Christianity... and the fact of evolution

[smithed64]

[Note: this response is kind of going out to everyone, not just Paul]

Right. I agree. And maybe we should be asking in this particular thread as to what makes for correct hermeneutical/exegetical procedure. In what ways do the writers of the Bible give us an absolute, infallible, and comprehensive way to interpret all of the things they write?

[And I'll just beat everyone to the punch: the writers of the Bible don't give us very many interpretive principles that enable us to be absolutely certain, clear, infallible, and/or comprehensively systematic in our reading and understanding of the Bible. Thus, some room can be made for Christians who also believe that the Theory of Evolution is scientifically evident and true, along with their acceptance of the general historical testimony of the Bible.]

2PhiloVoid

So these "Christians" can just interpret the bible anyway they want?

Hmmm. Then do they interpret that When God said He did it....that God is a liar?

Well, then that would go against what the Word says about liars. That liars have a father...his name is Satan because He is the father of all liars. Well God doesn't have a father. So you see where interpreting the bible the way you want to can lead to some really messed up thinking and false beliefs?

And your right the writers of the Bible didn't give us a way to interpret what they wrote.

God did.

Thru Hermeneutical study and exegetical preaching and study.
The journalistic view helps...
Who.....was it wrote to
What....is the subject at hand
When....was it written
Where...was it sent and from who
Why....Why was it written

you take all that, with prayer asking God to lead and guide you, so that you may gain understanding of Him and His commandments and He will.

Show you the principle of what you are reading at that time. You can't take something that was meant for that time and apply it to now. But you can take the principle subject of was is being talked about to this time.

Then there are those scriptures that don't need any heavy study. That are true no matter how you look at them.

1. No other Gods
2. No graven images
3. Don't take God's name in van
4. Remember the Sabbath
5. Honor your mother and father
6. Thou shalt not kill
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery
8. Thou shalt not steal
9. Thou shalt not lie
10. Thou shalt not covet.

These are pretty simple. But hard to keep. Have you broken any? If you have, then you've broke them all. And that is called sin. (transgressing God's law)

So, remember. God inspired His word to men to whom he used as instrument to place His word to paper, So that we may know some of his thoughts and How we should live, act, believe and be.

You, me or anyone else. Cannot change these...even though many pick and choose what they want to believe...but that my friend is dangerous and costly.

 

[smithed64]

If empirical evidence can't be wrong, how did we get our moon?

And why did Thalidomide do nothing to newborn mice, but disfigured humans?

Don't know, and nor does the scientist who performed the testing. They just know Several studies have now shown that the mechanism of action for thalidomide involves binding to the protein cereblon, a ubiquitin ligase substrate adapter protein which is important in limb formation and the proliferative capacity of myeloma cells.

Not empirical evidence of anything except that Thalidomide isn't good for early term pregnancies.

Didn't Haeckel show empirical evidence that we start out in the womb with gills?

Yep and He was proven a shyster and It was all a hoax.

Lacking the evidence, Haeckel set out to manufacture the data. He fraudulently changed drawings made by other scientists of human and dog embryos, to increase the resemblance between them and to hide the dissimilarities.
Haeckel’s German peers (notably, in 1874, Wilhelm His Sr, professor of anatomy at the University of Leipzig) were aware of this fraud and extracted a modest confession from him, in which he blamed the draughtsman for blundering—without acknowledging that he himself was the draughtsman!

 

[Indent]

What attitudes are you speaking about?



The only thing factual about evolution is micro-evolution. This we can agree. Macro-evolution on the other hand, please identify the evidence that shows it to be factual.



Your correct. The so called consensus...which doesn't exist across the board with scientist. Paleontologist can't agree if Dinosaurs died out from mass destruction or evolved into birds. They can't agree if "X" came from a body of water or a primordial ooze. They are also not completely sure what happened to the transitional fossils that should be there, which aren't, but they aren't sure, but will find them one day. Yeah, there is a consensus of confusion, uncertainty, and contradiction. They still can't show concrete observable evidence of evolution...which is part of the definition of science in the first place



read above.



