Welcome to TruthTalkLive.com!

Today’s Issues, From a Biblical Perspective!

Should Christians be concerned about the current financial crisis?

Posted by truthtalklive on September 25, 2008

On today’s show, Stu interviews Dan Celia with The Regency Foundation. We will be talking about the current financial crisis. The Regency Foundation, an affiliate and support organization to Philadelphia Biblical University , exists to help individuals and organizations plan, invest and give wisely. We are a planning service which is based on solid, consistent Christian values. Dan Celia is also the author of “All For The Master”  a forty-day devotional on stewardship. More information on Mr. Celia.  




75 Responses to “Should Christians be concerned about the current financial crisis?”

  1. Maz said

    ”Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not to your own understand..” Prov 3 v 5.
    ”My God shall supply all your need according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus.” Phil 4 v 19.

  2. Stanley said

    Everyone should be concerned. Economic crises don’t care if you’re Christian or not.

  3. Stanley said


  4. Maz said

    God cares for me and I don’t need to trust in anything else.
    1 Tim 6 v 17, ”Charge them that are rich in this world (age), that they be not highminded, not trust in uncertain riches but in the living God, Who gives us richly all things to enjoy.”

  5. F. L. A. said

    Only if they need to work for a living or want to buy or sell anything, that is all.

  6. Kash said

    While it is true that economic crises don’t care if you’re Christian or not, Christians should theoretcially be able to keep their calm in the face of financial calamity as they are supposed to care less for worldly goods than non Christians. We all have seen how often that does not seem to be the case! But as Paul tells us to delight in our sufferings because it produces perserverence, character, and hope, we should use this opportunity to show others how Christians respond to crisis. If we lose financial standing, we should simply work harder to regain it and not become bitter (although I admittedly want to see the CEOs of these companies suffer financial setbacks themselves!) If we weather the storm relatively unshaken economically, we should reach out in love and in charity to those not so lucky. I worry about the folks who were getting ready to retire on their 401ks, but now have nothing to retire on. I hope the government bailout includes consideration for those who now have to rely on Social Security even though they tried to do the right thing and plan for their retirement.

  7. Stanley said

    Wow. Just wow.

  8. Maz said

    Stanley: Another very eloquent post from you.

  9. Brad said

    No need to be. But since certain people love to blame things on certain others, here’s an interesting archive article from the NY Times, from way back in 1999 (I’ve highlighted some “interesting” points):

    September 30, 1999

    Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending

    In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
    The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets — including the New York metropolitan region — will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.
    Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
    In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers.
    These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates — anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.
    ”Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990’s by reducing down payment requirements,” said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae’s chairman and chief executive officer. ”Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.”
    Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.
    In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980’s.
    “From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,” said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. “If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.”

    Another point worth noting is that the former Fannie Mae director Franklin Raines, who is quoted in the article above, is now one of the campaign advisors (on issues of finance) of… guess who?… Barack Obama!

  10. Kash said

    And the firm of McCain’s top economic advisor was taking payments from Freddie Mac until last month, because he had been a lobbyist for them. There are very few senators completely unconnected with Fannie and Freddie.

  11. Stanley said

    Maz, there is a formula for your posts, so back off.

    1. Bible quote
    2. Uninformed opinion
    3. Different Bible quote
    4. Repeat

  12. Maz said

    Stanley: Gods Word can do two things, create love for God, or cause hate. You obviously do not like hearing what Gods Word says. God kows your heart, there are no secrets to Him.
    The amazing thing is, with all that you have said on here, that He still loves you……unless ofcourse you have said too much. God knows.

    As far as my opinion goes, it is based on Gods Word and always will be.

    As far as your opinion goes, it is based on man’s puny intelligence and a heap of assumptions.

    Stanley, if you do not like reading the scriptures here (and I remind you yet again that this is a CHRISTIAN web site based on BIBLICAL truth), then I suggest you vacate this site, because you are going to get more of the same, not just from me but from the other Christians that frequent this site.

  13. Stanley said

    Assumptions? Theology IS a heap of assumptions with no verifiable fact. Where is your PROOF? Ask me about a scientific theory, and I’ll send you a stack of empirical data taller than you. All that you have is an unreliable book written thousands of years ago. Don’t tell me you’re not assuming anything. You assume this book is completely the word of God, although written by man. You assume its 100% verifiable fact when we know that it isn’t. The world isn’t 6,000 years old. We know that from geology, spectrometry, physics, anthropology, and even plain old mathematics. Science doesn’t ask for you to believe in it, it just tells it like it is.

