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.
One of the most disturbing arguments I ever heard about abortion was back before I was a TE, a preacher claimed unborn children aren't really alive. Until it is born and takes that first breath, it does not have the God given 'breath of life' and so is not really a living soul (Gen 2:7).
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
The cross was certainly a part of the plan for this universe, and evolution was one of the tools God used to make it come about.
My problem with evolution is how is it that people believe in it without the actual observation of it taking place, something like our observation of a caterpillar changing into a butterfly.
They seem to be basing their conclusions on similarity of features in bones or whatever else.
It seem to me that evolution is just a big blind guess at what might be possible, but not what actually is, since there is no actual evidence for it.
Should a Christian put his or her trust in such blind faith?
Evolution has been observed. Go read up on speciation.
Give me an animal or two and I'll go check it out.
As for "blind faith," creationism takes far more of that than evolution. Unlike creationism, there is actually evidence for evolution.
I do agree that some 'creationist' rely on blind faith sometimes, especially when it comes to the age of the earth; 6 to 10 thousand years sounds to me a bit off in light of the fossil records.
I don't think scientists have an accurate knowledge of the age either; 4 to 5 billion years is just another blind guess, in my opinion.
That is the point to be established. The bible does not suggest that abortion is murder or equivalent to murder. The bible prescribes the death penalty for murder, adultery, blasphemy and a number of other sins, but never for abortion. If it really was thought of as murder, there would be case law in the bible for it.
The Bible says that we are to choose life. It also states that God formed me and you in our mother's womb. If the taking of another life doesn't bother you that's between you and God.
Again you assume what has not been established. And you also forget what James told us: if you offend in one point of the law, you have offended. You cannot take credit for not murdering if at the same time you steal. You cannot take credit for a strong stance against abortion if at the same time you vote for tax reductions instead of day care.
So because I believe the taking of another life is murder your response is I shouldn't take a stand on it because at some point in my past or present I've stolen. Is it any wonder why I made my original point?
Yes. Unless one holds strictly to "thou shalt not kill" no matter what the circumstances. As long as there is a distinction drawn between killing and murder, the line of distinction must be set out. This is especially so when one makes a crusade against one type of killing. It must be clear that this is indeed murder.
Consider another case. The biblical injunction on adultery prescribes capital punishment. In some parts of the world "honour killings" of women are still considered acceptable. In biblical times to kill an adulterer was not murder. But today we are shocked when the Taliban applies that standard and consider the executions of women for adultery to be judicial murder.
So, yes, it is important--if one is claiming biblical support--that the bible identify abortion as murder. And it does not.
If you wish to split hairs as to what the Bible specifically says is or isn't murder that's up to you. I'm sure there are countless ways you can kill someone that aren't mentioned in the Bible, so according to you they must all be legal. Now who's being the literalist? Once again, this just proves my original point.
Make what easier?
To twist Scripture to your liking of course.
__________________ David Cooper: "When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense;therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, literal meaning, unless the facts of the context indicate clearly otherwise."
That's what God's Word is, convenient.
Agreed, except one of us is probably more wrong.
The Bible says that we are to choose life.
But it also draws a distinction between taking life and murder.
If the taking of another life doesn't bother you that's between you and God.
Oh, it does. That is why in addition to not supporting abortion I do not support war, capital punishment, tar sands development, refusal to act on climate change, wages and social assistance below poverty lines, failure to provide universal medical care, failure to cancel third world debt and much, much more.
All of these take lives. None of them are murder.
So do you choose only the life of the unborn or do you choose life in all respects?
Now who's being the literalist?
Indeed, I am often more of a literalist than those who claim to be. As has often been noted, all of us choose what to interpret literally and what to interpret figuratively. We just choose differently.
To twist Scripture to your liking of course.
Oh? It has always been easy to twist scripture to one's liking. One can find dozens of examples from defending slavery to promoting witchhunts to supporting the divine right of kings and anti-semitic pograms. Not to mention the huge amount of scripture twisting necessary to defend literal inerrancy. Conservatives do it as much or more than TEs. How does accepting evolution make it easier?
Are you not just expressing your own bias when you call an interpretation of scripture you disagree with "twisting" scripture? Why not just call it an interpretation you do not support?
__________________ The high, the low, all of creation God gives to humankind to use. If this privilege is misused, God's Justice permits creation to punish humanity~~ Hildegard of Bingen cited in, Earth Prayers from around the World
But it also draws a distinction between taking life and murder.
Is abortion choosing life? What do you call it when someone takes life?
So do you choose only the life of the unborn or do you choose life in all respects?
I especially choose the life of the unborn because they have no voice of their own. With regard to war I support defending yourself whether it be against an intruder in your home or in your land and that defense includes death. Sometimes such a defense might even mean a good offense. Capital punishment is something I have questions concerning, there appear to be not enough safeguards on how it is implemented. The other topics are clearly not relevant so I won't comment.
Indeed, I am often more of a literalist than those who claim to be. As has often been noted, all of us choose what to interpret literally and what to interpret figuratively. We just choose differently.
