• 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.

Some questions for Christians who accept evolution

Status
Not open for further replies.

Colter

Member
Nov 9, 2004
8,711
1,407
61
✟100,301.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
From what I've read, I don't think your source makes any claims to be authoritative.
What exactly were Adam and Eve here to redeem, and didn't an all-knowing God know in advance they were going to fail so utterly?

That's a legitimate question which requires a lot of background consideration to adequately answer in a philosophical way. In short the time and space creations are experiencial worlds wherin the potential of imperfection is always present. We on our world just happened to have suffered a catastrophic failure. First our brilliant high celestial administrator fell into sin and in turn attempted to take his underlings with him. "there was war in heaven" an ideological war. It is a matter that is still under the all wise adjudication of our Creator Son Christ Michael aka Jesus, his subordinates and superiors in accordance with the will of the Universal Father.

But it's not accurate to say that our world is a complete failure, to the contrary, a great amount of experiencial good has come out of our loyalty to the Gods in the face of the lies of Lucifer and the temporary consequences of his sin.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,213
52,662
Guam
✟5,154,754.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
* Galations was Pauls response to churches that he had founded who were themselves moving away from his teaching towards the Mosaic Law.
We refer to Galations [sic] as our spiritual "Declaration of Independence."
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
That's a legitimate question which requires a lot of background consideration to adequately answer in a philosophical way. In short the time and space creations are experiencial worlds wherin the potential of imperfection is always present. We on our world just happened to have suffered a catastrophic failure. First our brilliant high celestial administrator fell into sin and in turn attempted to take his underlings with him. "there was war in heaven" an ideological war. It is a matter that is still under the all wise adjudication of our Creator Son Christ Michael aka Jesus, his subordinates and superiors in accordance with the will of the Universal Father.

Free Will in an important component of love.
I let my dogs off leash and they return to me
because they know I care for them.

Keeping them on-leash is safer, but not as satisfying.
The lesson is that Sin was not a mistake.
It is just the option that allows for free will.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Colter
Upvote 0

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,322
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,572.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
That's a legitimate question which requires a lot of background consideration to adequately answer in a philosophical way.

And a lot of doubeltalk to evade in an equivocating way.

In short the time and space creations are experiencial worlds wherin the potential of imperfection is always present.


As per God's design.

We on our world just happened to have suffered a catastrophic failure. First our brilliant high celestial administrator fell into sin and in turn attempted to take his underlings with him.

All of which God saw coming long before it happened.

"there was war in heaven" an ideological war. It is a matter that is still under the all wise adjudication of our Creator Son Christ Michael aka Jesus, his subordinates and superiors in accordance with the will of the Universal Father.

Seems to me that nothing happens unless the Universal Father wills it -- ultimately, even the "rebel" angels answer to a Higher Power.

But it's not accurate to say that our world is a complete failure,

I didn't say the world was a failure -- I said Adam and Eve's mission of redemption was a failure. The world seems to be doing just fine.

to the contrary, a great amount of experiencial good has come out of our loyalty to the Gods in the face of the lies of Lucifer and the temporary consequences of his sin.

...exactly as God planned all along.
 
Upvote 0

Colter

Member
Nov 9, 2004
8,711
1,407
61
✟100,301.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
And a lot of doubeltalk to evade in an equivocating way.




As per God's design.



All of which God saw coming long before it happened.



Seems to me that nothing happens unless the Universal Father wills it -- ultimately, even the "rebel" angels answer to a Higher Power.



I didn't say the world was a failure -- I said Adam and Eve's mission of redemption was a failure. The world seems to be doing just fine.



...exactly as God planned all along.

I took the time to answer your post, accusing me of evasion and doublespeak wasn't needed.

Allowing children to learn from mistakes dosnt imply a will for rebellion. In my theology there are trillions of other inhabited worlds under the jurisdiction of creator Sons that have not suffered default. We don't all have to learn everything the hard way.

As for the I AM, God is timeless.
 
