in case" lacks integrity in the sense that a relationship with God does not work like that. He is so good that He reveals Himself to us when we are unbelievers giving us the opportunity to believe on Him. Without faith it is impossible to please God so no-one can believe in God unless he graciously gives us the grace and faith to do so. The bible says that the knowledge of God is made known to us through all that has been created but we changed the truth into a lie and worship and served the creature more than the creator...for this cause God gave them up unto vile affections...Man chose to live in sin and God let him do it because of free will but sin itself is deceitful and makes us its slaves. We cannot control our selfishness, anger, jealousy, envy, greed, covetousness, idolatry and other sins in our heart because we do not have any power on our own to overcome them. Instead we try to deny they exist and cover them up but we all know the thoughts and intents that crop up in our hearts no matter how hard we may try to 'be good'. When the light shines in our hearts we must rather confess our sin and ask God for forgiveness at the foot of the cross. This is the new birth where God makes the truly repentant into a 'new creation' and gives the faith to believe the truth. "Jesus said I am the way the truth and the life no man cometh unto the father but by me".

If you doubt the existence of God why not ask Him directly to prove his existence? In fact, this is exactly what I did as an agnostic. I was really searching and I called out to Jesus one night in desperation and asked Him to show me if he really was real. (A friend of mine had become a Christian and was constantly preaching to me and I used to argue reincarnation) And you know what? He did! It is a long story and I wish we could talk over tea! Ask in sincerity and you will get the answer...as you quoted "ask and it shall be given unto you" and "seek and you shall find". God is faithful to His Word.

However, on the issue of integrity above if using that argument will cause some to fall on their knees to seek the truth then some good can come of it but a mere unbelieving acknowledgement of God as an afterthought just in case won't save anyone.

Edited October 1, 2008 by celeste

[Alida]

Wow, Allison - you're keeping me busy here - well, lets go:

1. Hebrews chapters 8,9,10 - this is a complete summary, you'll find pieces of explanation the whole Bible through, though

2. It's absolutely no fantasy - it's fantastic, yes, but no fantasy. I exactly know who I am: I am a creation of God, he loves me and cares for me. I know what I'm doing here on earth: I live in a wonderfully love-relationship with my God and witnessing to my fellow humans about His glory, so that more people would execute their free will in choosing to love Him too. I know where I'm going to: I'm heading for a glorious eternity in the presence of my Redeemer, Jesus the Christ.

3. Okay, I'm executing my free will: I now out of my own free will, choose to answer you ! God made man to have someone to relate to, someone to share His love with. If he made man without a free will, able to choose not to love God back, there is no sense in this relationship. No relationship is really a love relationship if one partner has no choice but to love back. Love needs to be given out of a free will, otherwise it is no love.

Even the angels, of which Lucifer was the archangel highest in rank next to God, had a free will. All the angels in heaven see God's power and glory as it is. Lucifer wanted that power for himself, but God's position was already taken, so Lucifer was cast upon earth (and he beguiled a third of the angels and took them with him - these are the demons now). God created man on earth to be His representative here and to stand in a loving relationship with God (He visited Adam and Eve quite often !). Lucifer obviously was jealous of this position man has in God's eyes, for now man could walk before God as Lucifer himself once did. So, because he could not reach God anymore, he attacks man. And because man has the ability to choose, he had to be clever and lie in a way that would make man doubt God. He succeeded.

Of course God knew that man would be tempted by the devil to turn his back on God and thus follow Satan instead - there is actually no middle road. That's why He planned from the moment He created man, that one day there would be Jesus, the final opportunity for man to return from the downward road. That's why He gave all those wonderful laws and instructions, in order for man to know exactly how to relate to God when he chooses to. He even told man what would befall him when he does not follow these instructions, so when someone has some kind of trouble, you might be able to find the cause and thus know where to rectify your life. Isn't that grace !!?? Remember, it is still your choice to adhere to these instructions or not.