So for you unless an act is clearly defined in the Bible as murder, you believe the act should not be considered murder. Am I correct?
Oh? It has always been easy to twist scripture to one's liking...Conservatives do it as much or more than TEs. How does accepting evolution make it easier?
If you can twist something as simple as Genesis then it makes it so much easier to twist the rest.
Why not just call it an interpretation you do not support?
Because the Bible says "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."
__________________ David Cooper: "When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense;therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, literal meaning, unless the facts of the context indicate clearly otherwise."
Is abortion choosing life? What do you call it when someone takes life?
Depends on the situation. I think in some cases abortion is murder and in others it may be justifiable homicide.
I especially choose the life of the unborn because they have no voice of their own.
Children depending on food stamps don't have a voice of their own either. Neither do women being raped by militias in Darfur. Nor girls subjected to genital mutilation. Nor do young women working in export processing zones--the law denies them the opportunity to unionize. Nor young boys forced to be child soldiers. Did 15-year old Omar Khadr have a voice of his own when he was thrown into Guantanamo? And our Prime Minister---alone of all foreign heads of states--refused to request his repatriation to his home country. In fact, our Supreme Court had to order him to make the request--after he has been in that hell-hole for 6 years.
And what of the hundreds of species going extinct because of deforestation, desertification and climate change? Will you speak up for them? What voice do they have other than ours?
I don't begrudge you speaking for the unborn. It is focusing on them while neglecting or even opposing the needs of others. And it is also the means of focusing on the unborn---through condemnation rather than compassion for the needs of their mothers and siblings and even their future selves.
That is why I think of the usual anti-abortion tactics as a distraction: like tithing dill and cumin while neglecting what is truly important: life in all its dimensions. I include the life of the unborn in that, but I don't set the life of the unborn above or against the life of everyone else.
With regard to war I support defending yourself whether it be against an intruder in your home or in your land and that defense includes death. Sometimes such a defense might even mean a good offense. Capital punishment is something I have questions concerning, there appear to be not enough safeguards on how it is implemented
So you too make a distinction between killing and murder. Taking life is not always murder. Choosing life does not always mean choosing not to kill.
The other topics are clearly not relevant so I won't comment.
Do you really think killing at a distance or indirectly makes it irrelevant?
So for you unless an act is clearly defined in the Bible as murder, you believe the act should not be considered murder. Am I correct?
No. There are actions the bible does not call murder which I would call murder. The genocide of the population of conquered cities for example.
If you can twist something as simple as Genesis then it makes it so much easier to twist the rest.
But it is already easy. I see a great deal of twisting of scripture by those who accept the same interpretation of Genesis as you do. It doesn't seem to matter whether one accepts evolution or not when it comes to misusing scripture.
Because the Bible says "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."
Which tells us absolutely nothing about interpreting scripture! You and I can both believe in the inspiration and usefulness of scripture and still come to different conclusions about what it means. Why do you have to call an interpretation you disagree with "twisting"? Why not just "an interpretation I do not support"?
__________________ The high, the low, all of creation God gives to humankind to use. If this privilege is misused, God's Justice permits creation to punish humanity~~ Hildegard of Bingen cited in, Earth Prayers from around the World
You really make it more complicated than it is. Simply put, I believe TEs and non-believers (I will limit my comments to TEs) support evolution because it gives them the ability to believe whatever it is they wish instead of being held accountable to God and His Word.
sounds like you are believing whatever you wish about TE's rather than actually letting them tell you what they believe.
For the TE, here's how it plays out.
oh do tell
If I am able to take the plain meaning of Scripture in something as simple as the creation story and twist it to say something entirely different
there is no such thing as a "plain meaning."
then the door has been thrown open to take other truths of God's Word and manipulate them as well,
Jesus is God's Word, The creation stories are in our scripture. To confuse the two is idolatry.
all in an effort to cover our personal sins.
reallY? And while you are believing whatever it is you want to believe about TE's, you are also judging motive incorrectly, assigning subterfuge where none exists. Sometimes the "plain reading" of a TE is the best
Remember, sin is something many of us wish to sweep away and pretend didn't exist
probably more than you think and this is not limited to those who believe in evolution.
because if held accountable we would then be held responsible for changing our behavior
perhaps, but it doesn't take belief in evolution to go there!
and we all know how popular change is, especially any change that requires an effort that could be painful.
as a long standing TE in this fora, you are right on the money!
Why change when you can simply justify your sin by twisting Scripture to accommodate it?
but no one is twisting anything. You keep assuming improper motive where none exists. They are interpreting it differently than your interpretation.
When we can appease our guilty conscience by twisting Scripture to state that which is sin to be good, well then we can do just about anything.
does that mean you think TE's can fly, walk through fire, stop bullets with their minds?--all because you think they know how to twist scripture?
Please, if you want to know what we TE's believe--ask us--we're actually easy to get along with and open to questions
__________________ God is bigger than your theology!
"Some people believe Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to church."--TL funniest post ever.
"God is not a liar, but he is a poet."--CL--best sig ever
Linear Mode