  14. Kash said

    Science may tell it like it is, but it addresses a very narrow spectrum of quantifiable logic. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, Stanley. You do not have to deny science in order to believe in God…although admittedly some religious folks do just that, but most do not.

  15. Maz said

    It all depends WHOS science you believe.

  16. Maz said

    Stanley: Radiometric dating of rocks….or anything else for that matter, is based on more assumptions than facts, YOU should know that Stanley.

    And the Bible has been proved over and over again to be the reliable Word of God to many millions on this earth including me. But with all the evidence to prove it’s worth……even scientific evidence I may add……..higher than the Empire State Building…… you will NEVER accept anything, even if God were to appear infront of you…..and ofcourse one day He will, or to be more precise you will appear infront of Him, but it will be too late.

  17. Stanley said

    Another assumption.

    Ok, prove these things:
    The Firmament
    A global flood 4,000ish years ago
    Ability to survive in the stomach of a whale
    6,000 year old Earth
    Giants roamed the earth
    All species of animal could fit on a ship
    There is a high mountain from which all the kingdoms of the world can be seen
    People used to live to be almost 1,000 years old

    These are the claims you’re making if you say the Bible is literal fact. I’ll believe you when you prove them.

  18. Maz said

    Boy Stanley I’d be bloggig all evening with all that to give you….and where would it get me anyway?
    Some of these are miraculous happenings not expanable by science (that’s GOD for you!); Jonah and the big fish (actually has been proved to be possible); the creation of the Universe etc. in 6 days….it was GOD that did it, so why not 6 days? Again, the scientific dating methods are flawed. Time dilation, warped and curved space/time, gravity etc.
    There has been evidence of giants….very tall people, living in the earth.
    The species that existed in Noahs day could have fit on the boat (it was as large as the Canberra) if you take mostly young.
    Long ages would have been possible because of the canopy above the earth shielding them from harmful radiation. It was destroyed by the flood when the rains fell.

    And YOU WON’T believe me if I prove them, because I have explained some of these things before….if not someone else has. YOU WON’T believe me because you DON’T WANT TO.

  19. Stanley said

    Anyway, everyone needs to be concerned about this economic crisis. A great number of people are losing their jobs every day. Today, one of the largest banks in the world, Wachovia, just failed. We’re in trouble.

  20. Maz said

    Stanley: If you REALLY WANTED the proof for what the Bible says you would go onto the websites available to find it, but you WOULD RATHER believe all the information given on other sites that DEBUNK it all.

  21. Stanley said

    So, because you have an old book claiming to be the word of God, there is a double standard that you don’t have to prove your claims?

    I’ll believe you when you back your assertions up. More empty rhetoric as Mike likes to say.

  22. Maz said

    ”Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God”. Not by scientific evidence.

  23. Kash said


    “Stanley: Radiometric dating of rocks….or anything else for that matter, is based on more assumptions than facts, YOU should know that Stanley.”

    Radiometric Dating

    A Christian Perspective

    Dr. Roger C. Wiens

    941 Estates Drive, Los Alamos, NM 87544

    [A PDF version of this document is also available.]
    Dr. Wiens has a PhD in Physics, with a minor in Geology. His PhD thesis was on isotope ratios in meteorites, including surface exposure dating. He was employed at Caltech’s Division of Geological & Planetary Sciences at the time of writing the first edition. He is presently employed in the Space & Atmospheric Sciences Group at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

    First edition 1994; revised version 2002.

    Radiometric dating–the process of determining the age of rocks from the decay of their radioactive elements–has been in widespread use for over half a century. There are over forty such techniques, each using a different radioactive element or a different way of measuring them. It has become increasingly clear that these radiometric dating techniques agree with each other and as a whole, present a coherent picture in which the Earth was created a very long time ago. Further evidence comes from the complete agreement between radiometric dates and other dating methods such as counting tree rings or glacier ice core layers. Many Christians have been led to distrust radiometric dating and are completely unaware of the great number of laboratory measurements that have shown these methods to be consistent. Many are also unaware that Bible-believing Christians are among those actively involved in radiometric dating.

    This paper describes in relatively simple terms how a number of the dating techniques work, how accurately the half-lives of the radioactive elements and the rock dates themselves are known, and how dates are checked with one another. In the process the paper refutes a number of misconceptions prevalent among Christians today. This paper is available on the web via the American Scientific Affiliation and related sites to promote greater understanding and wisdom on this issue, particularly within the Christian community.