Up until the moment someone makes the choice to accept Jesus' offer, God puts lots of stumble blocks in your way in order to keep you from destruction, but lots of people plainly ignores it and speeds forth to their own downfall. Because God would do everything possible to keep man from going to hell, no one would ever be able to point a finger and say: nobody ever told me. If God would keep each one of us humans from going to hell, then what's the point in having a free will ? What's the point in having a love relationship where one partner has no choice but to be in this relationship 'at the wim' of the initiator of the relationship ? If there is absolutely nothing that both partners had to withold from in order to keep this relationship secure, what is the meaning of it ?

Remember, God is in the first place HOLY, there is none like Him and no filth can reside in His presence. He made man to have a free will and if man screws up, He HAS to give the appropriate consequences. Also remember that man is co-creators of God. He made the first two people and gave them the ability and the orders to 'be fruitful and multiply'. He gave us power to CREATE !! If we create in sin and that child lives his life defying God, God HAS to be absolutely just. Otherwise He is not the perfect, just God anymore.

If a she-bear has to defend her cubs, no one would think of this bear as a loving creature. But have a look in the den and see how tender she tends to her cubs, you would see love. Just like that is the love relationship with God. He is not only love, He is also just. And He has to be ABSOLUTELY JUST IN EVERY SINGLE CASE, otherwise He will not be God anymore - Lucifer will have a finger to point and God will have no defense.

In case of the example of the corridor: In your daily life, you will, if you look for it, experience what I call: stumble blocks on your road to hell'. God knows you will choose the 'wrong' door, so He puts in your way stumble blocks: for example a terrible accident that should have taken your life and puts you in bed for weeks, giving you the opportunity to think and wonder. Some people plainly say: I've been lucky, and do not give so much of a thought to the probability that God saved my life because He wants me to think deeper. God knows what we think and therefore know what we will choose. Therefore He makes it difficult for you if He thinks it's necessary.

The logical problem of Evil goes like:

1. God exists. (premise) True

2. God is omnipotent and omniscient. (premise — or true by definition of the word "God") True

3. God is all-benevolent. (premise — or true by definition) True

4. All-benevolent beings are opposed to all evil. (premise — or true by definition) True

5. All-benevolent beings who can eliminate evil will do so immediately when they become aware of it. (premise) No. God being completely just, gives even evil time to 'fill his cup'. If He should eliminate all evil immediately, what cause is there for man to have free will ? Free will only has meaning in the presence of two or more opposing options.

6. God is opposed to all evil. (conclusion from 3 and 4) True

7. God can eliminate evil completely and immediately. (conclusion from 2) True

1. Whatever the end result of suffering is, God can bring it about by ways that do not include suffering. (conclusion from 2) Of course, yes. He did - he gave us wonderful instructions on how to avoid suffering, by adhering to things that is good and just and honorable. Read Deut. 28. If you adhere to the instructions given, you will suffer not and be blessed. If you choose wrong and violate the instructions, you will have the consequences.

2. God has no reason not to eliminate evil. (conclusion from 7.1) He as ALL reason to eliminate evil, refer back to no. 5.

3. God has no reason not to act immediately. (conclusion from 5) Refer back to no. 5

8. God will eliminate evil completely and immediately. (conclusion from 6, 7.2 and 7.3) There is a day God said would be the end of evil influence upon earth. Satan, his angels and his human followers would be cast into hell. He will eliminate evil on earth completely, but in His good and wise time. Man still need some time to execute his free will.

9. Evil exists, has existed, and probably will always exist. (premise) No. Evil had it's origin in Lucifer's heart when he yearned for God's power and tried to usurp the Throne. Yes, it will exist for ever, but one day he will be cast into the fiery pit, he will have no power over man or nature anymore.