Upvote 0

Not_By_Chance

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 25, 2015
813
176
71
✟84,806.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Genesis was written by the elite preist class for the child like mind of Bronze Age sheep hearders. It was meant to be literal, but obveously thinking people of today notice it has huge problems so some parabolic license is overlaid so one can maintain the appearance of Biblical faith while not beliving what it says. The parables of Jesus were obveously so.
I agree that it was meant to be literal, despite what some people say, but you need to insert the word "some" between "obveously [sic]" and "thinking." Creation scientists and people like me who trust their judgement have no trouble at all in reconciling the account of the creation of the universe in Genesis with what we see all around us in nature. It's only those who reject the findings of the creation scientists but still wish to believe the Bible who have any problems with the glaring incompatibilities of the two accounts of how things came to be, but often they won't admit it and instead, try to relegate Genesis to the status of myth, even trying to make it seem that Jesus was an evolutionist, when clearly He gave no such indication in what He said and actually strongly implied the opposite when He said, "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'" Mark 10:6, creation being the six days as stated in Genesis. Man was the culmination of God's creation and was made to have dominion over all other creatures right from the outset, not billions of years later via an evolved ape, "Gen 1:27 So God created human beings in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
Gen 1:28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground." Notice that man was the only one of God's creatures to be made in the "image of God" Man is a special creation, distinct from any other creature because only man has something special from God that no other creature has. Look around and you will see that this is so. The gulf between man and everything else is huge, almost unbelievably so. I don't care if the majority of scientists don't believe this - that's their choice. They will only find out if they were right when they die and face God's judgement. The fact that some scientists, including former scientists who used to believe/teach evolution have changed their minds is good enough for me.
 
Upvote 0

Not_By_Chance

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 25, 2015
813
176
71
✟84,806.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
oday's science is antibiblical and has an agenda to sterilize as much of the Bible as it can before the Antichrist shows up.
It's not just [the majority of] science that is antibiblical, but the media as well. I'm sick and tired of hearing about the supposed billions of years in nearly every aspect of what is shown on "the box" or in newspaper articles, etc. The funny thing is that despite this almost blanket coverage, there are still a huge amount of people around the world who don't accept the myth of evolution (almost half the population in the USA for instance). I sometimes think that God has deliberately done what he indicated in the Bible "For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." 1 Corinthians 1:19 and this "At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children." Matthew 11:25 and especially this, "always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth" 2 Timothy 3:7
 
  • Like
Reactions: AV1611VET
Upvote 0

Not_By_Chance

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 25, 2015
813
176
71
✟84,806.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Because there have been 6 creation events and 5 destruction's.

So you want me to believe that there "was a morning and an evening, the first day" - even if supposedly the sun and stars were not created till the fourth day? Misinterpret the original Hebrew to fit a pre-conceived dogmatic belief?

The earth was already flourishing with life prior to man. Life that has went extinct in several eras, after which all new forms of life arose. It's that gap game back again. Then the last catastrophe struck.

In the oldest manuscripts there is a mark of a pause between the first and second verse. It may be as science tells us, that this globe existed millions of years ago; that it has been the habitation of numerous and varied races of animated beings; and that it has undergone many great destructions and creations before it was brought into its present state: none of these views are in the least discordant with the statement of the inspired historian, that “in beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”

In twenty places in this chapter the verb “was” is used as the equivalent to “became”. The true meaning of the Hebrew word "hayah".

The Earth "became" desolate and waste, (tohu wa bohu - used nowhere else together in the Bible except this verse and two other places, and always when used elsewhere point to a once flourishing condition that was then laid waste - Gen 1:2; Isa. 34:11; Jer. 4:23) and darkness overspread the Earth. At this time (man) did not exist prior, nor any of the current animals found with skeletons of modern man, except in a few rare cases as in one or two classes of reptiles and fish that survived this worldwide cataclysm, and the untold number before, told of before science had ever thought of such a thing as possible.

Comet, meteor? Who knows? It is quite accurate when interpreted properly. After unknown periods of time another act of creation occurred, this time with a notable exception, one worth bothering to describe in more detail, unlike any others that may have occurred previously. But then a new creation happened, the waters were separated from the waters (evaporation). "Let there be light...divided the light from the darkness". In Hebrew literally: " divided between the light and between darkness." Where all had previously been darkness due to the destruction, the addition of heat began separating the clouds. The events in the entire chapter are described as if one's viewpoint is from the earth.

It must be noted that the word 'ohr is not the same word used in verse 14 signifying "lights," or "luminaries," ma-'ohr; rather, it signifies "heat." the effect, which immediately followed is described in the name Day, which in Hebrew signifies "warmth."

