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.
It's cool. I'm used to being called a godless liberal Jesus-hater by now.And to Mallon, I am sorry if you took this cited broadside literally. I dont remember the exact context, but it was probably my inference drawn to push some assertion of yours to its extreme. Not exactly and improper technique for argument, but it was not intended to deny your relationship with your Lord, in case there is any question. Hope you forgot it like I did.
Fear is a good thing, when it is fear of the one who dispenses grace freely and upbraideth not. The comment took me by surprise, but I will be sure to employ more fear in thinking about this matter further, not less.
Well said. And when they mangle scripture, I imagine you dont indulge a subjective standard on whether they are right or wrong.
A number of TEs have acknowledged that they dont hold a basic confession of Christian faith as measured by other TEs who do hold that confession. You said it before they did (the Christian TEs) and you were right. Now, you cant possibly be condemning every Christian practice, belief or confessoin of every TE. But, you noted that the faith was seriously lacking by anyone's measure.
Didn't you do your job, at least in part? Should you not point out error? Its not as if you took a swing at someone. This is board, for God's sake.
I would tone down some comments as counterprodutive. So what? Opinions are like you-know-whats and I have my own. Anyone who really wants Mark to change can tell Mark he is right, or at least grounded biblically, a few times and then see what happens.
Except it isn't fear of the Lord, it is fear of becoming liberal, or being contaminated by any of the array of anti evolution slurs out there. Reminds me of the parable of the talents where fear drives one servant to bury his talent in the ground. That is not fear of the Lord.Fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.
Incest isn't unbiblical?Its only bizarre if you demand that the Bible accommodate unbiblical beliefs. Obviously it doesnt bother me much.
TEs don't propose independently created human beings, you know, theistic evolution, God used evolution to created us.Other independently created human beings just doesnt fit. There are inferences and then there are inferences. Much depends on what you are trying to prove.
What the OP says is that the creationist interpretation, God created two individuals Adam and Eve and the human race descended from them, that when Cain killed Abel the only human beings were their immediate family, and that this interpretation requires ignoring or changing the plain meaning of the text. My previous caveats aside, the OP has stood up pretty well.You are also seriously overselling your point, since there isnt a real position that other humans were created in other places in TE. What the OP wants is to prove error. Now frankly, I am trying to think of a place which clearly says that all humans carry only the genes of the lines of Adam and Eve (or Nephilim).
It is a bit like the geocentrism debate. The new interpretations of the geocentric passages don't try to show the bible teaches heliocentrism, just that reading the passages as a lesson in astronomy was a mistake.So, the OP does not prove evolution accounts for anything in Genesis, except by the most extreme and dubious extrapolation of we have been discussing. Is there error in either the Bible or creationism because of the possibility that other humans were created independently of Adam and Eve? I could simply say, I dont know, and the OP fails.
Did God give Adam and Eve dominion over the earth, or did he give it to man? How does your bible translate the verse?In fact, I think I will, with the notion that until I find direct scripture on the subject, I would not stake the YEC creed to this particular issue. But, also with the understanding that clearly, through one man's sin, death entered and that dominion over the earth was given to Adam. Scripture lines up pretty well to indicate that there were no other direct creations other than Adam, so despite feeling comfortable about it, I would decline to stake creationist belief to that periferal issue without something more direct (and I tend to believe it is there somewhere).
It is pretty strong if it shows the Literalist view contradicts the literal meaning of scripture.Certainly, you are not trying to prove that God created the first humans without evolution 6,000 years ago or so. So, the whole attack is not a very strong one.
Go to your pastor or the church elders, ask them what you should do if you knew that some one in church a) ate lobster at a church picnic, or b) had sex with his sister.Why is it more serious? Who says? And in what context is it more serious?
It wasn't an issue in 1Cor 5:1 either. If modern science dealt with genetic problems would that make incest acceptable? Or if a pastor knew they could not have children, should he marry a brother and sister?It is certainly more serious where there are genetic issues, of which there are examples in modern times. There is no need to require that the direct creations of God did not have a better genetic integrity such that genetics are not the issue.
Apart from ignoring the text of Genesis, you are just describing a small village community.The other issue is simply the necessity of having a well ordered family. Theoretically one might meet a sister one had never known and then marry. The wierdness of growing up in a platonic relationship is not an issue there. Remember, Adam theoretically had hundreds of kids and grandkids within the first hundred years, many of whom might have not know one well at all.