It may be dominant in school, but not in our homes. Our children may be indoctrinated and plied with this hoax at our educational facilities. But it's up to the parents ultimately to teach their children the truth. So it's not as dominant as you think.



I go back to the they aren't sure part here. As typed above.



Okay, how do you know we evolved? Do you have some observable evidence the mankind has evolved? Were you there to see what the first man looked like, acted like, lived like? Please enlighten me?



Go ahead, people do it all the time. They have been doing that since Christ time. And He's still around. All those who have tried to destroy, end, obliterate, remove, and end Christianity aren't here anymore. But He is.

You see. We were told thousand of years ago. That people would hate us, because we want to be more like Christ. Because people hated Him.
The problem isn't what you believe. The problem is what you believe to be true?

You believe in evolution, you have faith in scientist and science itself to show you that it is true...(which really hasn't done yet)...you have faith in your pastor's of evolution, Darwin, Gould, and many other professors and scientist around the world. You believe in something, of which you have not ever observed personally.

You see I believe in God and His Word. I have faith in Christ and Know that His word is true...(which has been repeatedly shown to be)...I have faith in God and those He puts before me to teach, exhort, reproof and guide me..pastors, teachers and evangelist. I believe in Someone in whom I've never seen, but have a personal relationship with. And you call me a Religious Fanatic, Fundamentalist, Fundy, and Bible thumper.

Hey, did you notice the comparison?

The belief in Evolution has at the least the same type of belief system as mine...except for God of course. And unsubstantiated information......Sounds like a religion...yep...it's a religion.

God is the uncaused causer, the unmoved mover he created it by His word alone and he made it all very good and perfect. He don't need any help. We do.

[/QUOTE]



I'm familiar with the evangelical rhetoric. It's thoroughly unconvincing.

Evolution is not a religion or philosophy (I acknowledge that some base a worldview out of it), but an attempt by an grossly uninformed Christian to demote scientific fact/theory.

We disagree on what it means to be "His Word", and therefore how on can approach an understanding of the Biblical texts. Pastors, teachers and evangelists are often not scientists and not experts on biological evolution (perhaps some are). Furthermore, there is no shortage of pastors, teachers and evangelists that accept evolution.

You have a personal relationship with God, so do billions of other people. Yet it remains that there are diverse and divergent views in Christianity.

You brand of Christianity isn't the best version/iteration of the faith, but essentially all the 41, 000 estimate denominations make the claim. Funny how that works?

 

[throughfiierytrial]

Already have

And let's play around a bit with how conscience disproves the idea of evolution...and the conscience so impressed Einstein...whom I only quote since he impresses so many...Einstein said the existence of conscience points to a God and we must seek Him.

But examine it along side the principles of evolution (evilution, that is). Darwin said that evolution was driven by natural selection and natural selection says "survival of the fittest". Yet, conscience runs contrary to that idea...so how could conscience possibly have evolved?

Survival of the fittest means to prey on the weak. Yet humans and many animals feed and care for their young. Humans know that killing another being is wrong.

Aside from conscience, scientists have observed very sophisticated, totally self-contained body parts in certain animals, such as a frog...they cannot be broken down so as to say they evolved incrementally out of a need for survival. This among many other reasons is why top scientist-like Steven Hawking-say evolution is a debunked and dead theory. It is only those proponents who hold it as a dear religion that will not let it die. They continue to propagate it and fight any attempts to have another explanation rise. These are not the attributes of true scientists yet they are running the field and spreading their misinformation...even in primary schools. This is a spiritual war we are in even on this site and that is why what you term "fundamentalists" here are fighting back. I don't consider myself a fundamentalist and yet I'm named such here. The same silly, sandbox antics these fake scientists pull. (I do respect fundamentalist however.)