So heat began penetrating into the depths after God acted, separating the clouds, letting light into the depths, the clouds had been so low as to contact the Earth itself. But heat allowed evaporation and the waters above were separated from the waters below and dry land appeared.

The next is just a twisted version by evolutionists. The creatures in the waters formed first, in Hebrew discourses this includes all microbial and plant life in the seas. Then reptiles and crawling things and finally birds of the air. Then mammals and man. This is where evolution theory got their idea of the order from, the Bible told them long ago. They knew the truth and so modeled their theory upon this same basis. But again, the lack of transitory species makes their interpretation of the events in the Bible suspect. If evolution is indeed correct, where are the transitory species today? Did it only occur in the past? Instead all we see is "Kind after Kind" and different "breeds" or "strains" or "species" within those Kinds. Lines which are "never" crossed. Lines which never become so different we can't recognize they are all of the same Kind. All Felidae are Felidae. All Canidae are Canidae. All Caprinae are Caprinae.

We know of no other thing, even down to the genetic level, which thanks to technological advancements, is showing that tree is nothing but individual distinct bushes, with sideways variation. I.e., different "breeds, or strains, or species, or subspecies, etc.", within that kind - or bush. Never once indicating a transitional form to another "kind". Even after billions of generations and billions of mutations, all E. coli are still E. coli, and always will be. All Felidae, no matter how many times we breed them or even mutate them in the lab, will always be Felidae.

Every past form of life sprang from nowhere, lived for a time, different breeds of that kind prospering, then went extinct due to cataclysmic actions. In its place all new life once again sprang up, to again repeat the cycle. The Bible just affirms this, when it told you of the earth becoming desolate and waste, and the darkness that became upon it, encompassing it around. Hence the dinosaurs died out. It then described the "sixth" such event, when man himself was created.

There have been 5 - count them, 5 major extinction events. Mankind and the animals with him were created "after" this 5th extinction event, the 6th creative act. Soon to be a sixth destruction and a seventh and final creation - in which new forms of life will be created as well - such as a lion that eats straw.
Well, I'm glad you seem to reject the myth of evolution, but I think you are trying to add things to Genesis that a straightforward reading doesn't provide. Personally, I think it's safer to expand your notion that much of evolutionary science is suspect to also include their claims about the origin of the universe. They can't prove that their theories about the origin of the universe via a so-called big bang and billions of years is true, just as we can't prove that God exists. But, given the choice between and unknown miracle maker as proposed by the evolutionists and the God revealed to us in Genesis and the rest of the Bible, I prefer to believe the former. After all, what does their faith have to offer? - total oblivion and an eventual heat death of the universe. No wonder young people are becoming so depressed when all they are told constantly is that they are highly-evolved apes that originated from pond scum and that their lives are ultimately meaningless.
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
What exactly were Adam and Eve here to redeem, and didn't an all-knowing God know in advance they were going to fail so utterly?

Would you prefer He had made robots, instead of given free will?

Absolutely nothing. It is their knowledge of evil that makes a need for redemption. At first they were given only the knowledge of good. It is knowledge (mind) into the image we were made. When we gained the knowledge of evil through trickery - which we were not meant to have - but still given the choice - knowledge we could not handle without Him - as angels could not either. It is that knowledge that gives rise to the statement: "they have become like one of us, knowing both good and evil." Before we only knew good.

Therefore mind, thought, is the image we were made into - He is not a physical thing at all.
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Well, I'm glad you seem to reject the myth of evolution, but I think you are trying to add things to Genesis that a straightforward reading doesn't provide. Personally, I think it's safer to expand your notion that much of evolutionary science is suspect to also include their claims about the origin of the universe. They can't prove that their theories about the origin of the universe via a so-called big bang and billions of years is true, just as we can't prove that God exists. But, given the choice between and unknown miracle maker as proposed by the evolutionists and the God revealed to us in Genesis and the rest of the Bible, I prefer to believe the former. After all, what does their faith have to offer? - total oblivion and an eventual heat death of the universe. No wonder young people are becoming so depressed when all they are told constantly is that they are highly-evolved apes that originated from pond scum and that their lives are ultimately meaningless.

A straightforward reading? So the evening was and the morning was, a first day, before the stars and moon and sun were created on the fourth day? How do evenings and mornings come about if they are not first in place?