Mar 2:26 How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?
Now, God is no more telling me to enter the holy of holies to eat the bread in the Temple (once it is rebuilt) any more than he is telling me it is ok to marry my sister. It is a false assertion that one inference allows all inferences or that one exception such as David's allows all exceptions.Apart from being culturally insensitive and the danger of being stoned to death by zealous Jewish temple guards, why not? The Jewish temple was only the shadow of the true sanctuary we have access to. Heb 10:19 Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, 20 by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, 21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water. However that is simply a question of who is allowed access, not whether it is intrinsically wrong to eat the bread or not. That is the issue with incest.
It always was a dubious interpetation, why hold onto it when we know from science the earth is billions of years old and mankind has evolved? The incest issue is simply more evidence it is a bad interpretation.Admittedly, this is not an easy issue, but where is it leading? To the rejection of creationism? Again, the point is oversold.
Except it isn't fear of the Lord, it is fear of becoming liberal, or being contaminated by any of the array of anti evolution slurs out there. Reminds me of the parable of the talents where fear drives one servant to bury his talent in the ground. That is not fear of the Lord.
Well, I think I know better.
That is well established. I also think the best available interpretation is sole first ancestor.But anyway, you seem to be describing Adam as Federal Head there, plenty of TEs accept the Federal Head idea and that Original Sin spread from that that first sin
Disagree. Inference contradicting a relatively direct statement of scripture (Eve as the mother of all living) is not a preferred M.O. I will be meditating on the source of a more direct solution to the problem. Part of the demise of the OP will probably lie in its lack of direct support, particularly in the suggestion that God is unjust if a more direct scriptural reference is to be taken literally.It is pretty strong if it shows the Literalist view contradicts the literal meaning of scripture.
I note for your benefit that Leviticus 18 mentions a long list of types of incest, following which is a list of other bad practices, ending in a reference to abominations. The latter term theoretically applies to the entire list preceding, not just the bestiality, etc.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?letter=I&artid=126
Except if the earth is only 6,000 years old, then you will have to rethink your notion of the first few generations of humanity, and Abraham's marriage as well.It always was a dubious interpetation, why hold onto it when we know from science the earth is billions of years old and mankind has evolved? The incest issue is simply more evidence it is a bad interpretation.
What they don't realize is that they have compromised with the spirit of the age and taken in by an atheistic philosophy who will continue to rationalize and academically define the theistic element down to a debased theology that has absolutely nothing to do with God.
Although I believe I said my previous post was going to be my last in this thread...
You are naive beyond comprehension. Atheistic philosophy? Atheistic materialism? How shall I proceed when faced with this level of ignorance. How about a list of famous Darwinians who were men of faith:
James Burnett
Asa Gray
Henry Drummond
Charles Walcott
Theodosius Dobzhansky
Ronald Fisher
Sewall Wright
In my estimation, your second post in this thread wasn't much better than your first. You completely mischaracterized all of my statements and alluded to things that I never implied. Perhaps you had misunderstood my grammar or something.
Unfortunately we end up finding encouragement in the complete rejection of a reasonable position. Mark's logic is good logic, which you happen to disagree with. So, when you use words like "naive beyond comprehension", it helps us to understand that the OP was not based on a thorough analysis of YEC thinking.
As I said, trying recognizing some of Mark's good points and then maybe you will have some dialogue then.
And yes, we all understand that there are some saved evolutionists. For the 100th time, yes, we get it. And no, that does not refute Mark's logic.
I'll leave it with you then.Well, I think I know better.
Based on one obscure verse about how Eve got her name, in a creation account full of metaphor and allegory (did Jesus step on a talking snake?), where the order of creation contradicts the first creation account? It is not as if names given in scripture are easy to follow, and in fact you cannot take the explanation literally, she could not have been the literal mother of every creature. On the other hand 'Mother' features regularly in honorific and figurative titles.That is well established. I also think the best available interpretation is sole first ancestor.
Hardly inference, the whole narrative become garbled when you try to read it from the Creationist pov. As for God being unjust, I am not sure who you think is saying that. But there were much more clear direct statements for the geocentric interpretation than there is for the two parents of the human race view, nor were the multiplicity of geocentric verses challenged by any other passages, nor was there any evidence for alternative interpretations as we have with the frequent allagorical reading of Adam and Eve in the NT.Disagree. Inference contradicting a relatively direct statement of scripture (Eve as the mother of all living) is not a preferred M.O. I will be meditating on the source of a more direct solution to the problem. Part of the demise of the OP will probably lie in its lack of direct support, particularly in the suggestion that God is unjust if a more direct scriptural reference is to be taken literally.