    “The species that existed in Noahs day could have fit on the boat (it was as large as the Canberra) if you take mostly young.”

    So Maz, you do admit to natural selection in that species have changed over time?

    Both you AND Stanley are guilty of only visitng sites that support your points of view.

    The Bible will never be proved “scientifically”. It doesn’t need to be. Trying to do it just makes one have to perform ridiculous mental acrobatics. When the Bible seems to contradict known scientific principles, I chalk it up to only understanding through a glass darkly, as Paul said. Our understanding of science and of God will always be incomplete until the day we “go to be with Jesus.” So it doesn’t bother me, threaten my faith, or make the Bible seem less relevant to modern life.

  24. Stanley said

    So its a double standard.

  25. Stanley said

    I don’t mind the the bible making philosophical and moral assertions, but I do mind it claiming to be complete fact.

  26. Maz said

    Kash: ”Both you AND Stanley are guilty of only visitng sites that support your points of view.”

    If you have read any of my other posts you will see that I often watch non-Christian science programmes, and I have read some non-scientific books, particularly about space and time, light and how the evolutionists belive the Universe was formed. So that statement was an assumption.

    There are many respectable scientists that would disagree with Dr. Weins and his PhD.

    The assumptions are still being made about the half-lifes of radioactive elements. No one was there in the beginning to measure them.

    So you believe in millionsw of years?

    When did sin enter the world, and death by sin?

    Why did Jesus (the second Adam) die?

  27. Brad said

    Maz, let it go. Stanley has volitional objections to the Bible, and YOU won’t overcome those. That only happens through the continued leading of the Holy Spirit, and Stanley choosing to eventually listen to that call and heed it. Apart from that, it won’t happen.

    Maz, you know Scripture is clear. The minds of unbelievers are often closed, and God often lets them stay that way. A word of advice – best to move on to greener pastures.

  28. Stanley said

    Wow. Don’t often get called closed minded by bible literalists. Get some perspective guys.

  29. Maz said

    Brad: Good advice. But it is sad to know that those who name the name of Christ, who profess to be Christians and proclaim that they believe and follow the Bible, deny the very first book of the Word of God. OK…they deny the literal 6 day creation truth as written in the first book of the Bible. And also it’s 2 confirmations in Exodus.

  30. Kash said

    “The assumptions are still being made about the half-lifes of radioactive elements. No one was there in the beginning to measure them.”

    You misunderstand the term half life. It is a measure of the deterioration of the element, and you do not have to measure it from the “beginning”. You can measure it for a shorter time and extrapolate mathematically. It is a constant, so extrapolation does not mean estimation.

    “So you believe in millionsw of years?” Yes.

    “When did sin enter the world, and death by sin?” Sin entered the world with humanity, whenever that (God appointed) event occurred.

    “Why did Jesus (the second Adam) die?” Because people who took the Law literally crucified Him. Lucky for the rest of us, he also took upon the sin of the world and earned our forgiveness through a mechanism only God can truly explain.

    Maz, I don’t mean to offend you. I read your posts and admire your sincerity. I am simply entering ento a dialogue with you as a fellow believer on some points we do not see alike.

  31. Kash said

    Oops, obviously I mean “into” not “ento”.

  32. Kash said

    Who says I don’t believe GEnesis? As I said before, I simply don’t require God to use a 24 hour day, when the whole basis for a 24 hour day is the earth’s rotation on its access vis a vis the sun, which wasn’t created until the fourth day.

  33. abc's said


    Wachovia did not fail; rather, it is to be acquired by Citigroup Inc. on an open bank basis with assistance from the FDIC.

  34. Stanley said

    So it wouldn’t fail?

  35. Maz said

    Kash: ”It is a constant, so extrapolation does not mean estimation.”


    ”I simply don’t require God to use a 24 hour day, when the whole basis for a 24 hour day is the earth’s rotation on its access vis a vis the sun, which wasn’t created until the fourth day.” You don’t require? I think I explained about the sun in another post.

    ”For in SIX DAYS the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day, wherefore, the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.”

    That is why we have a seven DAY week. A period of time which is not measured by any heavenly body, but was instituted by God for healthy living.

    Where do the millions of years fit in?

  36. Stanley said

    I don’t quite know the terms, but I know its bad.

  37. Stanley said

    Maz is a troll. Sorry Maz, I thought you were serious.

