Why do Christians equate literalness with belief, and ~literalness with ~belief?
Drives me nuts.
Drives me nuts.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Why do Christians hate the theory of evolution?
- Thread starter nt11
- Start date
Alithis
Disciple of Jesus .
- Nov 11, 2010
- 15,750
- 2,180
- Country
- New Zealand
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
should I put out an rcc ambiguity warning alert ?
God either means what he says ..
or .. he is not God .
I certainly shall not place the reasoning of man above the word God has spoken Forth .
Upvote
0
Thousands of years ago the science said the earth was the center of the universe and the sun revolved around the earth a long with everything else. Every one new that. Science has been proven wrong in its theories. The Word of God has never been proven wrong.
I get TE the worship of men and or more specifically the ideas of men. The probably comes with mixing it with God. That seems luke warm to me at best.
I would also like to point out all kinds of stuff has been said about me in this thread but when I ask a TE and honest question they quote one part of what I said and then attack me, and never address the question. They can in no way explain their position, but those of of arguing against TE have explain we take God at His word, and it is a matter of faith in God. So we explain our positions but TE won't do the same why not if your so right?
I get TE the worship of men and or more specifically the ideas of men. The probably comes with mixing it with God. That seems luke warm to me at best.
I would also like to point out all kinds of stuff has been said about me in this thread but when I ask a TE and honest question they quote one part of what I said and then attack me, and never address the question. They can in no way explain their position, but those of of arguing against TE have explain we take God at His word, and it is a matter of faith in God. So we explain our positions but TE won't do the same why not if your so right?
Upvote
0
C
cardoctor
Guest
I think what Sayer was trying to get across, and i agree, is that believing in an allegorical interpretation of the genesis account is not the same as a lack of faith in God's word.
It is, as much as you may be convinced of one side or the other, valid to arguable for both an allegorical and a literal interpretation of the the Genesis account. A man arguing either side does not have more faith in God's word, or have a stronger walk with God or have a more secure notion of the infallibility of scripture than any other man.
It is, as much as you may be convinced of one side or the other, valid to arguable for both an allegorical and a literal interpretation of the the Genesis account. A man arguing either side does not have more faith in God's word, or have a stronger walk with God or have a more secure notion of the infallibility of scripture than any other man.
Upvote
0
This has got nothing to do with me being RCC.
I agree that God means what HE says. I just disagree that what He says it always literal - often it is a mystery.
Right
Jesus spoke in parables. He meant what He said - but He wasn't always literal.
Upvote
0
This has got nothing to do with me being RCC.
I agree that God means what HE says. I just disagree that what He says it always literal - often it is a mystery.
Right
Jesus spoke in parables. He meant what He said - but He wasn't always literal.
Ok so you admit you don't understand Gods word, as you said it is a mystery many times, well not to me and not to others. All you had to say in the first place was you don't understand.
Upvote
0
Metal Minister
New Year, Still Old School!
This has got nothing to do with me being RCC.
I agree that God means what HE says. I just disagree that what He says it always literal - often it is a mystery.
Right
Jesus spoke in parables. He meant what He said - but He wasn't always literal.
But He referred to Genesis as literal. He mentions the creation of male and female (Adam and Eve) and Noah.
Upvote
0
Please be honest.
Jesus never said "Adam and Eve are literal".
Jesus quoted Genesis making reference to A&E. The difference is important.
When I quote the Boy who Cried Wolf - I'm not implying he is literal. Please confirm you understand the difference. I elaborated this in my post earlier which has gone unaddressed.
Upvote
0
AmericanChristian91
Regular Member
- May 24, 2007
- 1,068
- 205
- 34
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Agreed, I don't know why some Christians believe that Jesus must believe everything in Genesis happened exactly the way it did just because he made references to it.
To copy and paste a quote from myself from another topic when it comes to this situation,
"Yes Jesus made references to Genesis to make some point, but that does not mean that the Genesis then HAS to be historically correct.
Understand it this way......
I could say this......
"The Road to revenge is a dark path that would ultimately lead to your doom, as what happened to Ahab when he chased the white whale and eventually fell upon its body. So remember, do not end up like the madman Ahab, forgive your enemies and walk away from conflict that could harm you."
Now I am referencing a story and character, that are not historically accurate (its a work of fiction).
