How can you say you believe in god?

[help_the_lord]

I have a question I need to better understand the answer from. The only people who can help me to answer it are those who are "christians" as well as "evolutionists." Here's my question if you believe that elohim exists and that everything he said happened in the bible subsequently happened up to and including the birth of Yehoshua through imaculate conception via Mary then how can you rule out another thing he implicetely states without throwing out your entire belief system. It stands to reason that if one book of the bible is wrong then every subsequent book that makes reference to it within the bible is wrong.. if thats the case wouldn't that unsubstantient the entirety of the works? So assuming this to be the case, we would have to state that since Yaweh either didn't write the bible or he was mistake in what he himself said he did or claimed to be true, that he was not elohim meaning Jesus (who is reffered to in the bible as the son of adam) who shared the exact same understanding of the creation of the world that his father did was in fact incorrect as well.. so therefore he wasn't really "Christ" so your not really Christians since the term Christian isn't complete without Christ. You cannot say the bible cannot be taken literally and say you believe in Jesus because Jesus said "A man shall not live by bread alone but by every word of God" and since the bible is the word of god you by not living by it are directly contradicting the Person you are basing your belief system on.

 

[gluadys]

You cannot say the bible cannot be taken literally and say you believe in Jesus because Jesus said "A man shall not live by bread alone but by every word of God" and since the bible is the word of god you by not living by it are directly contradicting the Person you are basing your belief system on.

Of course we can. Nothing in the bible tells us that it must be taken literally--even when it can be taken literally. From the time of the church fathers up to early modern days, it was assumed that all of the bible (whether or not it could also be taken literally) had additional allegorical meanings and that these were the important meanings of scripture. The exaltation of literal meaning over allegorical meaning is a modern fetish with no foundation in the bible itself or in Christian tradition.

So unless you are prepared to say that people like Origen, John Chrysostom, Augustine, Benedict, Bernard of Clairvaux, Dante Alighieri, Hildegard of Bingen, Thomas Aquinas and many others revered as exemplary Christians were not Christian, you have no basis for this assertion.

Remember "literal" is not the only form of truth. To say that some portion of scripture is best not interpreted literally is not accusing scripture of being false. It is not disowning or disrespecting scripture; it is simply seeking the best way to illumine its teaching.

Christians who accept the science of evolution do not find it necessary to rule out anything in scripture.

 

[help_the_lord]

i am willing to say that and in fact am if they argue with anything written within the bible.. or say it is something other than what it implicitely states

 

[Chesterton]

...and since the bible is the word of god you by not living by it are directly contradicting the Person you are basing your belief system on.

The bible is the word of God, but Christ Jesus is the "Word" of God. Believing in evolution does not contradict Jesus. The Word is more essential than the word.

 

[crawfish]

i am willing to say that and in fact am if they argue with anything written within the bible.. or say it is something other than what it implicitely states

I think you mean "explicitly".

A question - in the New Testament, Satan took Jesus to a "high mountain where he could view all the kingdoms of the earth". Is there such a mountain, where Jesus could see Rome, Peru, Africa, China and literally all such kingdoms as existed at that time?

I believe that the bible itself states, though literary form and language, what it expects to be taken literally and what not. There is mounds of evidence that the very language of Genesis 1-11 indicates that it is not to be taken as a literal account. And I'll be more than happy to share that.

 

[Znex]

Believing in evolution does not contradict Jesus.

Actually it does. The point of evolution is that there should be no need for a creator, since random occurances and survival of the fittest fill in his place. If God just chose the right ones out of the process of evolution, there would be effectively no point for the theory.

Evolution and Christianity are not compatible.

 

[Znex]

I believe that the bible itself states, though literary form and language, what it expects to be taken literally and what not. There is mounds of evidence that the very language of Genesis 1-11 indicates that it is not to be taken as a literal account. And I'll be more than happy to share that.

Oh really?

 

[Keepon]

Jesus said "A man shall not live by bread alone but by every word of God"

This is not literall. Its obvious that a man can not follow every word of God all the time. Jesus is correct though.
What I think is that Jesus Christ said "every word of God" so we will try to live by it. He wanted to help us. If Jesus Christ said " live by most of the words of God" then we would have an excuse to sin.
Jesus Christ was 100% correct in what he said. The Bible is not written in black and white and it is hard to interpret. The Bible if understood correctly is 100% correct. What I think this verse means is that Jesus Christ wants you to live by every word of God.
Its kinda like your parents saying "If you dont do well in school you wont have a good life" that doesnt mean you will have a bad life. That means that you probably will have a bad life.
Its just a way of saying things.



The Bible is the word of God. Even though men inspired by God wrote it the Bible is completely correct.

 

[crawfish]

Oh really?

Yes, really.

 

[Chesterton]

Actually it does. The point of evolution is that there should be no need for a creator...