  38. Stanley – I’m sorry, but did you just call Maz a “troll”?


  39. Stanley said


    A troll is someone who goes onto message boards and claims to believe one thing in order to discredit its followers so his true point of view seems better.

    Maz is an atheist trolling these forums trying to make Christians look bad.

  40. Kash said

    Babylonia and Persia also used a 7 day week, and they didn’t believe in Genesis. So the origins of the 7 day week might be more complicated thatn you think. I don’t mind that you believe God made the world in 6 24-hour days and then rested on the 7th. But if you are a young earth creationist you do have to “believe” that measurable scientific data is false. Which means God created the world/universe to look, act, and measure older than it is, which doesn’t make any sense unless you think that God is trying to trick us. Which I don’t. I think Genesis is FUNDAMENTALLY true but not LITERALLY true.

    If you are saying that mathematical constants are assumptions, I think you either don’t understand the concept of “constant” or “assumption”. Suffice it to say that assumptions are made with limited information, and constants are…well…constant. Mathematically repeatable no matter how they are measured.

    Stanley, by your definition of a troll it makes me wonder about you….(Smile)

  41. Maz said

    Kash: Can I suggest that you go onto http://www.creationontheweb.com and look up Radiometric dating on their ‘questions’ page, there are many interesting articles to do with this subject.

  42. Maz said

    Kash: You cannot possibly know whether something has been constant (yes, I do understand what that means) unless you were there at the beginning.
    Some scientists are questioning whether the speed of light was faster in the past…..something that has up till recently been believed to be a constant.

  43. Maz said

    Kash: ”I think Genesis is FUNDAMENTALLY true but not LITERALLY true.”
    Please explain.

  44. abc's said

    The speed of light is constant, but it is relative to the observer.

  45. Kash said

    ”I think Genesis is FUNDAMENTALLY true but not LITERALLY true.”
    Please explain.

    The fundamentals are true: The universe was created by God, and God alone. It was created in an orderly fashion. However, Genesis does not tell the whole story – it leaves out a lot of detail. For instance: Atoms, amino acids, etc – when were they created? God doesn’t see fit to tell us in that sort of detail. We fill in the details as we can through science. To say that Genesis literally says all there is to say about the world/universe is to put creation, and therefore God, into a little tiny box. Trying to keep Him in that box is why young-earth creationists have to tie themselves in knots trying to explain away what we observe in nature. The Bible is how we know God, but He is bigger even than the Bible.

  46. Maz said

    Kash: Now WHO is trying to put God into a little box?

  47. abc's said


    “God doesn’t see fit to tell us in that sort of detail.”

    I’ve always wondered, “Why not? Why not give us the details?”

    The least we should expect is that a general outline be in accordance with the Science, but that doesn’t seem to be true.

  48. Maz said

    What God told us was enough….or He would have told us the details.
    Just because He didn’t lay down a line by line, atoms into molecules detail of creation doesn’t deny the fact that we are made of these things. he created then when He created us of them.

    GOD is BIGGER than how we think. GOD is BIGGER than science.


    NOTHING is too hard for Him.

  49. Maz said

    oops…Correction….He created them when He created us of them.

  50. Brad said

    Maz, same with Kash. It probably pains me as much as it pains you, but you won’t win the debate. Again, there are objections that you won’t be able to overcome.

    Advice – move on. Sometimes the idea of further arguing keeps people going. Stop talking and answering questions, and it’s amazing how quick they dry up.

  51. Barney said

    ..and they’re off!

    It’s “Ol’ Fundie Warhorse” in the lead going into the first turn followed by “Fire” and “Brimstone” two lengths back…

    “Humility” is trailing badly…

    “Science” and “Skepticism” bringing up the rear.

  52. Maz said

    Brad: I agree but I remember when you and Amanda had a marathon debate on Mormonism. Maybe we won’t win the debate, but injecting something into it may…….may….just shine a little light in, you just don’t know.
    But I do get that feeling that to go on is pointless, yet……….

    I will post this little bit of interesting info you can find more on the relevent web sites.