The problem is the term abomination also applies to eating lobster, but thanksI note for your benefit that Leviticus 18 mentions a long list of types of incest, following which is a list of other bad practices, ending in a reference to abominations. The latter term theoretically applies to the entire list preceding, not just the bestiality, etc. http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?letter=I&artid=126
No I don't think so. A 6000 year old earth would certainly make me rethink the earth being 4.5 billion years old, and God couldn't have used evolution in that timespan. But don't forget you had young earth literalists like Basil who though God endowed the earth with the ability to produce living creatures naturally (let the earth produce living creatures) Augustine who believed the earth was young also thought the days in Genesis were meant figuratively. Among first century Jews like Philo and Josephus, we have the story of Adam and Eve being interpreted allegorically, so while God would have created mankind directly, there is no reason to assume it was limited to a single couple. Gen 4&5 and the problem of incest still go against that assumption. Abraham's marriage would also be unaffected by a 6000 year old earth, it was Jewish commentators like the Targum of Jonathan who thought Sarah was his half cousin, Haran's daughter.Except if the earth is only 6,000 years old, then you will have to rethink your notion of the first few generations of humanity, and Abraham's marriage as well.
You are putting more words in Jesus' mouth. When did he ever attribute Genesis to Moses much less say Moses wrote it? But if you don't want to support you claims, we can let them fly away.It's attributed to Moses by Christ himself, you can get someone else to chase that wild goose.
Pot... kettle... black... And off the point.Moses did not say that Adam was figurative, his said that Adam was a figure of Christ. I have told you this repeatedly and you still spew the same fallacious and clearly bogus statement. It is not so much that you are in error that bothers me but the condescending attitude that you pontificate it with.
I have never seen any other reasons for Creationist preachers to keep coming up with fallacious ad hominem rhetoric other than to keep the flock in line through fear. But rhetoric like that does tend to fester and hateful words breed hate in people's souls. I think it is cultic. Keep people from examining scripture through fear.BD has nothing to fear from fallacious ad hominem rhetoric, that's just plain silly.
That says a lot doesn't it. Original Sin is a Catholic doctrine. The more you base your theology on it the more Catholic your theology gets, go back to scripture Mark.It is you treatment of the Scriptures that puts you outside traditional Christian theism, not my personal opinion of you. I'm debating justification by faith alone with a Catholic scholar (I mean he studied theology in a Catholic college) and found that I have fewer differences with him then any TE I have encounted.
To an extent that is the nature of debate, but plenty of TEs have told you what they believe, but you ignore it because you want to think they are evil heretics.What TEs actually believe about the Bible is a mystery to me since it is absent in their arguments. Primarily because all they focus on is what they don't believe.
Now there are two mutually contradictory statements. What we believe about the bible is a mystery to you because we never talk about it, then you proceed to tell us all about our view of scripture.Your view of the Bible entered the Church at the advent of 19th century atheistic naturalism and bears more of a simularity to that philosophy then anything I can find of it in Scripture.
If you wish to quote an anathema against me, I'll just say the Lord bless you Mark.By the way, in preparing for the debate I found this canon from the Council of Trent and fifth session:If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offence of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam, through that offence of prevarication, was changed, in body and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema.
Then what you should do is show how my interpretations contradict or twist scripture instead of using it as an excuse to say I am not a believer. Of course if you had quoted the next verse you would see what Peter was talking about, and how twisting Paul's word could lead to their destruction.Let's get something straight and I assure you this is nothing personal, when you directly contradict or twist the Scriputures I see you as being outside the faith:And account [that] the longsuffering of our Lord [is] salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. (2 Pe 3:16)
Again I don't know where you get the idea of a global flood in Peter's epistle.Peter discusses the creation of the world from the speaking of words, the global flood
Some scriptural evidence for your claims would be nice. Otherwise we just have to guess which passages you think supports your views. Do you mean the one where Paul says 1Cor 15:47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. Adam was the first man ever and Jesus was the second man? No that can't be the verse you mean, you believe Cain or one of his many older brothers was the second man. You don't think Paul is writing literal history here do you?and Paul discusses Adams transgression and indicates in no uncertain terms that he was the first man as all New Testament writters do.