Why not accept the works of God for what they are? Six separate acts of creation, declaring His glory? Man is not found with the dinosaurs. Clearly they were gone long before man was on the scene. Sure, one or two might have survived that catastrophe for a brief time - just as one or two in each class survived the previous destruction's.

Why interpret "hayah" as anything other than what it means, unless like evolutionists we prefer to keep pre-concieved beliefs? The Bible is good for all times and eras, if interpreted as intended and correctly in harmony with the Works of God and vice versa.

Except it was a priest who proposed that Big Bang - even if I personally think he was wrong too - there is no determining how old the universe is. Don't think that because atheist's have taken over the theory and tried to wipe out God from the equation - that it therefore means God doesn't exist. They just try not to make it too public is all who really developed the idea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître

"was a Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven. He proposed (independently of Russian physicist Alexander Friedman) the theory of the expansion of the universe, widely misattributed to Edwin Hubble. He was the first to derive what is now known as Hubble's law and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant, which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble's article. Lemaître also proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, which he called his "hypothesis of the primeval atom" or the "Cosmic Egg".

It was his personal way of reconciling the universe to that hidden and unseen God - pure mind - knowledge.

http://www.amnh.org/education/resources/rfl/web/essaybooks/cosmic/p_lemaitre.html

"“As far as I can see, such a theory remains entirely outside any metaphysical or religious question. It leaves the materialist free to deny any transcendental Being… For the believer, it removes any attempt at familiarity with God… It is consonant with Isaiah speaking of the hidden God, hidden even in the beginning of the universe.” "

If God can make one creation, do you not think He could do it more than once? Are not 6 separate creations declaring His glory more than one? Don't get me wrong, mankind IS a recent creation - along with most of the animals that were created when he was. But we find skeletons of all of those animals with man. We find no skeletons of man with any of the previous 5 acts of creation. So why should I pretend the words say any differently than the works - or vice versa?
 
Upvote 0

Not_By_Chance

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 25, 2015
813
176
71
✟84,806.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Actually when His mother asked Him about the wine Jesus response was "what do I have to do with thee". Sounds kinda disrespectful to me but there must be some sort of meaning in there. That was when He turned the water into wine. That I understand because we know water baptism is not enough to cleanse us. It takes the Blood of Jesus to give us eternal life.
Hi Joshua. I think there's probably a lot more background to the quote you provided than we might realise. Here are some notes from my Bible commentaries that you might find useful:-

"This term, as used here, seems to imply reproof, as if she was interfering in that which did not properly concern her; but it is evident that no such reproof or disrespect was intended by the use of the term “woman” instead of “mother.” It is the same term by which he tenderly addressed Mary Magdalene after his resurrection."
"It is possible that it was a mild reproof of Mary for attempting to control or direct him in his power of working miracles. Most of the ancients supposed this to be the intention of Jesus. The words sound to us harsh, but they might have been spoken in a tender manner, and not have been intended as a reproof. It is clear that he did not intend to refuse to provide wine, but only to delay it a little; and the design was, therefore, to compose the anxiety of Mary, and to prevent her being solicitous about it. It may, then, be thus expressed: “My mother, be not anxious. To you and to me this should not be a matter of solicitude. The proper time of my interfering has not yet come. When that is come I will furnish a supply, and in the meantime neither you nor I should be solicitous.” Thus understood, it is so far from being a “harsh reproof,” that it was a mild exhortation for her to dismiss her fears and to put proper trust in him."