    ”More recent New Scientist articles have reported on how it seems to be acceptable to propose c-decay to try to solve another well-known difficulty of the big bang theory, called the horizon problem. That is, the cosmic microwave radiation indicates that space is the same temperature everywhere, indicating a common influence. But no connection between distant regions would be possible, even in the assumed time since the alleged ‘big bang’, because of the ‘horizon’ of the finite speed of light. As an ad hoc solution to this problem, Alan Guth proposed that the universe once underwent a period of very rapid growth, called ‘inflation’. But now it seems that even this has its own horizon problem. So now some physicists have proposed that the speed of light was much faster in the past, which would allow the ‘horizon’ to be much further away and thus accommodate the universe’s thermal equilibrium. Note that these other proposals even have c much faster than in the Setterfield concept.”

  53. Maz said

    That last bit was for Kash and Abc’s.

  54. Maz said

    Barney: I thot that was quite funny! 🙂

  55. Kash said


    I’m not discussing this to win the debate. I’m discussing it because it bothers me that people assume that to be pro-Christ means anti-Science. I don’t have to be right, I just want to be acknowledged as a true believer even if I think the earth is probaly close to 5 billion years old. I reserve the right to give my reasons, just as Maz has the right to give her reasons for believing otherwise.

    I went to your web site and read some of the articles. They do not tell the whole story. They always point to one instance of variablility in dating, for instance, the xenoliths in the lava flows. Well, scientists know why not to use xenoliths in lava flows as proof of the age of the earth:
    The first technique of creationists is to try to find examples of bad radiometric dates and offer these up as proof that radiometric dating is totally unreliable. Henry Morris, in his 1974 book “Scientific Creationism” made the claim that K/Ar dates for lava from the 1801 Hulalalei volcano lava flow ranged from 160 million years to 3 billion years old. With results like these, radiometric dating must be totally useless – how could scientists possibly be so stupid as to believe that radiometric dating could be of any merit when a simple lava flow gives such a wide range of dates – right in their own research? As usual with such claims, we’ll have to dig a little further to get at the truth. Morris cited a study by Funkhouser and Norton – “Radiogenic Helium and Argon in Ultramafic Inclusions from Hawaii” published in the Journal of Geophysics Research, vol. 73, pgs. 4601 – 4607. What Morris didn’t bother to inform his readers was that the study concerned xenoliths – fragments of foreign rock broken of by the magmas intrusion through the crust. Since they are not completely melted by the magma, they are in fact much older than the lava flow (with K/Ar dating, what you are really dating is how long it has been since the rock solidified from the molten state – at this point the daughter Argon can no longer escape from the rock). That particular study confirmed (as geologists already suspected) that xenoliths could not be properly dated with the K/Ar method. The Funkhouser and Norton study clearly stated that the “ages” determined by K/Ar dating had no geological meaning and also determined that the xenoliths contained excess argon trapped in “air” bubbles inside the rock.

    There are very precise circumstances in which radioisotope dating is reliable, and in all of these circumstances the oldest rocks date consistantly to about 4 billion years old.

    The second creationist technique is to provide supposed evidences of a young age for the earth. These usually involve measuring the rate of change of some (any) environmental phenomenon, assuming that the rate has never changed, and calculating an age (always called an upper limit) for the earth. These ages vary from 100 years (accumulation of aluminum in the ocean) to 260 million years (accumulation of sodium in the ocean). Examples include changes in the earth’s magnetic field, accumulation of helium in the atmosphere, and accumulation of metals in the ocean. The problem with all of these methods is that they are too complex – no one knows all of the sources or sinks (method of removal) for all of these currently – and certainly in the past. Most of these techniques have been examined in the scientific literature and found to be useless for determining an age of the earth.

    The other thing is that yes, science is sometimes wrong. Which is why scientists publish and then other scientists try to prove them right or wrong. Criticism is good for science, which is why I don’t mind creationists challenging scientists, but they have to respond the responses rather than just repeating their assertions more loudly…or on a different internet site.

    Go ahead and be a young earth creationist. But the evidence is against that, and I don’t believe that God is trying trick us, so I can’t believe the earth is only 6,000 years old.

  56. F. L. A. said

    So did I Barney, than you[Hee!Hee!Hee!].
    So, this is were all of the action is today.

  57. F. L. A. said

    I meant, “Thank You”.

  58. Kash said

    As far as the Big Bang Theory, the biggest problem with it is that there still had to be something to “bang!” Which is why we come back to Genesis.

    See? Science doesn’t disprove Genesis, it just pushes it back a few billion years and stretches out its span.

  59. abc's said

    The current Scientific consensus is that at the time of the big bang “everything” already existed. Nothing was created in that moment. All of the energy was already present, some of it converted into mass and it all began to expand.