I reject it because it is bad exegesis. I expect my brothers in the Lord to explain where they think I am going wrong if I have misunderstood. Though I do expect them to be able to back up their case from scripture.When you catagorcially reject this based on secular science and worldly wisdom just stop and think, What do you expect my reaction to be.
What an amazing distortion of my posts. The idea I would think busterdog a coward is farcical.BD is anything but a flame artist, his posts are mild and generally well thought out. You just spoke of him as a coward and this politically correct clutch phrase 'argument from incredulity' is nothing more then a way of calling someone a fool. Do you seriously expect me to extend the right hand of fellowship to someone who clearly twists the Scriptures and attacks evangelicals and fundamentalists with inflammatory and highly emotive satire?
So your opinions are based on what we haven't talked about?You have expressed no interest in core Christian convictions and all TE does, as far as I can tell, is attack creationism. I see no difference between TE and the Liberal Theology of secular humanism or the atheistic philosophy of Tillich or Hegal.
Nice topic switch. My reference to Latin was nothing to do with Paul interpeting Genesis literally, but where Augustine got the doctrine of Original Sin. And whatever languages you want to read Romans in, Augustine got Original Sin from a bad translation into Latin.I read the New Testament in the original, not Latin and not just the English translation. This passage creates no exegetical challenges whatsoever and it's the most basic of Hermaneutics yeild a literal interprutation of Genesis in no uncertain terms.How could it have anything to do with the doctrine of Original Sin when there are plenty of TEs who accept Original Sin and see no contradiction between it and TE. I dropped the doctrine of Original Sin long before I became a TE, when I left the Catholic Church, it was just one more tradition did not see it anywhere in scripture. And that is what Original Sin is, a old Catholic tradition dreamed up in the fifth century based on a bad translation of Romans 5:12 into Latin.
You mean the essential reason for justification by faith had to wait until the fifth century for Augustine to get his hands on a bad translation into Latin? I prefer to go on what Paul tells us, whether you read it in Greek or English, that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.I don't know what you left Rome for but you left the essential reason for justification by faith when you did, it's because in Adam all sinned. That is of course if you take the Apostle Paul at his word and don't twist it around to fit into you philosophical Christian/secular matrix.
For me is was all the stuff about praying to Mary and her being co-mediator, salvation by religious works rather than being saved by faith, and the fact that I could not reconcile these traditions with what I read in scripture. It was not so much that scripture contradicted them, which it did, but that they simply weren't there.I left the Catholic church as well but not because I rejected the tradtional doctrine of the Church (not just Rome but Christianity at large). I left because I believe in Scripture alone as the canon of the Christian life and duty, Christ alone being the righteousness of God to us and grace alone, lest any man should base. I have never discarded the Scriptures and while many of my beliefs run contrary to Rome essential Christian doctrine remains consistant in their basic views.
Paul said we are to blame. That is what it really says in Rom 5:12 death spread to all men, because all sinned.Paul clearly blamed Adam and the need for justification according the the Apostle to the Gentiles, was Adam.
These posts get long enough, this one is already a two parter, and my wife doesn't see enough of me as it is. We are discussing things here aren't we?We should really talk theology sometime, I would have a blast with you in the formal debate forum.
Any particular errors?You have talked about this before and you defend the same two errors zealously.
There was a scientific debate about Aristotlean mechanics, but that wasn't the problem. Science follows the evidence. The bigger problem for both Catholics and Protestants is that through church history in the writings of church fathers, scripture scholars and theologians, passages throughout scripture had been read and interpreted literally as describing the sun moving around the earth. There wasn't a single commentator who read these passages heliocentrically or said the bible wasn't teaching geocentrism.The issue raised by Galileo was Aristotlean mechanics, there was a much larger process involved. Galileo wanted to toss Aristotle's physics out the window while Medieval scholars wanted to revise and expand it. When Galileo started winning the argument at Piza they went to theologians who painted him as a Protestant. We have discussed these things as well and you are still getting it twisted. The only used a couple of Scriptures and when they did Galileo said, 'the Bible tells us how we get to heaven, not how the heavens work'.
Of course the bible does not teach geocentrism. But we only learned geocentrism was not biblical after Copernicus, after the church found new ways to read the passages that had been read literally as describing a geocentric cosmos for a millenium and a half.There is not now, nor has there ever been a Biblical doctrine regarding Astronomy and the suggestion that there was one is laughable.