10. Items 8 and 9 are contradictory; therefore, one or more of the premises is false: either God does not exist, evil does not exist, or God is not simultaneously omnipotent, omniscient, and all-benevolent (i.e. God is omnipotent and omniscient but not all-benevolent, omnipotent and all-benevolent but not omniscient, or omniscient and all-benevolent but not omnipotent. You are confusing yourself here.

Finally i want to reiterate the burden of proof as it forms part of the scientific method: (Quoted from Wiki): Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone stating a claim (SUCH AS THE EXISTENCE OF GOD) must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this." Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, either positive or negative, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it. In short, X is not proven simply because "not X" cannot be proven

Why do you believe Mohammed existed ? For two reasons: People saw him and heard him speak and he gave Islam a book they could refer to, telling them what being Islam is all about. Why would one believe God exists ? Because He was seen by men in human form and He gave a book telling people what living in a relationship with Him is all about. People wrote about Him and saw Him healing the sick, raising the dead (could any other god claim this ?), making the deaf hear (as he made my deaf ears hear !!) ?

I actually laughed out loud when someone told me i should use my intellect to believe in the face of all physical overwhelming evidence. What does one even say to this flawed logic? I suggest you try to ask God to prove Himself to you and then you decide wether you still want to believe He does not exist. I would love to hear your testimony.

[Alida]

Oh and sorry: To the response that you don't go to the dr because you have faith in god: I would wonder what your response would be if one of your children were seriously ill? Further question: Did you have your children vaccinated? Dont you think that is poor faith?

Regards,

Allison

Read my response again: I said I never had up until now the need to go to a doctor with one of my kids. I never said I would never go to a doctor. I have honest respect for doctors, they are (hopefully mostly) honest in their quest to help people heal. I've got lots of respect for doctors who mend your bones, transplant organs, 'cut and paste' you. I'ts the reliance on pills and syrups I'm sceptical about. And of course, God can do everything man can do, for he made man ! But often we need to be in a situation where we have to testify - wether it be to a doctor, nurse, fellow patient, etc., then God works through the hands of a doctor. I've been to doctors, but they for instance couldn't heal my deaf ears. God did when I prayed to Him.

Nope, my children are not vaccinated - I would never intentionally harm them !!

Edited October 1, 2008 by Alida

[JimmyC]

Hi Alison

This is a bit of a long post - please bear with me.

I usually never get involved in these kind of debates. I just take a quick read and then move on. In this case I feel that I just have to respond. I am a simple man with an average education. I'm not a scientist or doctor. I studied Electrical Engineering at Technikon so I consider myself an average guy with an average intellect. Nothing to write home about. I can see that you've given the matter concerning God a lot of thought and that nothing will change your mind.

My only concern is that you are relying solely on your intellect and reasoning - saying that there is no God. Have you become so sure and steadfast in your viewpoint that you have closed yourself off towards God? Have you ever given it a thought that you just might be wrong, even if only slightly so?

I am not an expert and I don't think about these things every day. I believe there are two kinds of atheists - the one is in a dangerous place and the other in an extremely dangerous place. I believe that some people become atheists or non-believers bacause they were hurt by someone / people, most probably Christians. My wife has a similar history to this - but that's another story (she became a Christian in 1998). These people usually reject God outwardly and will have nothing to do with Christianity. They insult God and don't give a hoot. Inwardly though, there is still a yearning towards God, but they will never admit it though. These people have not shut themselves off towards God's voice completely yet.These are the people that are in a dangerous place.

The people that are in an extremely dangerous place are the ones who cannot hear God's still small voice anymore. By their own reasoning and "mental abilities" they have shut themselves off completely. If they hear God's voice and His prompting they will reason it away and even go so far as to reject it. They don't even consider the possibilty that it might be God. I honestly don't understand why this happens.

I also believe that people are the same - throughout time and through all the ages. We are not that different from the people that lived in Christ's time. We have better technology and medical knowledge and who knows what else. But - the way we think, reason and feel are exactly the same as the people that lived 2000 - 3000 years ago. People have been craving for knowledge (in this case the Greeks) for ages - no different than us living today.