Though when I was using said references to make a point, I remained neutral on whether or not this story was historical truth.
Now if you had the opinion that "Moby Dick" was a history book, then you may have the idea that my references to "Moby Dick", and the fact that I did not say, "By the way Ahab and the White Whale are not real characters", come to the conclusion that my references prove (and that I believed) that everything written down in "Moby Dick" happened.
So all im trying to say is that there is more then just one interpretation (Jesus references Genesis, specifically Adam and Eve and the Flood, well that means it HAS to be historical truth) to the references that Jesus said."
To copy and paste a quote from myself from another topic when it comes to this situation,
"Yes Jesus made references to Genesis to make some point, but that does not mean that the Genesis then HAS to be historically correct.
Understand it this way......
I could say this......
"The Road to revenge is a dark path that would ultimately lead to your doom, as what happened to Ahab when he chased the white whale and eventually fell upon its body. So remember, do not end up like the madman Ahab, forgive your enemies and walk away from conflict that could harm you."
Now I am referencing a story and character, that are not historically accurate (its a work of fiction).
Though when I was using said references to make a point, I remained neutral on whether or not this story was historical truth.
Now if you had the opinion that "Moby Dick" was a history book, then you may have the idea that my references to "Moby Dick", and the fact that I did not say, "By the way Ahab and the White Whale are not real characters", come to the conclusion that my references prove (and that I believed) that everything written down in "Moby Dick" happened.
So all im trying to say is that there is more then just one interpretation (Jesus references Genesis, specifically Adam and Eve and the Flood, well that means it HAS to be historical truth) to the references that Jesus said."
Upvote
0
Speaking into existence is a very open description! Therefore there is no problem believing in any way in which it happened. Which is why it is perfectly acceptable to go with the scientific consensus.
Again, there is substantial evidence for evolution. Not just because it survived to today, but because it is essential to biology. Theodosius Dobzhansky, a famous russian orthodox christian biologist even wrote an essay called "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution".
Some evidence for evolution:
- The fossil record shows species changing over time.
- Fossils of animals get more primitive as you go deeper into the ground (ie further back in time).
- Animals who are closely related in the evolutionary tree have similar body plans, and converge back in time with their common ancestor.
- Animals have "vestiges" ie organs/body parts that are of no use today, but their function can be traced back in their evolutionary past. (why do humans have tailbones?)
- Evolution is always happening. Though it takes many generations to be apparent. In animals that go through many generations quickly (like bacteria) evolution can be observed (which is why there is a new flu shot every year).
There's tons of more evidence if those arent convincing enough
That is the interesting point. Christians reconcile this in different ways. One way......the bible doesnt explicitly state the kind of death that came into the world at that point. Animal/plant death has existed since the beginning. If you believe Adam was eating fruit in the garden, of course there is millions of things dying when he puts that tangerine in his mouth and digests. And carnivores exist, who have carnivore teeth and carnivore claws and a carnivore appetite. Death has always happened. The kind of death that Eve brought about was the spiritual death (separation with God).
Again, this is not the only explanation that christians who believe in evolution have for death, but it is one.
Have you considered adaptation?
Have you considered adaptation due to environmental change?
Have you considered the effect of a source of natural radiation causing mutation?
Can you show me a cross section of earth any where in the world,that supports old earth creation by the sedimentary layers being in synchronized order with the theory of age?
On carbon dating has anyone considered the variable caused by elemental decay?
Can any one explain the mass grave of bones of dinosaurs that were supposed to be millions
Of years apart all in a single layer of earth?
Have faith in God
Upvote
0
JGiddings
A work in progress.
oh i see you have judged me. i asked an honest question you have no reason to be up set with that. Oh your TE right? now I get it. TE verse the blue lion
Seems a bit hypocritical you were not in my conversation either and they were not address to you yet you are offended by them. I really don't care if I offend TE, The whole thread was meant to start something in the first place by placing it in the Baptist section and a title like Why do baptist hate evolution.
I am not blind either and I see what people intentions are, now your complaining because it is heated what did you expect putting it here.