This was as big an issue back then as evolution is today, and I find it amazing Creationist simply cannot grasp the fact.Cardinal Robert Bellarmine 1615 said:http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1615bellarmine-letter.html
But to want to affirm that the sun really is fixed in the center of the heavens and only revolves around itself (i. e., turns upon its axis ) without traveling from east to west, and that the earth is situated in the third sphere and revolves with great speed around the sun, is a very dangerous thing, not only by irritating all the philosophers and scholastic theologians, but also by injuring our holy faith and rendering the Holy Scriptures false...
I say that, as you know, the Council [of Trent] prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators. Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter, it is on the part of the ones who have spoken. It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles.
Just saying it ain't so doesn't change the history.No there isn't, I'm just not going to chase this wild goose any further.The only difference I can see for us today is that the scientific evidence we have for an ancient earth and evolution is much stronger than the evidence for heliocentrism was in the seventeenth century, and while scholars in seventeenth century faced a tradition of geocentric interpretation which was completely unchallenged, we have a rich heritage of different ways to interpret the Genesis days from church fathers and bible scholars throughout history.
Except the bible doesn't say that is the reason incest is wrong, and it condemns incest that doesn't lead to inbreeding 1Cor 5:1.Again, I'm not going to argue this in circles. Adam and Eve would have had pristine genomes. The reason that inbreeding is bad is because it causes bottlenecks and mutations accumulate.Except the bible never tells us the reason incest is forbidden is inbreeding. If that is the only reason, and incest isn't wickedness as the bible says, then it should be all right for brother and sister to marry now, as long as they don't have any children. Would you be ok with that?
Make up any excuses you want, the bitterness in your heart are clear from so many of your posts Matt 12:34 For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. But I would hope you speak more graciously to Wiccans and Buddhists than you do to fellow believers.I don't hate Buddists, I think they are great. I don't hate Wiccans, the few I have know were friendly and fun to talk to about paganism. I don't hate Mormons, I have set down and talked to them for hours and enjoyed the discussion a lot. I just don't consider them Christians.
Dismissing my post a mockery of scripture is hardly a substantive response.Now you are using this moralistic tone and not considering what I offered as a substantive response to the problem of who Cains wife was. That's what you guys do and while I find it interesting and fairly amusing I do not see anything remotely theistic or Biblical in it. There are answers to these questions but when the question just keeps getting asked no matter what the response, it's nothing but a rhetorical device.
That is most of the lines of argumentation imployed by TEs on here.
Part II
There was a scientific debate about Aristotlean mechanics, but that wasn't the problem. Science follows the evidence. The bigger problem for both Catholics and Protestants is that through church history in the writings of church fathers, scripture scholars and theologians, passages throughout scripture had been read and interpreted literally as describing the sun moving around the earth. There wasn't a single commentator who read these passages heliocentrically or said the bible wasn't teaching geocentrism.
Of course the bible does not teach geocentrism. But we only learned geocentrism was not biblical after Copernicus, after the church found new ways to read the passages that had been read literally as describing a geocentric cosmos for a millenium and a half.
This was as big an issue back then as evolution is today, and I find it amazing Creationist simply cannot grasp the fact.
Just saying it ain't so doesn't change the history.
Except the bible doesn't say that is the reason incest is wrong, and it condemns incest that doesn't lead to inbreeding 1Cor 5:1.
Make up any excuses you want, the bitterness in your heart are clear from so many of your posts Matt 12:34 For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. But I would hope you speak more graciously to Wiccans and Buddhists than you do to fellow believers.
Dismissing my post a mockery of scripture is hardly a substantive response.
The church fathers and commentaries Bellarmine referred to were hardly defending Aristotlean mechanics against the heliocentrism of Copernicus and Galileo. These are writers throughout a millennium and a half of church history simply looking at the bible and explaning what they thought it said.Funny, I was under the impression that Rome used isolated texts, taken out of context to defend geocentrism. They were defending Aristotelian mechanics pure and simple.
Speaking of rhetoric...I have read a great deal about this and find your argument rhetorical rather then substantive.
That is just what I said.The Bible teaches nothing of the sort.Of course the bible does not teach geocentrism. But we only learned geocentrism was not biblical after Copernicus, after the church found new ways to read the passages that had been read literally as describing a geocentric cosmos for a millenium and a half.