There is a section in the Bible (1 Corinthians 1) which talks about wisdom. I've pasted it below exactly as I've copied it from the Internet). Please have a look at verse 22 & 23.

The Wisdom of God

18 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

19 For it is written,

“I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE,

AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE.â€

20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.

22 For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom;

23 but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness,

24 but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

26 For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble;

27 but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong,

28 and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are,

29 so that no man may boast before God.

30 But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption,

31 so that, just as it is written, “LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD.â€

To me, this section in The Bible explains it all. Please Alison, give the Lord a chance. He loves you deeply. Don't shut him out.

Jimmy

Edited October 1, 2008 by JimmyC

[sasher]

I don't want to get involved in the ongoing religious debate. I believe faith is a private matter and I certainly respect Alison and her views as I respect everyone no matter what their belief or unbelief/disbelief. Neither side can ever prove satisfactorally to the other that God does or doesn't exist so it is pointless excercise, but this is not the reason I have jumped into this argument. What disturbs me more is someone saying they wouldn't vaccinate their kids because they wouldn't want to harm them. I worked in a government hospital for many years and the number of kids that I have seen die or suffer long term effects from not being vaccinated far outweigh any perceived pain that a small jab in the leg would give. Mumps is back on the increase. A case of mumps in a little boy can render him sterile for life. A friend of mine has just got her child out of hospital because her strain of chicken pox was so bad that it infected her lungs, airways and throat. She was fed through a tube for two weeks. My boys played with her nearly everyday before the spots came out and they were both vaccinated. Neither of them got a single spot whereas even though she is out of hospital her face will be scarred for life. The mother never wanted to vaccinate her kids because she thought it would be painful or the child might develop a fever, now she has to live with the guilt of looking at the scars for the rest of her life. The attitude of I got it as a kid and I was fine just doesn't work any more. Viruses have become fiercer and more antagonistic over the years. Thes days there are even anaesthetic creams you can rub on the injection sites before they are given so that the child doesn't feel the needle, there are mercury free injections for those that fear autism or fevers and there are even six in one injections so that you can get everything over in one shot.

I am sure you know the story of the man who prayed every day to win the lotto. This went on for years and years. Eventually when the man was very old and on his death bed he asked God why he had never been granted his prayer to win the lotto and Gods answer was :" I really wanted to let you win but couldn't you at least have bought a ticket?"

Please buy your kids a lotto ticket and take them to be vaccinated.

P.S. Sorry for the topic change I just couldn't ignore this.

[OZSAFFER]

Finally i want to reiterate the burden of proof as it forms part of the scientific method: (Quoted from Wiki): Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone stating a claim (SUCH AS THE EXISTENCE OF GOD) must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this." Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, either positive or negative, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it. In short, X is not proven simply because "not X" cannot be proven.

Allison

Hi Allison!

Firstly I would like to point out that your insert "(SUCH AS THE EXISTENCE OF GOD)" into the extract from Wiki - is your insert - which is falsified reference (a common scientific trend, which is nothing more than personal assumption). Do not make the assumption that the definition refers to the topic of "Creation vs Evolution", which in itself is dealt with to a large extent in Wiki.

Burden of Proof is something that shifts from one party to the next and back again - dependant on the quality of the evidence produced.

To date, evolutionists have failed to "factually" prove that evolution did in fact take place! Creationism has existed for 1000's of years - long before Evolutionism, which is only 150 odd years old! Hence the Burden of Proof rests on the Evolutionists to prove the contrary as the First Bold Statement is one made by Evolutionists and Not on the Creationists to prove the historically accepted norm!

Innocent (the norm) until proven guilty - If you were accused of a crime - the BOP 1st lies with the accusing /prosecuting party and if there was reasonable evidence to indicate the contrary to your innocence - the BOP would shift to you to again prove contrary evidence to the accusations and so on and so on.