Not only that the OP open with
I know in current versions, the Bible says He took dirt from the earth and molded man, but according to the literal hebrew translation, he simply "fattened" man, which I see as some sort of "process." In my opinion, the Bible actually supports a God-driven evolution more than it does creationism. After all, why couldn't God have evolved man himself? If He created evolution, who are we to deny it? Here is the literal translation of the Hebrew text so you can read that God "fattened" mankind, and did not make him from clay (on page 21):
which is a complete lie and when I addressed it the Op left. His intention was to cause trouble in this section that is why he did not stay to debate and look it brought all the TE to discuss TE is a section that does not agree with it. Seems a bit self righteous of you to judge me as the trouble maker in the thread.
Yeah I judged.
Upvote
0
JGiddings
A work in progress.
Agreed. I just don't get why some people deny DNA similarities.
This doesn't prove human evolution, but it is a wonder of God's creation.
Extraordinary images that show just how similar we are to our closest living relative ¿ the bonobo | Mail Online
Upvote
0
JGiddings
A work in progress.
I see people are addressing that we are created in the image of God.
I really liked this article addressing this issue, and how it's become covoluted by some Christians.
The entire article can be found here: Made in the image of God - creation.com
In the Image of God
When God created man in His own image,7 He purposed that mankind (both man and woman) would resemble God in certain ways, and share certain of the divine prerogatives. Concerning this we note:
1. It was not a physical likeness, but...
Although God is spirit (John 4:24) and does not have a body like a man, when He appeared visibly to men according to the Old Testament record, He did so in the form of a human body (e.g. Genesis 18:1-2; 32:24, 28,30).8 Dr Henry Morris writes: 'There is something about the human body therefore, which is uniquely appropriate to God's manifestation of Himself, and(since God knows all His works from the beginning of the worldActs 15:18), He must have designed man's body with this in mind. Accordingly He designed it, not like the animals, but with an erect posture, with an upward gazing countenance, capable of facial expressions corresponding with emotional feelings, and with a brain and tongue capable of articulate, symbolic speech.'9,10
Furthermore, the human body was the form in which God the Son would be incarnated or 'made in the likeness of men' (Philippians 2:7). Thus God made man in that bodily form which He Himself would one day assumethe form in which He wished to reveal Himself.
2. It was a mental likeness.
God endowed man with intellectual ability which was and is far superior to that of any animal. Thus man was given a mind capable of hearing and understanding God's communication with him, emotions capable of responding to God in love and devotion, and a will which enabled him to choose whether or not to obey God. Man was thus equipped, not only to 'love God and obey Him for ever', but also to do God's work on earthto be His regent and govern the creation in co-operation with his Creator.
This is seen in God's command to Adam and Eve11 that they exercise dominion over the earth and its animals (Genesis 1:26,28), in Adam's task of cultivating the garden (Genesis 2:15), and in the statement that Adam gave names to certain of the animals on the earth (Genesis 2:19-20).12
Man's intellectual gifts are further seen in his ability to design things and then make them, to appreciate beauty, to compose glorious music, to paint pictures, to write, to count to large numbers and do mathematics, to control and use energy for his own benefit (e.g. fire, electricity, nuclear power), to organize, to reason, to make decisions, to be self-conscious, to laugh at himself, and to think abstractly. All this behaviour is non-instinctive, as distinct from animal behaviour, and as such it is of unlimited variety.
3. It was a moral likeness.
Man only, of all God's creatures, has a spirit or God-consciousness, that is, a capacity for knowing God and holding spiritual communion with Him through prayer, praise, and worship. Since the Fall (Genesis chapter 3), man has had inborn moral awareness of good and evil, or conscience, which he perceives in his spirit.13
Man was made not only negatively innocent (that is, without sin), but positively holy, otherwise Adam could not have had communion with God, who cannot look upon iniquity (Habakkuk 1:13). This is further confirmed by Genesis 1:31, when God affirms that everthing He had made (including man) was 'very good', which would not have been true if man had been morally imperfect.
4. It was a social likeness.14
God's social nature and intrinsic love is seen in the doctrine of the Trinity. Godwho is lovecreated man with a social nature and a need for love. The statement in Genesis 3:8 that 'they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day' suggests that Adam and Eve enjoyed fellowship and communion with God, perhaps on a daily basis.