If there were nothing created, then there'd be nothing to evolve. So evolution or not, you still need a Creator. I think you're thinking of abiogenesis, or hopefully, some kind of quantum fluctuation creation of matter and energy for which science hasn't thought of a name yet.

 

[laconicstudent]

Theistic Evolution. It really isn't all that difficult.

 

[brinny]

I have a question I need to better understand the answer from. The only people who can help me to answer it are those who are "christians" as well as "evolutionists." Here's my question if you believe that elohim exists and that everything he said happened in the bible subsequently happened up to and including the birth of Yehoshua through imaculate conception via Mary then how can you rule out another thing he implicetely states without throwing out your entire belief system. It stands to reason that if one book of the bible is wrong then every subsequent book that makes reference to it within the bible is wrong.. if thats the case wouldn't that unsubstantient the entirety of the works? So assuming this to be the case, we would have to state that since Yaweh either didn't write the bible or he was mistake in what he himself said he did or claimed to be true, that he was not elohim meaning Jesus (who is reffered to in the bible as the son of adam) who shared the exact same understanding of the creation of the world that his father did was in fact incorrect as well.. so therefore he wasn't really "Christ" so your not really Christians since the term Christian isn't complete without Christ. You cannot say the bible cannot be taken literally and say you believe in Jesus because Jesus said "A man shall not live by bread alone but by every word of God" and since the bible is the word of god you by not living by it are directly contradicting the Person you are basing your belief system on.

Excellent questions and post. From the beginning there was a liar...he was called the father of lies...he also said "Did God really say..." "thou wilt not surely die..."

he was God's detract-er from the beginning....and he continues to this day....

 

[Mallon]

The point of evolution is that there should be no need for a creator, since random occurances and survival of the fittest fill in his place.

Darwin attributed evolution to God. I don't know how you can say that the "point" of evolution is to deny Him. God, of course, is perfectly capable of acting via natural -- even seemingly random -- processes, including evolution.

 

[Mallon]

Here's my question if you believe that elohim exists and that everything he said happened in the bible subsequently happened up to and including the birth of Yehoshua through imaculate conception via Mary then how can you rule out another thing he implicetely states without throwing out your entire belief system.

Genesis is not wrong; it is simply not a literal account of historical events. It is a timeless message delivered in a timely vessel -- the science of the day. To insist otherwise is to deny the importance of spirituality and to promote scientism. It strikes me as odd that a Christian would downplay the spiritual importance of a story and instead focus so strongly on its material aspects. Why must something be literal to be true? That seems more like something Dawkins would say than a Christian.

 

[Aeyamar]

Jesus said "A man shall not live by bread alone but by every word of God"

This is not literall. Its obvious that a man can not follow every word of God all the time. Jesus is correct though.
<snip>

Genesis has to be literal but this statement from Jesus's own mouth does not?

 

[Hentenza]

Genesis is not wrong; it is simply not a literal account of historical events. It is a timeless message delivered in a timely vessel -- the science of the day. To insist otherwise is to deny the importance of spirituality and to promote scientism. It strikes me as odd that a Christian would downplay the spiritual importance of a story and instead focus so strongly on its material aspects.

Mmmm...help me out here a bit. You claim that if one takes the Genesis account literally then one is decreasing the importance of spirituality and promoting scientism? I don't think that syllogism follows. Maybe I'm missing something.

 

[Mallon]

Mmmm...help me out here a bit. You claim that if one takes the Genesis account literally then one is decreasing the importance of spirituality and promoting scientism? I don't think that syllogism follows. Maybe I'm missing something.

I edited my post to clarify what I mean. What I am saying is that, as a Christian, it is silly to insist that something must be literal to be true. That is scientism. If we subscribe to scientism, we would find no meaning in, say, Jesus' parables, or in the Genesis creation stories, I would argue.

 

[Hentenza]

I edited my post to clarify what I mean. What I am saying is that, as a Christian, it is silly to insist that something must be literal to be true. That is scientism. If we subscribe to scientism, we would find no meaning in, say, Jesus' parables, or in the Genesis creation stories, I would argue.

Ok thanks. That explains your position much better.

I believe that Genesis is an accurate account for creation simply because I believe that creation is one of God's coolest miracles.

 

[Mallon]

Ok thanks. That explains your position much better.

I believe that Genesis is an accurate account for creation simply because I believe that creation is one of God's coolest miracles.

I can respect that.

 

[crawfish]

Excellent questions and post. From the beginning there was a liar...he was called the father of lies...he also said "Did God really say..." "thou wilt not surely die..."

he was God's detract-er from the beginning....and he continues to this day....

Did God lie when He said "on that day thou shalt surely die" and then Adam & Eve did not die that day, but 900 years later?

Either a) God lied, or b) God meant something other than the strictly literal truth with that statement. What do you believe?