I take it from switching to your a priori line about evolution, that you cannot deal with my point.It's not the facts that we cannot grasp, it's the a priori assumption that we will not make, that is at issue. It is followed closely by another sweeping generality that anyone who argues against common decent and universal common ancestry are simply ignorant. They can grasp the facts and do . The Darwinian logic simply argues from false assumptions which is why Creationists and ID proponents argue against Darwinism rather the Mendelian genetics, it's the philosophical naturalistic assumptions that are the culprit.This was as big an issue back then as evolution is today, and I find it amazing Creationist simply cannot grasp the fact.
So the church Fathers had secular motive for their interpretation of the geocentric passages. And Bellarmine was just lying of course. I suggest when you read your history, you try to understand why people thought the way they did.I know my history. I was faced with similar arguments about the Inquistion, Crusades and Salem Witch hunts. I carefully researched these historical tends and found the motives were not religious, they were secular.
If you thought I missed something you could repeat the point, and dismissing my scripture based answer as 'rationalization' simply means you don't want to deal with it.Look, you have ignored my answer to the question so I won't bother with your rationalization of the passages in question.
So you explanation for your bitter hatred towards fellow believers is bogus. Your don't treat TEs the way you treat Wiccans and Buddhists. We have the temerity to tell you we are Christians and you can't handle that.I am disposed toward pagans and certain TEs with the same general feelings of curiosity. Just because I don't accept someone as Christian does not mean they make me bitter, I just conclude that they lack real conviction. Darwinism is poison and I would have the same contentious attitude toward Wiccans and Buddhists who presumed to tell me that they represented Christian views when clearly they don't.
So all your reviling accusations come from boredom? Nah I can't believe that. The venom sounds much too sincere, much too heart felt. You're not a Troll or a Poe.I am not bitter, I'm bored
Yeah lets get out bible study from atheist science fiction writers.with the same rhetorical devices that bring so much satisfaction to people who are furthering an agenda of secular atheistic materialists to undermine Christian conviction."Darwinism destroyed the dogma of the Fall upon which the whole intellectual fabric of Christianity rests. For without a Fall there is no redemption and the whole story and meaning of the Pauline system is vain." (Anticipations of the Reactions of Mechanical and Scientific Progress Upon Human Life and Though, H.G. Wells)
Hey, don't blame me for American Constitutional Law. I'm Irish. But I am sure American law excludes an awful lot of different religions and religious beliefs from the classroom, not just biblical Christianity. However I hold biblical Christianity to a higher standard.Intelligent Design cannot be taught in public schools because it is religious but Creationism is not Biblical enough?
You are making up these arguements, you tell me.What kind of logic is that?
As a Christian I stand for truth in whatever form it comes in. God who created the universe also inspired the bible and a proper understanding of one will not contradict the proper understanding of the other.Sooner or later you will have to get off the fence, you either take your stand on Christian conviction or you side with worldly philosophers. The middle ground has been turned into a no man's land which is exactly the intent of Darwinians. You are in the same boat and you don't realize it, they seek to undo Christian theism altogether and your next.
Yeah you really don't like it when TEs claim to be Christians do you, or show where your interpretation of scripture is wrong. The debate should be good though.I bear you no malice but I won't compromise on vital Christian doctrine. We can discuss genetics and paleontology all day long and it won't effect my opinion of you as a Christian one way or the other. Step off into erroneous doctrines and wrong representations of the clear testimony of Scripture and you are simply dealing with a whole other side of me. If you want to make a case that I am mistaken and want to prove me wrong perhaps you can help out your cohort who has invited a formal debate on this topic in the Formal Debate forum, I sincerely hope you do.
Prov 1:5 let the wise listen and add to their learning,Read Proverbs chapter one and tell me, who is the fool in the passage?
Why make up Hebrew grammar when the normal meaning works very well?
Its only your opinion not a fact.Doesn't the fact that you have to make up new meanings of Hebrew grammar to make a passage fit your interpretation, suggest the problem lies with your interpretation?
Firstborn gets the justice, second born gets the grace (all others are second born) This is why Firstborn gets double everything, if one of the family members does something wrong, the first born pays for it.It was just a suggestion. I would think fathers would generally want to hand the blessing down to their first born and needed convincing when God told them their second son was to receive the blessing instead.
Haven't we heard that kind of argument before?
Gen 19:30
Now Lot went up out of Zoar
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?