Bottom line: Can a Christian believe in evolution and still be saved?

[renniks]

Um, no... Christians by definition have to accept that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. There's no "definition" that requires the rest of the baggage.

Why would we do that if we don't trust the Bible?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So it was just coincidence that he fullfilled 300 prophecies? The odds are astronomical no matter the original context

But he didn't. That is a false claim. I have checked out those "prophecies" and most of them simply are not prophecies. I asked you to find one that was not a reinterpretation after the fact.

You could not even find one prophecy, why should I believe your claim that there are 300?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why would we do that if we don't trust the Bible?

Because parts of the Bible can be shown to be false. It is unwise to claim "Either all of the Bible is true or none of it is true". If those are your standards then the Bible has been refuted.

 

[renniks]

But he didn't. That is a false claim. I have checked out those "prophecies" and most of them simply are not prophecies. I asked you to find one that was not a reinterpretation after the fact.

You could not even find one prophecy, why should I believe your claim that there are 300?

I can find them all. The Isaiah 53 ones are very obviously about Jesus, and we know when they were written.

 

[renniks]

Because parts of the Bible can be shown to be false. It is unwise to claim "Either all of the Bible is true or none of it is true". If those are your standards then the Bible has been refuted.

Only it hasn't.

 

[Rachel20]

imo Christians will always have the upper hand in this debate because whether they see humans as direct creations, or evolved ones, we can still view God as the creative source behind both processes - evolution isn't about the origin of life, but the origin of species.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can find them all. The Isaiah 53 ones are very obviously about Jesus, and we know when they were written.

No, they merely fit your idea of Jesus. The Jews, you know, the religion that wrote that, do not agree with you on your interpretation. One has to reinterpret it to say that it is Jesus since it in no way directly refers to him.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Only it hasn't.

It ahs, but you are going to have to learn some science to understand this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

imo Christians will always have the upper hand in this debate because whether they see humans as direct creations, or evolved ones, we can still view God as the creative source behind both processes - evolution isn't about the origin of life, but the origin of species.

How does that give you an "upper hand"? Now there are Christians that accept evolution. Probably most of them. And there are even Christians that accept abiogenesis as the most likely way that life began. After all a really powerful God could have set up the universe the way that he wanted at the Big Bang.

 

[Rachel20]

After all a really powerful God could have set up the universe the way that he wanted at the Big Bang.

exactly ! And that makes my point

 

[Astrid]

But man never walks on all fours

Four in the morning, two at noon, three in the evening.

 

[Subduction Zone]

exactly ! And that makes my point

But that does not give you an upper hand. You may have the mistaken belief that atheists try to use evolution to disprove God. I have seen very few atheists do that. Most know how that is a poor argument. Science just tells us about the universe. Not if there is a God or not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Four in the morning, two at noon, three in the evening.

Great way to Rex that argument.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I can find them all. The Isaiah 53 ones are very obviously about Jesus, and we know when they were written.

The put-upon man will be exalted? That's a pretty common theme in literature past and present. Doesn't seem very "obviously about Jesus" to me.

 

[Rachel20]

But that does not give you an upper hand. You may have the mistaken belief that atheists try to use evolution to disprove God. I have seen very few atheists do that. Most know how that is a poor argument. Science just tells us about the universe. Not if there is a God or not.

I saw it quite a bit in the early days, when evolution was a hotter subject. Interestingly, it was other atheists telling them to stop with the argument, because it was bad logic. Today though, they focus more on proving God isn't needed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I saw it quite a bit in the early days, when evolution was a hotter subject. Interestingly, it was other atheists telling them to stop with the argument, because it was bad logic. Today though, they focus more on proving God isn't needed.

One does not even need to prove that "God isn't needed", though we keep making more and more discoveries that show that a God was not needed for different steps. What theists never seem to understand is that the burden of proof that a God exists is on them. None of them can seem to find any evidence for a God. Their arguments used most often are one form or another of a an argument from ignorance.

The problem is that most theists do not understand what atheism is. Atheism is just a lack of belief in a god. It is a broad tent, just as theism is a broad tent. Almost all agnostics are atheists. So are the "nones". Many people do not want to admit that they are atheists because of the historical stigma of the word, though more and more are snow saying, "OH, it just means not believing in a God, not that a God does not exist? Then I am an atheist too".

 

[Astrid]

The put-upon man will be exalted? That's a pretty common theme in literature past and present. Doesn't seem very "obviously about Jesus" to me.

The most useful feature of the
bible is that it says /means whatever
the reader wants to find.

 

[timothyu]

The most useful feature of the
bible is that it says /means whatever
the reader wants to find.

Such have always been the ways of the flesh.

 

[Astrid]

Such have always been the ways of the flesh.

The " flesh"?

 

[Rachel20]

One does not even need to prove that "God isn't needed", though we keep making more and more discoveries that show that a God was not needed for different steps. What theists never seem to understand is that the burden of proof that a God exists is on them. None of them can seem to find any evidence for a God. Their arguments used most often are one form or another of a an argument from ignorance.

Is Euclidean geometry an argument from ignorance? It's based on postulates that can't be proven. Most of science, is in fact, based on inductive reasoning. Why apply a different standard to the question of God? Last time I checked the NASA site, everything we believe about the universe is based on only 5% of it that can be directly observed. This is why I don't offer "proofs" of God, and I doubt you'll ever find one. No reasoning about a being greater than ourselves could be deductive, as that would require we be greater than that being.