Have you ever seen a TE claim that Creationists are not saved because of Creationism?

[archaeologist]

Yea, particularly when you have over 32,000 denominations

the Bible is not responsible for the decisions of people or their interpretations. this includes those who subscribe to alternatives.

God speaks through science far more clearly than through the Bible.

not at all ,for salvation is found in the Bible not science. if you disbelieve genesis, then it is highly likely you will disbelieve other things God says which means you will be led astray.

aaah the good old wedge tactic. Science or the bible, but not both.

as stated so many times before, science is a limited field and was not witness to anything contained in the Bible. it has no authority to determine what took place when, nor is it privy to God's thoughts as it seeks to find answers without Him.

so given the facts, why would you listen to science which only has 150 years of history in this area (as stated by other posters) and is led by non-believers?

 

[notto]

so given the facts, why would you listen to science which only has 150 years of history in this area (as stated by other posters) and is led by non-believers?

Because its conclusions are verifiable, objective, and repeatable and based on multiple independent and objective lines of evidence.

You know - science.

Just like physics, medicine, chemistry, engineering, astronomy, reality.

The irony of you posting this kind of stuff on a computer is hilarious.

 

[Assyrian]

Yea, particularly when you have over 32,000 denominations

the Bible is not responsible for the decisions of people or their interpretations. this includes those who subscribe to alternatives.

Thankfully, by the same logic, the bible is not responsible for your decisions and interpretations either.

 

[crawfish]

as for the title of this thread, read 1 John honestly and compare what you believe with what God teaches. be discerning and forget allegorizing or metaphorizing but ask God to bind the evil one so you can see the truth for yourself, without interference. be open to what God may point out to you.

What if I read it and come to a different conclusion about its contents than you do? I see absolutely nothing that says I must uphold a literal view of Genesis to be saved. However, I DO see plenty to lead me to believe that to hate one's brother is a sin.

 

[archaeologist]

Because its conclusions are verifiable, objective, and repeatable and based on multiple independent and objective lines of evidence.

this always makes me chuckle. you do not even know the original conditions that intiated your process,how can you verify anything since you cannot reproduce the starting point and know you gotit right?

everything is pure conjecture as you do not evenunderstand the process itself or how it could work. you accept iton blind faith and then take 'evidence' and declare you have proof.

please verify that evolution was responisbile for the fossil record.

What if I read it and come to a different conclusion about its contents than you do? I see absolutely nothing that says I must uphold a literal view of Genesis to be saved. However, I DO see plenty to lead me to believe that to hate one's brother is a sin.

read chapter 3, the first 10 verses. anyone who denies God's word, are they truly believers?

I see absolutely nothing that says I must uphold a literal view of Genesis to be saved

didn't say you would but it does speak about what one believes. accepting Jesus as one savior, does not give that person license to believe what they want and dismiss those verses they don't like.

whatit sounds like and i have stated ths before, is that theistic evolutions want salvation from God but nothing else.

they want to be saved from hell but refuse to follow His commands. your posts are quite clear on this as i have read them, you put aside science to believe the ressurrection because it offers you something you want, but you pick up science to avoid believing that which you don't want --to look foolish.

that is hypocritical. either science has to be used to prove every part of the Bible or you have to use faith for all parts of the Bible. you cannot have it both ways.

 

[Dannager]

this always makes me chuckle. you do not even know the original conditions that intiated your process,how can you verify anything since you cannot reproduce the starting point and know you gotit right?

The theory of evolution starts with life already existing. As long as we have a lifeform, we have the original conditions. Don't pretend that the scientific method has some ridiculous extra requirements that only you understand. As long as the process can be observed (which it can), we can draw conclusions.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

....
that is hypocritical. either science has to be used to prove every part of the Bible or you have to use faith for all parts of the Bible. you cannot have it both ways.

So where science proves one part of the Bible, you would discount that proof?

 

[Digit]

I never have - though I have seen the reverse in operation.

We see threads titled "Those in Christ will be one Spirit, godless evolutionists will be cut off"

From the poster Gottservant. http://www.christianforums.com/t569...it-godless-evolutionists-will-be-cut-off.html

Nice one Gottservant. I might think Creationists are ill informed or for the professional ones at AIG & ICR dishonest con men BUT I don't question their salvation.



ps

I'm petty sure he meant evolutionist implies godless NOT a subset of evolutionists who are atheists.

Hi KerrMetric,

I'm sure you are aware how it feels to see someone condemning Christians based on the behaviour of an individual or minority? So I would ask you please do not do this to Creationists, and reflect on all based on the actions of the minority.

Cheers,
Digit.

 

[archaeologist]

The theory of evolution starts with life already existing. As long as we have a lifeform, we have the original conditions

the secular version has lifeforms originating out nothing so where is their initial lifeformand how did it originate if it needed a lifeform?

i know TE inserts God to cover that weakness in the theory but that is just wrong as scripture does not teach such a concept.

that last sentence is new as i remember reading in one article, and i have to find it again, that scientists have no clue what the original conditions were which started it alloff.

they can't even recreate it in the lab so my point and questions still stand as your answer is an avoidance of the issue.

The origin of life is a necessary precursor for biological evolution, but understanding that evolution occurred once organisms appeared and investigating how this happens, does not depend on understanding exactly how life began.[119] The current scientific consensus is that the complex biochemistry that makes up life came from simpler chemical reactions, but it is unclear how this occurred.[120] Not much is certain about the earliest developments in life, the structure of the first living things, or the identity and nature of any last universal common ancestor or ancestral gene pool.[121][122] Consequently, there is no scientific consensus on how life began, but proposals include self-replicating molecules such as RNA,[123] and the assembly of simple cells.[124]

{bold mine}

you do not have the original conditions.

also from Darwin's introduction of the Origin of the Species:

Although much remains obscure, and will long remain obscure, I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and dispassionate judgement of which I am capable, that the view which most naturalists entertain, and which I formerly entertained — namely, that each species has been independently created — is erroneous.