 

[Hallstone]

Deuteronomy 24:1
1 And if any one should take a wife, and should dwell with her, then it shall come to pass if she should not have found favour before him, because he has found some unbecoming thing in her, that he shall write for her a bill of divorcement, and give it into her hands, and he shall send her away out of his house.

Mark 10
Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?”

3“What did Moses command you?” he replied.

4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.”

5 “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied.

6“But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.'

7“FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, 8AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9“What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

10In the house the disciples beganquestioning Him about this again.11And He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her;12and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.”

Is it just me, or did Jesus just call Deuteronomy 24:1 errant?

I think your definition of the Hebrew word 'Ervah' is somewhat lacking, Moses would not have made such a flippant decision regarding the casting out of a wife, the word Ervah has a very serious connotation and does not simply mean 'unbecoming', it is the wicked people after Moses that purposely transformed that word. It actually means indecency, shameful conduct, or something that is exposed. Since Moses knew of the seriousness of divorce, he provided protection for the man who would marry a woman under false pretenses like she already had a live husband, or she was not really a Jew, as in the case of Ezra making the people divorce their foreign wives that were not converts. God allowed Moses to make this decision, that is why there was not a 11th commandment saying you shall not divorce. God allowed it in the same way He allowed a man to have more than one wife under certain circumstances. Jesus is simply saying that if Moses allowed it then God allowed it, but those who would walk in the Spirit of Christ would not put new wine into old wineskins. He simply reproved the Pharisee types for their decietfullness and underhandedness, as He still does today. So the scripture is not being called 'errant', He is simply pointing out the difference between the old covenant and the new.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So these "Christians" can just interpret the bible anyway they want?

Hmmm. Then do they interpret that When God said He did it....that God is a liar?

Well, then that would go against what the Word says about liars. That liars have a father...his name is Satan because He is the father of all liars. Well God doesn't have a father. So you see where interpreting the bible the way you want to can lead to some really messed up thinking and false beliefs?

And your right the writers of the Bible didn't give us a way to interpret what they wrote.

God did.

Thru Hermeneutical study and exegetical preaching and study.
The journalistic view helps...
Who.....was it wrote to
What....is the subject at hand
When....was it written
Where...was it sent and from who
Why....Why was it written

you take all that, with prayer asking God to lead and guide you, so that you may gain understanding of Him and His commandments and He will.

Show you the principle of what you are reading at that time. You can't take something that was meant for that time and apply it to now. But you can take the principle subject of was is being talked about to this time.

Then there are those scriptures that don't need any heavy study. That are true no matter how you look at them.

1. No other Gods
2. No graven images
3. Don't take God's name in van
4. Remember the Sabbath
5. Honor your mother and father
6. Thou shalt not kill
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery
8. Thou shalt not steal
9. Thou shalt not lie
10. Thou shalt not covet.

These are pretty simple. But hard to keep. Have you broken any? If you have, then you've broke them all. And that is called sin. (transgressing God's law)

So, remember. God inspired His word to men to whom he used as instrument to place His word to paper, So that we may know some of his thoughts and How we should live, act, believe and be.

You, me or anyone else. Cannot change these...even though many pick and choose what they want to believe...but that my friend is dangerous and costly.

So, did you figure all of this out all by simply reading the Bible, or did you (even just once) consult some "other" Christian book for help on your approach to hermeneutics? (Be truthful now! ... )

 

[SpiritRehab]

speciation is fractal branched, not linear.

I addressed that. "Of Course, if Evolution were true, it would start of slow and ramp up, as more & more species & breeding pairs enter the equation."

 

[throughfiierytrial]

I'm familiar with the evangelical rhetoric. It's thoroughly unconvincing.

Evolution is not a religion or philosophy (I acknowledge that some base a worldview out of it), but an attempt by an grossly uninformed Christian to demote scientific fact/theory.

We disagree on what it means to be "His Word", and therefore how on can approach an understanding of the Biblical texts. Pastors, teachers and evangelists are often not scientists and not experts on biological evolution (perhaps some are). Furthermore, there is no shortage of pastors, teachers and evangelists that accept evolution.

You have a personal relationship with God, so do billions of other people. Yet it remains that there are diverse and divergent views in Christianity.

You brand of Christianity isn't the best version/iteration of the faith, but essentially all the 41, 000 estimate denominations make the claim. Funny how that works?[/QUOTE]

And let's play around a bit with how conscience disproves the idea of evolution...and the conscience so impressed Einstein...whom I only quote since he impresses so many...Einstein said the existence of conscience points to a God and we must seek Him.

But examine it along side the principles of evolution (evilution, that is). Darwin said that evolution was driven by natural selection and natural selection says "survival of the fittest". Yet, conscience runs contrary to that idea...so how could conscience possibly have evolved?

Survival of the fittest means to prey on the weak. Yet humans and many animals feed and care for their young. Humans know that killing another being is wrong.

Aside from conscience, scientists have observed very sophisticated, totally self-contained body parts in certain animals, such as a frog...they cannot be broken down so as to say they evolved incrementally out of a need for survival. This among many other reasons is why top scientist-like Steven Hawking-say evolution is a debunked and dead theory. It is only those proponents who hold it as a dear religion that will not let it die. They continue to propagate it and fight any attempts to have another explanation rise. These are not the attributes of true scientists yet they are running the field and spreading their misinformation...even in primary schools. This is a spiritual war we are in even on this site and that is why what you term "fundamentalists" here are fighting back. I don't consider myself a fundamentalist and yet I'm named such here. The same silly, sandbox antics these fake scientists pull. (I do respect fundamentalist however.)

 

[AV1611VET]

Don't know, and nor does the scientist who performed the testing.

I disagree ... but that's another story altogether.

Not empirical evidence of anything except that Thalidomide isn't good for early term pregnancies.

Why?

Doesn't it do what it's supposed to do: alleviate adverse symptoms?

It's the child in the womb (to use a plutoed term) that Thalidomide isn't good for.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm familiar with the evangelical rhetoric. It's thoroughly unconvincing.

Evolution is not a religion or philosophy (I acknowledge that some base a worldview out of it), but an attempt by an grossly uninformed Christian to demote scientific fact/theory.

We disagree on what it means to be "His Word", and therefore how on can approach an understanding of the Biblical texts. Pastors, teachers and evangelists are often not scientists and not experts on biological evolution (perhaps some are). Furthermore, there is no shortage of pastors, teachers and evangelists that accept evolution.

You have a personal relationship with God, so do billions of other people. Yet it remains that there are diverse and divergent views in Christianity.

You brand of Christianity isn't the best version/iteration of the faith, but essentially all the 41, 000 estimate denominations make the claim. Funny how that works?

And let's play around a bit with how conscience disproves the idea of evolution...and the conscience so impressed Einstein...whom I only quote since he impresses so many...Einstein said the existence of conscience points to a God and we must seek Him.

But examine it along side the principles of evolution (evilution, that is). Darwin said that evolution was driven by natural selection and natural selection says "survival of the fittest". Yet, conscience runs contrary to that idea...so how could conscience possibly have evolved?

Survival of the fittest means to prey on the weak. Yet humans and many animals feed and care for their young. Humans know that killing another being is wrong.

Aside from conscience, scientists have observed very sophisticated, totally self-contained body parts in certain animals, such as a frog...they cannot be broken down so as to say they evolved incrementally out of a need for survival. This among many other reasons is why top scientist-like Steven Hawking-say evolution is a debunked and dead theory. It is only those proponents who hold it as a dear religion that will not let it die. They continue to propagate it and fight any attempts to have another explanation rise. These are not the attributes of true scientists yet they are running the field and spreading their misinformation...even in primary schools. This is a spiritual war we are in even on this site and that is why what you term "fundamentalists" here are fighting back. I don't consider myself a fundamentalist and yet I'm named such here. The same silly, sandbox antics these fake scientists pull. (I do respect fundamentalist however.)

The spiritual war isn't fought against flesh and blood, or even ...**heaven forbid**... between Christians of various stripes. As far as I'm concerned, this thread is not evidence of a spiritual war, but of incessant infighting among Christians over what should otherwise be a secondary issue--important, yes--but secondary. It's not something over which to berate, castigate, judge over, or spiritually derail one another for having a variety of views.

What we can't disagree over is the fact that Jesus died for our sins and rose again, and is Lord and Savior, sitting at the right hand of the Father, with the Holy Spirit of God ruling our hearts.

2PhiloVoid

 

[AV1611VET]

Evolution is not a religion or philosophy

Actually, Paul says it is a philosophy.

In the book of Galatians, he says this about the Periodic Table ...

Galatians 4:3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:

Galatians 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?

Evolution is only convincing on paper; and even then it has to be brought down to the molecular level (i.e., DNA).

In addition, Paul uses even stronger language when railing against evolution in the book of Colossians.

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Paul further equates evolution to ...

1 Timothy 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

 

[Indent]

And let's play around a bit with how conscience disproves the idea of evolution...and the conscience so impressed Einstein...whom I only quote since he impresses so many...Einstein said the existence of conscience points to a God and we must seek Him.

But examine it along side the principles of evolution (evilution, that is). Darwin said that evolution was driven by natural selection and natural selection says "survival of the fittest". Yet, conscience runs contrary to that idea...so how could conscience possibly have evolved?

Survival of the fittest means to prey on the weak. Yet humans and many animals feed and care for their young. Humans know that killing another being is wrong.

Aside from conscience, scientists have observed very sophisticated, totally self-contained body parts in certain animals, such as a frog...they cannot be broken down so as to say they evolved incrementally out of a need for survival. This among many other reasons is why top scientist-like Steven Hawking-say evolution is a debunked and dead theory. It is only those proponents who hold it as a dear religion that will not let it die. They continue to propagate it and fight any attempts to have another explanation rise. These are not the attributes of true scientists yet they are running the field and spreading their misinformation...even in primary schools. This is a spiritual war we are in even on this site and that is why what you term "fundamentalists" here are fighting back. I don't consider myself a fundamentalist and yet I'm named such here. The same silly, sandbox antics these fake scientists pull. (I do respect fundamentalist however.)

Consciousness in no way challenges the validity of evolution.

Einstein did not believe in the Christian God (and arguably no god in a divine sense), and do I particularly care what Einstein thought? No. Stephen Hawkins is an opponent of God? and accepts evolution?

You want to go quote mine some famous scientists now?

Things like cooperation and kindness are compatible with natural selection: it's advantageous, among other things, to cooperate and be kind. Secondly, there are other processes that can override a tendency to behave a particular way. You do not understand natural selection, and bringing up "survival of the fittest" (which is not natural selection) proves that.

consciousness disproves the idea of evolution? Nope.

Evolution is a bottom-up process. The description with the frog is a failure to understand the evolutionary process.

"people don't agree with me, must be spiritual warfare."

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Actually, Paul says it is a philosophy.

In the book of Galatians, he says this about the Periodic Table ...

Galatians 4:3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:

Galatians 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?

Evolution is only convincing on paper; and even then it has to be brought down to the molecular level (i.e., DNA).

In addition, Paul uses even stronger language when railing against evolution in the book of Colossians.

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Paul further equates evolution to ...

1 Timothy 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

...**GASP**....even I must admit that you're interpretation here is befitting of Alfred E. Neuman.

Paul makes a reference to the Periodic Table in Galatians? .... ...that is MAD!

 

[Indent]

...**GASP**....even I must admit that you're interpretation here is befitting of Alfred E. Neuman.

Paul makes a reference to the Periodic Table in Galatians? .... ...that is MAD!