    There’s an interesting article in the most recent Scientific American that describes this state. It’s (the article) called ‘The Big Bounce’

    But I realize that only pushes the problem further back. Where did everything come from? It’s a good question. I don’t think anyone has the answer.

  60. F. L. A. said

    Humanity has a hard enough time try to get itself around such issues as “race”, religion, politics, and misuse of the environment.
    I do not think humanity is ready to tackle all of the secrets of the Universe.

  61. Stanley said

    Can’t hurt to try.

    Unless the LHC creates a black hole and destroys the universe.

  62. Brad said


    Pro-Christian doesn’t mean anti-science. I don’t believe that. In fact, I believe they harmonize quite well, but it all depends on your point of view. The age of the Earth is what I’d call a “non-essential” – your view of the age of the Earth has no bearing on one’s salvation.

  63. Kash said

    Yes! I agree totally! Thank you thank you thank you!

  64. Maz said

    Kash: Yes, I agree with Brad….and you. If you believe in Jesus Christ as your Saviior then you are saved, and am a sister in Christ. As I said earlier, I did believe in evolution an the Big Bang for quite a while after I was saved, so I know!

    With all the argument about dating etc., (and it is still basically based on assumptions of what happened in ‘the distant past’ according to evolutionists) the Bible STILL states…..GOD still says that He created the world in 6 days and rested on the seventh, so either God is lying, deceptive, or science does not know everything…..I cannot conceive of the first two being right…can you?

    How can we read Genesis 1 and not see the truth? What about the rest of Genesis? Do we treat that the same way? Is it not also literal? Is Adams sin not literal? Then we have no need of a Savior. Then Jesus would not have had to die. I still don’t know how you fit millions of years into the Genesis account.

    I have no bad feelings against a fellow Christian but I do like to know how they explain their belief in an old earth. 8)

  65. Maz said

    Abc’s: I watched a science programme on TV last night, and they were talking about what would happen at the end of time and the Universe aswell as the Big Bang. Quite interesting altho somewhat hilarious. The Big Bang they said, and as you said, started with a infinitismally tiny singularity of energy….then….it EXPLODED! into everything that exists today! Come on! There are trillions of galaxies out there, with billions of stars in each one, all came from something smaller than a fullstop! That is outside of normal physics, so how can they possibly explain something that is not possible in normal physics? They are still trying to find out how it happened, and they still believe it did.

  66. Stanley said

    Actually, it wouldn’t be all that difficult to imagine the singularity. It all has to do with quarks. Pack them in tight enough, you’re going to have a massive explosion.

  67. Stanley said

    I know very little about the big bang. I don’t expect many understand it.

    But we do have a universe traveling away from us at an incredible speed, radiation at the far reaches of the universe that we can still detect, and everything seems to be moving away from a certain point in space. There are lots of reasons to believe the Big Bang happened. Another theory is that the universe expands to a certain size, and then retracts on itself, creating another singularity, and that the universe dies and repeats itself. That I don’t quite understand.

  68. Stanley said

    But I don’t feel bad about not understanding it, since almost no one does.

  69. Maz said

    Actually it seems that it’s not so much the galaxies that are flying away from each other (some are actually coming closer together like the Andromeda galaxy and the Milky Way) but that space itself is expanding which would not need an explosion within space in the beginning.

    And the Doppler effect and the Red Shift has not been fully understood either. Gravity can cause this effect too, if I remember rightly.

  70. Stanley said

    Not all of them are moving away, because some are going in the same direction. The reason why space is expanding could be the big bang though.

  71. Maz said

    The question is, what is SPACE? Does it go on forever? Or is there an edge to it….which brings us to, what would be at the other side?
    All questions I asked as an imaginative kid.

    I believe God created not only the heavens and the earth but the space in which it exists and time. ‘Outside’ of that is eternity. But then, what is eternity? Mmmm.

  72. Stanley said

    Space seems to be infinite. The universe is what is finite.

  73. Kash said

    God isn’t lying, just putting it in terms we could understand at that time. Its not the only thing He revealed to us slowly…Besides, like I said, an earth day is only one type of day.

  74. Maz said

    Kash: God did put it in terms they could understand at the time….that He created the heavens and the earth in 6 days…..YOM. Yes, it could mean an age or a time of an indefinite period but in this instance and anywhere else where you see an ordinate number and the phrase ‘evening and morning’ or similar, it is ALWAYS a single 24 hour day.

  75. Tripp said


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: