Asking Christians to boycott evolution threads

[DrummerWench]

*wastes a bunch of time looking thru thread at peoples icons*

36 respondants
- a little over half atheist / agnostic (presumably all accept evolution)
- 3 other beliefs (also presumably all accept evolution), and
- 14 Christian, of those 10 accept evolution (counting self)

So, most of the Christians who have responded to this thread accept evolution as the means by which diversity of life was created. Unless we're not real Christians.

DW

 

[ILoveYeshua]

Very few of the people who responded here are set up against the christian religion. Sure, they aren't christians, but they also aren't trying to pull people away from christianity. Most people here, however, are against ignorant or bigoted statements, as expressed by some people on this very same thread. Saying that some christians are not christians without any clear justification fall amongst such statements.

You were attacked, not because you are christian, but because some of your statements were incorrect and offensive.

He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad. Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
(Matthew 12:30-31)

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad. Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

(Matthew 12:30-31)

I get more meaningful discussion from my magic eight ball.

 

[notto]

He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad. Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
(Matthew 12:30-31)

And claiming that those that accept Christ are not Christians falls where in this judgement?

I am not against Christ. I am against those that would say I am not Christian because it is a lie.

 

[Jet Black]

After two years of this with literally thousands of posts, three formal debates and two Quiet Thread submissions, I think I'll take your advice.

hallelujah.

 

[ILoveYeshua]

> And claiming that those that accept Christ are not Christians falls where in this judgement?

Say there is a person X who "accepts Christ". They believe and confess he is 1) King and 2) He rose from the dead, 3) he is the son of God and 4) he is the son of man and 5) he died on the cross. just for a bare-bones definition.

Now X knows that God would not have raised Christ from the dead unless Christ had never committed a single sin, and that he cannot sin because he is God the Son. Lying is a sin, so therefore we know Christ did not lie, since he is resurrected (which must be taken on faith).

Since he did not lie, and since he did make statements regarding the scriptures not being able to be broken, those who say that the scriptures can be broken are lying. Also those who say that the scriptures did not come from God are lying. If the scriptures cannot be broken, then man did not descend from animals but was created in the image and likeness of God, even as the Bible testifies. Therefore man did not evolve from animals as some suggest, but even as Christ said: "If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came". So its not a new idea that those who reject that doctrine reject Christ, because Christ cannot lie. How then can you call yourself a christian if you believe Christ lied about the origin of man?

As for your dislike of me, there's an expression, don't shoot the messenger. But we all know that the messenger typically gets shot anyway. I don't judge any of you, nor do I say "so and so is not a christian". if you say you are a christian, if you know you believe that Christ is risen, then good! Believe what he said, and do his word.

But if you're only going to pick parts of what Christ said to believe, and not believe other parts of what he said, then it is not Christ who needs to change but you who needs to change and stop doubting him.

Many things in the bible are meant to be taken figuratively. But they are not to be doubted, if you believe Christ, who said the scriptures cannot be broken. That would include Jonah and the whale, the flood, all of Christ's miracles, adam and eve, sodom and gomorrah, so on and so forth. Don't accuse me of saying you are not a christian, I've done no such thing. It is not I who is your judge, I am just a man like any of you, a sinner to the Nth degree. However I realize my fault and i repent and believe in Christ and that everything he said is true. if you disbelieve the Word, the blame falls on you and you alone. if you believe the Word, then it doesnt matter how many people say you aren't a christian, you are a christian because of your faith.

What did Christ ever say about evolution? I can't find anything other than that man did not descend from animals but was created in the image and likeness of God and redeemed by the blood of Christ on the cross to become Sons of God. If Christ felt it wasn't worth his time to even mention evolution, why should christians care about it or believe it? I don't judge you if you believe evolution happened. It certainly seems to have probably happened for all except humans. But I can't say that it did happen, because I was not there. God, who told Moses what to write in the Torah, was there though, and he gave the account in Genesis. The scripture cannot be broken says the omnipotent Lord, who has the power to guard the scriptures and their validity for all of time.

 

[TheInstant]

Since he did not lie, and since he did make statements regarding the scriptures not being able to be broken,

"Not being able to be broken" is not the same as "literally true." Maybe the Bible is not an historic record and the truth lies elsewhere within?

But if you're only going to pick parts of what Christ said to believe, and not believe other parts of what he said, then it is not Christ who needs to change but you who needs to change and stop doubting him.

Ok, I really don't think that any of the Christians here doubt Christ. Yet they still accept evolution.

Many things in the bible are meant to be taken figuratively. But they are not to be doubted, if you believe Christ, who said the scriptures cannot be broken. That would include Jonah and the whale, the flood, all of Christ's miracles, adam and eve, sodom and gomorrah, so on and so forth.

You think all of these things are to be taken figuratively? So where's the problem? "Not to be doubted" is not the same as "must be taken as literal history."

What did Christ ever say about evolution? I can't find anything other than that man did not descend from animals but was created in the image and likeness of God and redeemed by the blood of Christ on the cross to become Sons of God.

Where did Christ say anything about man not descending from animals? Why does "in the image" of God have to be physical?

If Christ felt it wasn't worth his time to even mention evolution, why should christians care about it or believe it?

Christ didn't mention bacteria either. I suppose you shouldn't care about disease or believe it exists?

 

[Numenor]

If the scriptures cannot be broken, then man did not descend from animals but was created in the image and likeness of God

Nice try but being made in the image of God has nothing to do with our biological makeup, so being biologically descended from animals is absolutely irrelevant.

 

[ILoveYeshua]

> so being biologically descended from animals is absolutely irrelevant.

If it is so irrelavent, why are there 400 pages of threads about evolution? Thus I still ask christians to boycott those threads, since it is irrelavent.

 

[TheInstant]

> so being biologically descended from animals is absolutely irrelevant.

If it is so irrelavent, why are there 400 pages of threads about evolution? Thus I still ask christians to boycott those threads, since it is irrelavent.

I think he meant irrelevant to your argument.

 

[Numenor]

I think he meant irrelevant to your argument.

Cheers You have to spell every little thing out with some people.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

> so being biologically descended from animals is absolutely irrelevant.

If it is so irrelavent, why are there 400 pages of threads about evolution? Thus I still ask christians to boycott those threads, since it is irrelavent.

It is not irrelevant at all, for as long as people continue to pedal the notion that one must believe the bible is literal physical truth and not spiritual or allegorical, and as long as they use this to deny evolution and Christianity is possible some people will believe this fallacy. As evolution can be demonstrated empirically and faith can not, then people who believe the fallacy and accept the empirical evidence will be forced to conclude that there is no God.

In this way creationism turns tens of thousands from Christ. I’ve often heard creationists claim evolution is the work of the devil, but it is not evolution but the steadfast refusal to accept genesis as allegorical that turns people from Christ.

Once again I remind you, you are not Metatron, you do not get to decide what is and what is not relevant for Christians to discuss. Besides which, if you read the post in context, he meant that being biologically related to animals is irrelevant to salvation and your argument, not irrelevant in a blanket manner.

Even if it was, pokemon is irrelevant but if people want to talk about they have every right to do so.

Ghost

 

[Dal M.]

If Christ felt it wasn't worth his time to even mention evolution, why should christians care about it or believe it?

Do you realize there was a time when all the greatest Western scientists were Christians who believed that God wanted them to fully understand their surroundings?

You, conversely, express no curiosity whatsoever. In fact, you're suspicious of those Christians who do have an interest in science, as though curiosity is some sort of character flaw that negates their Christian beliefs.

Here's an idea. Rather than spend your time telling theistic evolutionists why they aren't really Christians, why not ask them how they reconcile scientific findings with their faith? I bet you'll get some good responses.

 

[Hussar]

I'm asking christians to boycott evolution threads, for the following reasons.

1) The people who are pro-evolution are not going to change their stance.
2) Nor are those who are opposed to evolution.
3) And if they might change their views, there are plenty of threads for them to review the evidence already.
4) This issue has been discussed to death. It has become a major waste of time to the christian community. There's a reason we're not supposed to cast our pearls before swine.
5) Those who love to argue the pro-evolution side of the issue are only trying to stumble those who believe God's account of events, and they feed upon the controversy. The more time you feed them, the happier they are.
6) Honestly, set the filter to show every message ever posted on this subject. Isn't that enough? Hasn't a stand been made already? Focus rather on fellowship with the willing.

Yep, if you lose the argument just stick your fingers in your ears and hope that it goes away.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

If Christ felt it wasn't worth his time to even mention evolution, why should christians care about it or believe it?

Nor did he mention gravity, nor did he mention bacteria or germs, nor did he mention the speed of light, electricity, or many other things. The anti-intellectualist argument of “Christ did not mention it so we should not care” would have us all still living in the iron age.

I don't judge you if you believe evolution happened. It certainly seems to have probably happened for all except humans. But I can't say that it did happen, because I was not there. God, who told Moses what to write in the Torah, was there though, and he gave the account in Genesis. The scripture cannot be broken says the omnipotent Lord, who has the power to guard the scriptures and their validity for all of time.

Again then you call all Christian sects that accept the Nicene creed heretical, for the council did banish sections of scripture to the apocrypha. Not only do I not accept your argument that the majority of Christian sects are heretical I also point out that the definition of Christian used on this forum (and which we sign up as agreeing with when we sign up as a Christian on this forum) is one that specifically states we accept the Nicene creed.

Ghost

 

[Silent Bob]

Now X knows that God would not have raised Christ from the dead unless Christ had never committed a single sin, and that he cannot sin because he is God the Son. Lying is a sin, so therefore we know Christ did not lie, since he is resurrected (which must be taken on faith).

X doesn't know such a thing cause it is nowhere mentioned that in order to be raised from the dead you must be sinless. Let us not forget that God also raised Lazarus from the grave. And nowhere has it been mentioned that Lazarus is sinless. [Just to poke some holes before I start the drill.]

Since he did not lie, and since he did make statements regarding the scriptures not being able to be broken, those who say that the scriptures can be broken are lying.

And a scripture that was not to be taken literally is broken when not taken literally?

Also those who say that the scriptures did not come from God are lying.

The scriptures came from God but they HAVE been written by man, edited, translated, re-edited, re-translated and finally voted into or out of cannon BY MEN. Some of those edits and translations where not around when Jesus was around. So we don't know in what exact form the scriptures where when Jesus was talking about them. Furthermore you need to take everything into context. If Jesus talks about Adam and Eve then it is at all possible that He was referring to the common belief of His time. He could be referring to this literally or not. However IF He really believed in Adam and Eve and we have completely disproved such a belief then there is no point to being a Christian as Jesus was obviously wrong. I believe otherwise but you can feel free to believe anything.

If the scriptures cannot be broken, then man did not descend from animals but was created in the image and likeness of God, even as the Bible testifies.

The scriptures can be non-literal and not broken.

So its not a new idea that those who reject that doctrine reject Christ, because Christ cannot lie. How then can you call yourself a christian if you believe Christ lied about the origin of man?

He didn't have to lie. He could be referring to a common belief that His listeners held. It is at all possible that He spoke against that belief or He didn't knowing that the belief would be proven wrong. Think of it as an adult saying that Santa brought the kid his presents, it is not a lie. It is just a story. It could be the only story primitive minds where ready to listen to.

As for your dislike of me, there's an expression, don't shoot the messenger.

The messenger uses his own interpretations, context and ideas. Therefore the messenger is not really a messenger.

But if you're only going to pick parts of what Christ said to believe, and not believe other parts of what he said, then it is not Christ who needs to change but you who needs to change and stop doubting him.

We have no qualms with Christ. We do have problems with what your interpretation of the Bible says. To us it says otherwise. In fact the "do not bear false witness" commandment applies DIRECTLY to creationism and those who weave the web of lies associated with the sale of books and DVDs. It also applies dirrectly to TEs who have seen the evidence and have the intellectual honesty to take the hardest path of them all. To re conciliate their faith with the truth and not act like an ostrich.

Many things in the bible are meant to be taken figuratively. But they are not to be doubted, if you believe Christ, who said the scriptures cannot be broken. That would include Jonah and the whale, the flood, all of Christ's miracles, adam and eve, sodom and gomorrah, so on and so forth.

Then why don't you understand that Genesis is to be taken figuratively along with the flood and adam and eve and Sodom and Gomorrah and maybe a few more like Job?

Don't accuse me of saying you are not a christian, I've done no such thing.

Oh no all you do is interpret them as you wish that way the scriptures can say anything you want.

if you disbelieve the Word, the blame falls on you and you alone.

If you disbelieve the Creation itself what does that make you?

I can't find anything other than that man did not descend from animals

Quote please?

but was created in the image and likeness of God

Through the process of evolution.

If Christ felt it wasn't worth his time to even mention evolution, why should christians care about it or believe it?