It would be interesting to hear a Legal gurus' point of view in respect of the mentioned Burden of Proof.

Nick

Edited October 2, 2008 by Nick Vos

[JDJoburg]

Innocent (the norm) until proven guilty - If you were accused of a crime - the BOP 1st lies with the accusing /prosecuting party and if there was reasonable evidence to indicate the contrary to your innocence - the BOP would shift to you to again prove contrary evidence to the accusations and so on and so on.

It would be interesting to hear a Legal gurus' point of view in respect of the mentioned Burden of Proof.

Nick

In criminal matters, the state (the "accuser") would have to prove their accusation beyond reasonable doubt (that's different from "the existence of reasonable evidence") - that's their burden of proof. The person who stands accused has no burden of proof, although they could elect to refute some of the evidence if they feel it might help their case.

In a civil matter, the claimant would have to prove their case on a balance of probabilities, which is a lesser burden of proof. Again, the other party has no burden of proof, even if they could elect to challenge some of the claimant's evidence.

Don't drag the innocent legal system into your sordid god-nogod debate, people.

Edited October 2, 2008 by JDJoburg

[OZSAFFER]

In criminal matters, the state (the "accuser") would have to prove their accusation beyond reasonable doubt (that's different from "the existence of reasonable evidence") - that's their burden of proof. The person who stands accused has no burden of proof, although they could elect to refute some of the evidence if they feel it might help their case.

In a civil matter, the claimant would have to prove their case on a balance of probabilities, which is a lesser burden of proof. Again, the other party has no burden of proof, even if they could elect to challenge some of the claimant's evidence.

Don't drag the innocent legal system into your sordid god-nogod debate, people.

Thx for the clarification!

Will it then be correct to assume that all the BOP rests with the accuser that attempts to prove the contrary to the accepted norm?

Please accept my sincerest apologies for dragging the extremely innocent /always transparent and truthful legal fraternity into the matter>

Edited October 2, 2008 by Nick Vos

[bluebonnet]

I don't want to get involved in the ongoing religious debate. I believe faith is a private matter and I certainly respect Alison and her views as I respect everyone no matter what their belief or unbelief/disbelief. Neither side can ever prove satisfactorally to the other that God does or doesn't exist so it is pointless excercise, but this is not the reason I have jumped into this argument. What disturbs me more is someone saying they wouldn't vaccinate their kids because they wouldn't want to harm them. I worked in a government hospital for many years and the number of kids that I have seen die or suffer long term effects from not being vaccinated far outweigh any perceived pain that a small jab in the leg would give. Mumps is back on the increase. A case of mumps in a little boy can render him sterile for life. A friend of mine has just got her child out of hospital because her strain of chicken pox was so bad that it infected her lungs, airways and throat. She was fed through a tube for two weeks. My boys played with her nearly everyday before the spots came out and they were both vaccinated. Neither of them got a single spot whereas even though she is out of hospital her face will be scarred for life. The mother never wanted to vaccinate her kids because she thought it would be painful or the child might develop a fever, now she has to live with the guilt of looking at the scars for the rest of her life. The attitude of I got it as a kid and I was fine just doesn't work any more. Viruses have become fiercer and more antagonistic over the years. Thes days there are even anaesthetic creams you can rub on the injection sites before they are given so that the child doesn't feel the needle, there are mercury free injections for those that fear autism or fevers and there are even six in one injections so that you can get everything over in one shot.

I am sure you know the story of the man who prayed every day to win the lotto. This went on for years and years. Eventually when the man was very old and on his death bed he asked God why he had never been granted his prayer to win the lotto and Gods answer was :" I really wanted to let you win but couldn't you at least have bought a ticket?"

Please buy your kids a lotto ticket and take them to be vaccinated.

P.S. Sorry for the topic change I just couldn't ignore this.