I died

 

[throughfiierytrial]

Actually, Paul says it is a philosophy.

In the book of Galatians, he says this about the Periodic Table ...

Galatians 4:3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:

Galatians 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?

Evolution is only convincing on paper; and even then it has to be brought down to the molecular level (i.e., DNA).

In addition, Paul uses even stronger language when railing against evolution in the book of Colossians.

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Paul further equates evolution to ...

1 Timothy 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

Thank you for your post...I am in agreement with you...I don't know how that quote you posted was attributed to me though...not mine.

 

[smithed64]

I'm familiar with the evangelical rhetoric. It's thoroughly unconvincing.

Evolution is not a religion or philosophy (I acknowledge that some base a worldview out of it), but an attempt by an grossly uninformed Christian to demote scientific fact/theory.

We disagree on what it means to be "His Word", and therefore how on can approach an understanding of the Biblical texts. Pastors, teachers and evangelists are often not scientists and not experts on biological evolution (perhaps some are). Furthermore, there is no shortage of pastors, teachers and evangelists that accept evolution.

You have a personal relationship with God, so do billions of other people. Yet it remains that there are diverse and divergent views in Christianity.

You brand of Christianity isn't the best version/iteration of the faith, but essentially all the 41, 000 estimate denominations make the claim. Funny how that works?[/QUOTE]

Not trying to convince you of anything.
I just believe that evolution is evolving into a religious base belief system.

Again, you say there is scientific fact. I ask to show this observed fact?

Your right there is no shortage of those who accept evolution...and I would question their commitment to God because of that acceptance...except for micro evolution..have to make that clear..I understand that and agree.

Yep there are diverse and divergent views in Christianity....but one is right and the others are wrong. They all can't be right.

Again, your last statement meets the criteria for the above sentence.

There is only one truth and that is God and His Word.

 

[smithed64]

So, did you figure all of this out all by simply reading the Bible, or did you (even just once) consult some "other" Christian book for help on your approach to hermeneutics? (Be truthful now! ... )

I'm always truthful..LOL
How did you do the smiley face?
Of course I've had classes and learned how to. Just as you have I'm sure. Its not a sin to get education. As a matter of fact God tells us to.

Love the lord God with all your heart, soul, MIND and body.

You can't have faith without Reason. The work together.

 

[Armoured]

I addressed that. "Of Course, if Evolution were true, it would start of slow and ramp up, as more & more species & breeding pairs enter the equation."

Cool. So you understand why the "there hasn't been enough time" argument fails.

 

[smithed64]

The spiritual war isn't fought against flesh and blood, or even ...**heaven forbid**... between Christians of various stripes. As far as I'm concerned, this thread is not evidence of a spiritual war, but of incessant infighting among Christians over what should otherwise be a secondary issue--important, yes--but secondary. It's not something over which to berate, castigate, judge over, or spiritually derail one another for having a variety of views.

What we can't disagree over is the fact that Jesus died for our sins and rose again, and is Lord and Savior, sitting at the right hand of the Father, with the Holy Spirit of God ruling our hearts.

2PhiloVoid

2PhiloVoid,
This is a spiritual war. We are told thru the Word to watch for false teachings. We are told to preach the Gospel. We are also told to defend the faith.

God don't need any help with creation. He knew what He was doing and He created perfectly. Just as He said He did. And when anyone say's he didn't, that it needs a hand from evolution to continue what He so perfectly created. Then you call God a liar. Which He isn't.

So yes it needs to be discussed. But in the biblically correct manner.

Colossians 4:5-6
5 Conduct yourselves with wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of the opportunities.
6 Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you should answer everyone.

 

[smithed64]

I disagree ... but that's another story altogether.

Why?

Doesn't it do what it's supposed to do: alleviate adverse symptoms?

It's the child in the womb (to use a plutoed term) that Thalidomide isn't good for.

Then we are in agreement about Thalidomide.