Another commentary goes into this in greater depth, "Now this was intended to be, First, A check to his mother for interposing in a matter which was the act of his Godhead, which had no dependence on her, and which she was not the mother of. Though, as man, he was David's Son and hers; yet, as God, he was David's Lord and hers, and he would have her know it. The greatest advancements must not make us forget ourselves and our place, nor the familiarity to which the covenant of grace admits us breed contempt. irreverence, or any kind or degree of presumption. Secondly, It was an instruction to others of his relations (many of whom were present here) that they must never expect him to have any regard to his kindred according to the flesh, in his working miracles, or that therein he should gratify them, who in this matter were no more to him than other people. In the things of God we must not know faces. Thirdly, It is a standing testimony against that idolatry which he foresaw his church would in after-ages sink into, in giving undue honours to the virgin Mary, a crime which the Roman catholics, as they call themselves, are notoriously guilty of, when they call her the queen of heaven, the salvation of the world, their mediatrix, their life and hope; not only depending upon her merit and intercession, but beseeching her to command her Son to do them good: Monstra te esse matrem - Show that thou art his mother. Jussu matris impera salvatori - Lay thy maternal commands on the Saviour. Does he not here expressly say, when a miracle was to be wrought, even in the days of his humiliation, and his mother did but tacitly hint an intercession, Woman, what have I to do with thee? This was plainly designed either to prevent or aggravate such gross idolatry, such horrid blasphemy. The Son of God is appointed our Advocate with the Father; but the mother of our Lord was never designed to be our advocate with the Son."
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,213
52,662
Guam
✟5,154,754.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
It's not just [the majority of] science that is antibiblical, but the media as well. I'm sick and tired of hearing about the supposed billions of years in nearly every aspect of what is shown on "the box" or in newspaper articles, etc. The funny thing is that despite this almost blanket coverage, there are still a huge amount of people around the world who don't accept the myth of evolution (almost half the population in the USA for instance). I sometimes think that God has deliberately done what he indicated in the Bible "For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." 1 Corinthians 1:19 and this "At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children." Matthew 11:25 and especially this, "always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth" 2 Timothy 3:7
Yup.
 
Upvote 0

Not_By_Chance

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 25, 2015
813
176
71
✟84,806.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
If God can make one creation, do you not think He could do it more than once?
God could do anything He wishes, including using evolution, but it's not about what He could have done, but what He told us He did do.
So the evening was and the morning was, a first day, before the stars and moon and sun were created on the fourth day? How do evenings and mornings come about if they are not first in place?
It's only our experience of seeing that sun rise that we equate those events with being the start/end of a day and even then they aren't really the start and end are they? Otherwise, the length of a day/night at the poles would be six months! Even at middle latitudes, the day doesn't begin at dawn and end at dusk as we loosely refer to it. I think we can be confident that God, who had just created time/space and matter Himself (in keeping with what Einstein later discovered), was referring to a normal 24-hour day. The light before the sun was formed may have been coming from God Himself (see Revelation for a description of the brilliant light of Christ).
Man is not found with the dinosaurs. Clearly they were gone long before man was on the scene.
No they weren't - God created all the land animals on day 6, so that must have included the dinosaurs. Remember, the word "dinosaur" is a recently invention. There is evidence that dinosaurs could have lived alongside man and the Bible describes a huge animal that may have been what we would call a dinosaur today, "
Job 40:15 "Look at the behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox.
Job 40:16 What strength it has in its loins, what power in the muscles of its belly!
Job 40:17 Its tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of its thighs are close-knit.
Job 40:18 Its bones are tubes of bronze, its limbs like rods of iron."
Except it was a priest who proposed that Big Bang
That just goes to show that we can't necessarily rely on the priesthood to convey the truth or stand up for God's word. I have video by one scientist who used to teach evolution, but has since decided that the evidence supports recent creation instead. In the video, he says that he was eventually challenged by the Bible department at the Christian university where he was teaching, to debate his creationist ideas and he was warned that since there were three of them, he'd better get some help. He continues, that it ended up with him (biology dept), a colleague from the chemistry department and another from the physics department defending creation and the Bible department defending evolution!
 
Upvote 0

Not_By_Chance

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 25, 2015
813
176
71
✟84,806.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
That's a legitimate question which requires a lot of background consideration to adequately answer in a philosophical way. In short the time and space creations are experiencial worlds wherin the potential of imperfection is always present. We on our world just happened to have suffered a catastrophic failure. First our brilliant high celestial administrator fell into sin and in turn attempted to take his underlings with him. "there was war in heaven" an ideological war. It is a matter that is still under the all wise adjudication of our Creator Son Christ Michael aka Jesus, his subordinates and superiors in accordance with the will of the Universal Father.

But it's not accurate to say that our world is a complete failure, to the contrary, a great amount of experiencial good has come out of our loyalty to the Gods in the face of the lies of Lucifer and the temporary consequences of his sin.
I was trying to find the quote about Adam and Eve that you quoted, but I couldn't find it. I just wanted to say that Adam and Eve weren't supposed to redeem anything as far as I am aware. Or have I missed something important?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.