Maybe evolution didn't exist back then and Jesus didn't come to teach biology.

I don't judge you if you believe evolution happened. It certainly seems to have probably happened for all except humans.

ROLF!!!11!!

God, who told Moses what to write in the Torah, was there though, and he gave the account in Genesis.

The following are taken from wikipedia.org

Genesis as a completed book makes no claims about its authorship; it is an article of Orthodox Jewish faith that the book was dictated, in its entirety, by God to Moses on Mount Sinai. For a number of reasons, this view is no longer accepted by many biblical scholars, non-Orthodox Jews, Catholics, and liberal Protestants. Instead, they accept a theory whose roots are based on cultural evolution and philosophical naturalism which teaches that the text of Genesis as we see it today was redacted together around 440 BC from earlier sources, namely the Sumerians. See the Documentary hypothesis entry for more information. Other scholars note that when Genesis was compiled, it was made up of earlier documents which were so little changed that even their literary tradition, which put the author's name at the end of each document, was preserved, thus preserving also the authors' true identities. This retains the concept of Moses being the author of Genesis, though making his role more that of an editor who chose the earlier works to include than as an author who wrote every word.

 

[Dr.GH]

This rarely comes up in a conversation about evolution. The facts found in the Bible regarding authorship are plain. The Bible's authors commonly referred to extrabiblical works by name which they had used as source material. Not only that, but the biblical authors frequently cite these other books for authority, and direct the reader to these nonbiblical works for further information.

The first example below is interesting as it is from a seection that fundamentalists (Christian, Jewish and Muslim) all claim was written by Moses.

Numbers 21:14
Therefore it is said in the "Book of the Wars of the LORD," ...

It is interesting because Moses (if Moses was the author) cites a nonbiblical text as source and authority.

Deuteronomy 31:24
And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a Book, until they were finished,


Deuteronomy 31:26
Take this "Book of the Law," and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee. (This is the only book directly, and repeatedly referred to as authored by Moses. See also Deuteronomy 31:24. Elsewhere it is referred to as "The Law of Moses" eg. 1 Kings 2:3 and "Book of the Law of Moses" Joshua 23:6, "Book of the law of the LORD" 2 Chronicles 17:9, "The Law of Moses given by Yahweh" Ezra 7:6 {many scholars argue that Ezra was in fact the author/redactor of the Pentateuch and so Ezra 7:6 is the first mention of what is a new scroll incorporating the "Book of the law of the LORD" attributed to Moses.}. (This is not "The Book of the Law of Yahweh" authored by Joshua, see Joshua 24:26).


A careful reading reveals that there are dozens of extrabiblical sources cited throughout the Bible as authority, support, and expanded accounts. This is still true when one takes into account biblical books that have been given multiple titles over time. An example of this is "Nahum," "The burden of Nineveh," and "The Book of the vision of Nahum the Elkoshite" which are all alternate titles for this biblical text.

Another interesting example is Luke 3:4 (KJV);

As it is written in "The Book of the words of Esaias the Prophet," saying, "The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight."

The Book of the Prophet Esaias is mentioned through out the New Testament, but is itself not part of the cannon. It has been pointed out that this is probably referring to Isaiah 40:3, but the author of Luke is then either paraphrased Isaiah, or is using a version of the text that is no longer extant. Some recent translations act on the supposition do use Isaiah rather than Esaias. Compare Luke 3:4 with: Isaiah 40:3 (KJV) "The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God." or alternate translations Isaiah 40:3 (Young's Literal) "A voice is crying -- in a wilderness -- Prepare ye the way of Jehovah, Make straight in a desert a highway to our God." Isaiah 40:3 (World English) "The voice of one who cries, Prepare you in the wilderness the way of Yahweh; make level in the desert a highway for our God."

About this time we would need to discuss these texts in their original languages. All and all, this makes an interesting dilemma for literalists, becasue if they want to really be literalists, the Bible rather clearly instructs them otherwise.

 

[ILoveYeshua]

2300 views... fascinating. I wonder what's so interesting.

 

[ILoveYeshua]

> Not only do I not accept your argument that the majority of Christian sects are heretical

Huh? I sure didn't say that. Who said that? Y'all got some pretty active imaginations

 

[TheBear]

2300 views... fascinating. I wonder what's so interesting.

The average post/view ratio is double of this thread. Chances are, it's not interesting. But I thought I would help out and bump it again for ya.