Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
It seems you are simply rehashing many of your basic unsupported assumptions about biblical truths as you chose to read your bible in a backward manner (as before). Your reasoning has remained static and futile for your faith in God requires man made assumptions and mine does not.
Actually, you, as man, assume that Genesis is literal based on zero evidence, whereas we assume Genesis is non-literal based on what God tells us in His creation.
Bible literalists such as myself who take their faith too seriously and stand firm on the solid rock of God's word are a rare breed and meeting individuals such as yourself has only reaffirmed me that we all do need to walk our own faith and look only at Christ for guidance.
You mean you take your interpretation too seriously and stand firm in your idol.
Meeting individuals such as your self has only reaffirmed me that Biblical literalists turn the Bible into a false idol and attack anyone who dares attack their god (literal Genesis).
Since I have gone through much of your spitritual nonsense before there is no need for me to waste my time responding to your spiritual problems or disbelief in what scripture tells you, but I will pray that you see the truth of God.
Twinkie defense, you run away without answering any of my post, not because you can't, but because you don't want to associate with a heretic like me (yah right haha). :rolleyes:
Thankyou for proving my point. Again you are completely unable to disconnect your interpretation from "God's Word", then with this whole display of "holier than thou"-ness it would seem that you are one of those lost people lucaspa was talking about on that other thread.
__________________ "Ach, stick it up yer trakkans!"
Last edited by wblastyn; 19th August 2003 at 10:05 PM.
Your arrogance is breathtaking. The only thing on which I agree with you here is that your debating here is pointless.
"For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ." Galatians 1:10
__________________
"to give truth to him who loves it not is only to give him more plentiful material for misrepresentation." - George MacDonald
"The foundationless, fantastic edifice of the evolution doctrine would long ago have met with its long deserved fate were it not that the love of fairy tales is so deep-rooted in the hearts of man." - Albert Fleischmann
Karl - Liberal Backslider But we can trust the language system. We can trust that a poetic picture like Genesis 1 and a narrative crammed full of symbolic elements like Genesis 2-3 is not historical.
Let me see if I understand you. You do trust the language system but you just don't believe in what God tells you. That explains alot.
But that's the reasoning you used to demonstrate that all parables have "this is a parable" at the front of them.
So does Genesis?
Or that the concern was man’s soul and not the fanciful imaginations that man puts in his head.
Like Kent Hovind's fire-breathing dinosaurs and T. rex wrestling Anglo-Saxon heroes, for example....
No, more like how a lizard one day decided it wanted to fly and began sprouting wings, or how a pimple became an eye, or how ape grunts suddenly took on meaning and became language, and best yet how inorganic matter organized itself into a living organism.
__________________
"to give truth to him who loves it not is only to give him more plentiful material for misrepresentation." - George MacDonald
"The foundationless, fantastic edifice of the evolution doctrine would long ago have met with its long deserved fate were it not that the love of fairy tales is so deep-rooted in the hearts of man." - Albert Fleischmann
Karl - Liberal Backslider But we can trust the language system. We can trust that a poetic picture like Genesis 1 and a narrative crammed full of symbolic elements like Genesis 2-3 is not historical.
Let me see if I understand you. You do trust the language system but you just don't believe in what God tells you. That explains alot.
You really do find it impossible to understand that something can be believed but not taken literally, don't you?
But that's the reasoning you used to demonstrate that all parables have "this is a parable" at the front of them.
So does Genesis?
No it doesn't. Your reasoning requiring it was faulty. Therefore it doesn't have to.
Or that the concern was man’s soul and not the fanciful imaginations that man puts in his head.
Like Kent Hovind's fire-breathing dinosaurs and T. rex wrestling Anglo-Saxon heroes, for example....
No, more like how a lizard one day decided it wanted to fly and began sprouting wings, or how a pimple became an eye, or how ape grunts suddenly took on meaning and became language, and best yet how inorganic matter organized itself into a living organism.
And what makes you think evolution proposes any of the above?
And what makes you think evolution proposes any of the above?
I could quote the silly examples from evolutionary textbooks, but I'm not here to promote evolution.
__________________
"to give truth to him who loves it not is only to give him more plentiful material for misrepresentation." - George MacDonald
"The foundationless, fantastic edifice of the evolution doctrine would long ago have met with its long deserved fate were it not that the love of fairy tales is so deep-rooted in the hearts of man." - Albert Fleischmann
No, Crusader, you got those examples from a YEC source, not from any textbook on evolution.
If the YEC source told you they got it from a textbook, they are lying to you.
It really is not appropriate to attack a scientific theory about which you know so little. This is just common sense. And, believe me, you will NOT gain an understanding of what the theory of evolution teaches from Creationist sources. It is like the Christian teachings during the middle ages that Jews killed babies for the blood to make matza balls. Makes for good propoganda, but is simply not true.
And what makes you think evolution proposes any of the above?
I could quote the silly examples from evolutionary textbooks, but I'm not here to promote evolution.
That is not evolution. So here you are sitting on your holier than thou throne telling us how we're all bad Christians and how only you have a true relationship with Jesus Christ because you take Genesis literally and evolution is a lie, when you don't even know what evolution is.
I can't even act surprised. :rolleyes:
Oh and PUHLEASE, "I would post a defintion but I don't want to" is the type of response you'd get from a 3 year old. Why don't you just admit that you don't know what evolution is instead of lying about it.
__________________ "Ach, stick it up yer trakkans!"
Last edited by wblastyn; 21st August 2003 at 02:02 PM.
"to give truth to him who loves it not is only to give him more plentiful material for misrepresentation." - George MacDonald
"The foundationless, fantastic edifice of the evolution doctrine would long ago have met with its long deserved fate were it not that the love of fairy tales is so deep-rooted in the hearts of man." - Albert Fleischmann
Linear Mode