Thanks for this post. I myself was in disbelieve that a mom would not have her kids have the necessary vaccinations. Honestly, I am shocked.

But anyway, it will be required once they go to school (Immunizations Record), not sure about SA, but in most first world countries. You cannot enroll your kids in public or private schools if their shots are not up to date.

And to the mom who does not want to hurt her children with injections, have you by any chance heard of something called Meningitis?? Hepatitis?? Please have your children vaccinated, that is what responsible parents usually do.

Hey, now we are totally off topic,,,how funny.

[Cramer]

No comment on this subject.

There are three subjects you never get into: Religion, Politics and Naas Botha because they always end in a fight.

http://cal.vini.st/2008/07/prophecy-over-s...posed-as-false/

[Arleneg75]

This has made for very interesting reading. Kept me awake last night. Thanks for the fun reading guys.

My opinion is mine alone so I don't wish to share it with anyone. But thanks for sharing yours guys.

I may not agree with most of what was said but I can certainly appreciated your opinions.

[Kapoen]

No comment on this subject.

There are three subjects you never get into: Religion, Politics and Naas Botha because they always end in a fight.

http://cal.vini.st/2008/07/prophecy-over-s...posed-as-false/

Wantbetter, take a look at the above link, thanks Cramers!

Please lets not start on Naas Botha too!!!!!

[SueB]

But anyway, it will be required once they go to school (Immunizations Record), not sure about SA, but in most first world countries. You cannot enroll your kids in public or private schools if their shots are not up to date.

Sorry, I know this is offtopic and has been discussed already in the appropriate section, but it is possible to send your children to school in Australia without them having had their immunisations - in a first world country everyone is entitled to their own opinion

Back to topic: I would also like to say thanks guys for sharing your opinions! I have really done some thinking this week (and I was supposed to be springcleaning for my rental inspection ) and I have found some authors whose books I will be reading in the near future.

Hope everyone has a good day

Cheers

Sue

[JDJoburg]

Thx for the clarification!

Will it then be correct to assume that all the BOP rests with the accuser that attempts to prove the contrary to the accepted norm?

Nope, the BOP rests with whoever accuses the other of having done something in contravention of the law. I can tell you right now that using the legal system to bolster your argument is not going to fly. (But I can make it work for you, for a small fee - surely you know that lawyers are committed to the cause of all god-fearing people out there? )

[Alida]

Kudos to Allison, you made us all sit upright till late at night !

[Alida]

No comment on this subject.

http://cal.vini.st/2008/07/prophecy-over-s...posed-as-false/

Excellent, thank you !

[Biltongboer]

Just to get back to the topic of the Big Bang and 7 days of creation:

I don't believe in a physical 7 day creation period. There are actually quite logical scientific ways to evaluate the universe and it's origin, without using religion as the starting point. All scientific evidence lead to the concept of Intelligent design.

If you really want to get a logical explanation based on real science, read some of Dr Hugh Ross's books, or check out his website FAQ

Hugh Ross

I would recommend reading some of his stuff, it is really eye-opening.

[Kapoen]

Just to get back to the topic of the Big Bang and 7 days of creation:

I don't believe in a physical 7 day creation period. There are actually quite logical scientific ways to evaluate the universe and it's origin, without using religion as the starting point. All scientific evidence lead to the concept of Intelligent design.

If you really want to get a logical explanation based on real science, read some of Dr Hugh Ross's books, or check out his website FAQ

Hugh Ross

I would recommend reading some of his stuff, it is really eye-opening.

BB

You can also check out Dr. Kent Hovind, he is a scientist who believes in God, interesting stuff on his website, too lazy to find the link but search for Dr. Dinasour.

[Alida]

BB

You can also check out Dr. Kent Hovind, he is a scientist who believes in God, interesting stuff on his website, too lazy to find the link but search for Dr. Dinasour.

www.drdino.com