God also provided for human fellowship and love in a very special and intimate way. Before He created Eve He said, 'It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him' (Genesis 2:18). He then made Eve out of a bone taken from Adam (Genesis 2:21-24), a fact which Jesus used in His debate with the Pharisees to uphold the sanctity of marriage and the intimacy of love within the marriage relationship (Matthew 19:4-6; Mark 10:6-8).15
I really liked this article addressing this issue, and how it's become covoluted by some Christians.
The entire article can be found here: Made in the image of God - creation.com
In the Image of God
When God created man in His own image,7 He purposed that mankind (both man and woman) would resemble God in certain ways, and share certain of the divine prerogatives. Concerning this we note:
1. It was not a physical likeness, but...
Although God is spirit (John 4:24) and does not have a body like a man, when He appeared visibly to men according to the Old Testament record, He did so in the form of a human body (e.g. Genesis 18:1-2; 32:24, 28,30).8 Dr Henry Morris writes: 'There is something about the human body therefore, which is uniquely appropriate to God's manifestation of Himself, and(since God knows all His works from the beginning of the worldActs 15:18), He must have designed man's body with this in mind. Accordingly He designed it, not like the animals, but with an erect posture, with an upward gazing countenance, capable of facial expressions corresponding with emotional feelings, and with a brain and tongue capable of articulate, symbolic speech.'9,10
Furthermore, the human body was the form in which God the Son would be incarnated or 'made in the likeness of men' (Philippians 2:7). Thus God made man in that bodily form which He Himself would one day assumethe form in which He wished to reveal Himself.
2. It was a mental likeness.
God endowed man with intellectual ability which was and is far superior to that of any animal. Thus man was given a mind capable of hearing and understanding God's communication with him, emotions capable of responding to God in love and devotion, and a will which enabled him to choose whether or not to obey God. Man was thus equipped, not only to 'love God and obey Him for ever', but also to do God's work on earthto be His regent and govern the creation in co-operation with his Creator.
This is seen in God's command to Adam and Eve11 that they exercise dominion over the earth and its animals (Genesis 1:26,28), in Adam's task of cultivating the garden (Genesis 2:15), and in the statement that Adam gave names to certain of the animals on the earth (Genesis 2:19-20).12
Man's intellectual gifts are further seen in his ability to design things and then make them, to appreciate beauty, to compose glorious music, to paint pictures, to write, to count to large numbers and do mathematics, to control and use energy for his own benefit (e.g. fire, electricity, nuclear power), to organize, to reason, to make decisions, to be self-conscious, to laugh at himself, and to think abstractly. All this behaviour is non-instinctive, as distinct from animal behaviour, and as such it is of unlimited variety.
3. It was a moral likeness.
Man only, of all God's creatures, has a spirit or God-consciousness, that is, a capacity for knowing God and holding spiritual communion with Him through prayer, praise, and worship. Since the Fall (Genesis chapter 3), man has had inborn moral awareness of good and evil, or conscience, which he perceives in his spirit.13
Man was made not only negatively innocent (that is, without sin), but positively holy, otherwise Adam could not have had communion with God, who cannot look upon iniquity (Habakkuk 1:13). This is further confirmed by Genesis 1:31, when God affirms that everthing He had made (including man) was 'very good', which would not have been true if man had been morally imperfect.
4. It was a social likeness.14
God's social nature and intrinsic love is seen in the doctrine of the Trinity. Godwho is lovecreated man with a social nature and a need for love. The statement in Genesis 3:8 that 'they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day' suggests that Adam and Eve enjoyed fellowship and communion with God, perhaps on a daily basis.
God also provided for human fellowship and love in a very special and intimate way. Before He created Eve He said, 'It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him' (Genesis 2:18). He then made Eve out of a bone taken from Adam (Genesis 2:21-24), a fact which Jesus used in His debate with the Pharisees to uphold the sanctity of marriage and the intimacy of love within the marriage relationship (Matthew 19:4-6; Mark 10:6-8).15
Upvote
0
Yes, I have. Have you? If so, you believe in evolution, because adaptation changes organisms' traits over time, which is what evolution is.
Yes, I have. Have you? If so, please see above response!
99.99% of the earth's crust will show you this!
Not sure what you're asking here...carbon dating uses the decay of carbon. So...yes?
Please reference me to where you read this story.
Oh, but I do! I assure you, my belief in science does not even quiver my faith in God.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
