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.
Very much like being a Christian and being born again and a new creation in Christ.until one day a hominid named Adam was given a soul and became the first person.
There is no error. You are assuming something that is incorrect - that there is not direct evidence that humans evolved - you imply that while there is evidence that evolution is real, the step to include humans in the evolution model is an unsubstantiated leap of faith.We see some evidence of species changing. We make a theory of evolution and the origin of species. We see more and more evidence to support our theory. Therefore (for that reason - the reason being that there is supporting evidence) we know that our theory is good and evolution is real. Ok, so far so good... there are some issues that I am intentionally overlooking, but for the most part this is perfectly reasonable.
Next comes this:
We know that evolution exists and therefore (for that reason) people had to be created by no other means as evolution.
Do you see the error?
This is an ironic statement - it is actually the creationist who claims certainty of knowledge and is therefore presumptuous. The evolutionist is more cautious, declaring that while the evidence for evolution is indeed overwhelming, it is at least possible that the theory is wrong.Again, I am not denying evolution of animals or even evolution of humans past the initial creation. What I am saying is that it is presumptuous to think that we know how God created people.
I am not sure exactly what you are saying, but you may be using a misleading argument that creationists often use.The theory say that God uses mistakes or errors to create us. I can not think of any nonsense greater than to say God uses mistakes and errors. In fact errors in DNA tend to fix and repair themselves.
More than that.I think that God takes responsibility for allowing them to be deceived.
More than that.
2 Thessolonians 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
It has to do with the claim that God cannot deceive. Not so much about scientific research.While I see your point, I think we should keep in mind that exegetically and hermeneutically, this verse likely has a lot more to do with political events becoming spiritual events than it does with how we each may epistemically appraise the efficacy of scientific thought and research.
It has to do with the claim that God cannot deceive. Not so much about scientific research.
2 Thessolonians 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
Well yes, that is of course implied. The context here is creation. God is God, He can create however He decides to create, according of course to His character.That is like the pastor that says I can sin all I want, I just do not want to sin. Because when we are born again we take on a new nature in Christ. There is a lot God can not do. He can not lie, cheat, steal, trick or deceive people. It is not in His nature or His way of doing things.
Exactly. Moral implications do not come from what God did. Everything God does is obviously good and proper. But our understanding of evolution and our applying it to creation of humans results in negative moral implications, which is why I am venturing to say that God probably did not use evolution to create humans.There are no moral implications. Whatever God did, it is good and proper.
No, that's redemption. So first people were created in God's image, which includes, among other things, moral capacity (ability to know good and evil), coupled with being righteous. Then Adam sinned - righteousness lost. Then Christ died. Then we believe in Him and become born again, new creation - righteousness restored.Very much like being a Christian and being born again and a new creation in Christ.
So it is going to take God 7,000 years to repair something He created in a week? At least with dispensationalism creation and redemption takes the same amount of time.righteousness restored
Sure, God can take however long He wants to do things. He is patient, and personally, I really appreciate that.So it is going to take God 7,000 years to repair something He created in a week? At least with dispensationalism creation and redemption takes the same amount of time.
No, I did not say that it is an unsubstantiated leap of faith. I said the opposite in fact. I said that we see evidence, then we make a theory, then we confirm the theory (more or less) by more evidence, then we apply the theory to ourselves. It is definitely substantiated. But it violates the Scripture. So then people go and say that Scripture must be wrong. Well no, Scripture is not wrong, but our logic might be. The error in our logic is that we have one theory and one theory only, and we do not allow the possibility for God to be God and work outside of our theory.There is no error. You are assuming something that is incorrect - that there is not direct evidence that humans evolved - you imply that while there is evidence that evolution is real, the step to include humans in the evolution model is an unsubstantiated leap of faith.
I can guarantee there is no direct evidence that people have evolved. We will never be able to definitively trace our lineage all the way back to the primordial soup, simply because we can never uncover and examine every single one of Adam's ancestors.I guarantee this is not case - while I am not prepared to make the case right now (in this post), I am certain there is direct evidence that humans have evolved.
I am a bit stunned... are you saying that it is presumptuous for a Christian to believe that God created everything including people, and that God could have done it in whichever way He wanted? I mean, ok, I guess I am presumptuous then. LOLThis is an ironic statement - it is actually the creationist who claims certainty of knowledge and is therefore presumptuous. The evolutionist is more cautious, declaring that while the evidence for evolution is indeed overwhelming, it is at least possible that the theory is wrong.
I don't know if it's willfully planting misleading evidence, or allowing us to be mislead by our own bias. Take changing water to wine for example. Did Jesus willfully mislead the banquet master? If we choose to believe that God is not the Creator to begin with, and make that our bias, then yes, we are going to be deceived.Now about this "evolution of humans past the initial creation" business, I do not know enough about the theory of evolution to critique this odd mix of "creation then evolution" that you are proposing as a possibility, I suspect others here will show how the evidence really does not allow that possiblity (at least without putting God in the position of willfully "planting misleading evidence".
You are taking it out of context and making God to be a deceiver. That is not what the passage actually says.More than that.
2 Thessolonians 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
We should! Science is the direct observation and understanding of the natural world. If we can't believe what is in front of us, how much less spiritual matters?Do we believe in any scientific discovery in the sense of spiritual faith?
Just as long as our observation and understanding of the natural world doesn't cloud our understanding of spiritual matters. E.g. Nicodemus and being born again.We should! Science is the direct observation and understanding of the natural world. If we can't believe what is in front of us, how much less spiritual matters?
So He deceived them, but it was for a good reason. O.K.You are taking it out of context and making God to be a deceiver. That is not what the passage actually says.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?