{bold mine}

please provide links that prove that darwin was present at the beginning to make such statements.

 

[Gottservant]

"It is finished".

Yet evolutionists with and without belief in Christ would slander me.

Do you suppose that the fires of Hell are not hot enough to devour "evolution"?

 

[theFijian]

either science has to be used to prove every part of the Bible or you have to use faith for all parts of the Bible. you cannot have it both ways.

We are called to faith becasue of the facts, not despite them. Did the Apostles believe Christ had risen because they had faith, or because they saw him with their own eyes?

 

[archaeologist]

Did the Apostles believe Christ had risen because they had faith, or because they saw him with their own eyes?

here are the gospel accounts to find out the answer. Mark 16:14, luke 21:36-45, though mat. 28:16 would indicate the former, john 20:24-29 (thomas was the one who needed to see the nail prints)

what did Jesus tell Thomas: "Because you have seen me, you have believed, blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." {bold mine}

***so the answer is for all those who come after the disciples is---- faith

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

here are the gospel accounts to find out the answer. Mark 16:14, luke 21:36-45, though mat. 28:16 would indicate the former, john 20:24-29 (thomas was the one who needed to see the nail prints)

what did Jesus tell Thomas: "Because you have seen me, you have believed, blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." {bold mine}

***so the answer is for all those who come after the disciples is---- faith

I don't think they were eye witnesses Archie.

Thomas may have been, but his gospel was not one selected.

 

[crawfish]

read chapter 3, the first 10 verses. anyone who denies God's word, are they truly believers?

This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.

I'm not feeling a lot of love from you, brother.

 

[theFijian]

so the answer is for all those who come after the disciples is---- faith

So the Apostles didn't have faith because they saw Jesus. This is the logical conclusioin of archie's false dichotomy.

 

[Assyrian]

also from Darwin's introduction of the Origin of the Species:

Although much remains obscure, and will long remain obscure, I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and dispassionate judgement of which I am capable, that the view which most naturalists entertain, and which I formerly entertained — namely, that each species has been independently created — is erroneous.

{bold mine}

Even AiG admits natural selection produces new species, apparently Darwin was right about that.

please provide links that prove that darwin was present at the beginning to make such statements.

The question you should ask yourself is whether YECs were round at the beginning to claim each species was independently created. As far as I know, the bible doesn't say this.

 

[theFijian]

The question you should ask yourself is whether YECs were round at the beginning to claim each species was independently created. As far as I know, the bible doesn't say they were

What we do know is that Gen 1:24 tell us that the earth brought forth the living creatures. We also know that archie doesn't like dealing with this verse.

 

[theIdi0t]

they want to be saved from hell but refuse to follow His commands. your posts are quite clear on this as i have read them, you put aside science to believe the ressurrection because it offers you something you want, but you pick up science to avoid believing that which you don't want --to look foolish.

Ah Mr. Archie are we still not seeing?

What commandments do TEs refuse to follow? Is there a verse that I am missing that commands us to believe that all of scripture is to be taken literally?

I harbor resentment towards literalist because they are taking scripture in a godless direction, by introducing science as a rock to place one's belief. Not a single scripture writer devoted himself to a literal creation, while in today's church this is the big money maker, and the lure.

I do not hesitate to say that I believe this obsession with creationism today, is the result of insecurities in certain believers whose faith has been tied together with strings.

The are like a strong man, wearing his armor and holding his possessions tightly, unwilling to let the stronger man than them to overcome them, and take away all the false things they trusted in.

When it comes to my faith I care little for "science", and I find believers who use "science" to build their faith to be saddening, I see them as those who are missing something.

 

[archaeologist]

So the Apostles didn't have faith because they saw Jesus. This is the logical conclusioin of archie's false dichotomy

don't twist my words, though it keeps proving me right.

Even AiG admits natural selection produces new species, apparently Darwin was right about tha

i do not agree with compromisers either and that is what a lot of christian scientists do. they are unwilling to stepoout there and make changes or do things differently that they allow certain aspects without thinking about the consequences.

The question you should ask yourself is whether YECs were round at the beginning to claim each species was independently created. As far as I know, the bible doesn't say this.

read 1:20-25 again and youwill see it is very explicitly stated that is what God did.

What we do know is that Gen 1:24 tell us that the earth brought forth the living creatures. We also know that archie doesn't like dealing with this verse.

you can't discuss 1:24 without including 1:25. whenyou are ready to do that then come rationally.

 

[Assyrian]

i do not agree with compromisers either and that is what a lot of christian scientists do. they are unwilling to stepoout there and make changes or do things differently that they allow certain aspects without thinking about the consequences.

At least we both agree AiG is wrong.

read 1:20-25 again and youwill see it is very explicitly stated that is what God did.

We never denied God did it. Don't you remember the last time we had this conversation?

you can't discuss 1:24 without including 1:25. whenyou are ready to do that then come rationally.

Unfortunately YECs seem to think verse 25 And God made the beasts of the earth,
somehow cancels out verse 24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures..."
But I will let you into a little secret. They are both true. YECs have to choose v25 over v24, but TEs understand there is no conflict. God made the different animal species by commissioning the earth to produce life.

Remember what I told you before? Atheists deny God created life, YECs deny the earth did it. TEs affirm both verses.