curious

[Darkness27]

So how does the evolving from protozoas enter into the equation?
We agree that God instituted spiritual as well as physical qualities into man? or not?
Genesis 2 even tells you how he made the form of man from the ground and breathed through his nostrils.
Now theres a logical disconnect to what a TE believes.
Its really obvious.

Since there aren't a lot of TEs around me (I'd say 99% of all the Christians I know are either not TE or don't know science well enough to talk to on matters like this), I sort of make up stuff when combining science and theology, so other TEs may give you different answers, but I'll give my 2 cents on the thing.

In a nutshell: Since God is spirit, and a spirit doesn't have a corporeal body, only God's spiritual image was made in Man, no physical qualities are present because God is a/the spirit. Our evolutionary history is simply our physical progression to our current physical state. At some point in our physical history (personally I think it is around 50K years ago), God took us aside and breathed the breath of life in us, creating us in His (spiritual) image thus we became "a living soul".

 

[interested in life]

Since there aren't a lot of TEs around me (I'd say 99% of all the Christians I know are either not TE or don't know science well enough to talk to on matters like this), I sort of make up stuff when combining science and theology, so other TEs may give you different answers, but I'll give my 2 cents on the thing.

Im finding it difficult already just because it seems one TEs take on genesis seems to slightly differ from anothers.Whats amusing to me has been the belief that TEs totally 100% believe in the bible while not 100% believing in it.Ok thats probably countered by them saying an OEC is different from a YEC which is true when discussing the length of the creative days.But generally fundamentalists tend to sing from the same page.And id like to point out this forum is dominated by TEs of varying spiritual strength.I see possible atheists masquerading here probably not aware that their arguments are straight from the unbeliever handbook.,I see spiritual TEs who probably do believe in most of the bible and still have some sort of relationship with God,just it seems that their education overrides what they have been taught in sunday school etc.Difficulties arise when theres no unity however.

In a nutshell: Since God is spirit, and a spirit doesn't have a corporeal body, only God's spiritual image was made in Man, no physical qualities are present because God is a/the spirit.

That contradicts the bible,3 times in verses 26-27 God emphasises hes making man in his image.He physically moulds man and breathes into his nostrils.Tell me a protozoa is in Gods image.How can a single celled orgainism reflect spiritual qualities anyway?You see what im saying?im trying my best to make it as plain as day.

Our evolutionary history is simply our physical progression to our current physical state. At some point in our physical history (personally I think it is around 50K years ago), God took us aside and breathed the breath of life in us, creating us in His (spiritual) image thus we became "a living soul".

Does it ever occur to TEs that the belief that we evolved from common ancestry with animals is closer to what God haters believe than their fundamentalists bros and sisters believe?.A sign of true christianity is unity.
Ill reiterate by saying no i dont believe he used the method you claim he did.
I dont believe he experimented with animals in order to get the best human.
I think he knew what he was doing from the start.

 

[interested in life]

When sheep are divided,it makes them easy prey.God bless and best wishes people,i have learnt enough from this forum i think.

 

[sfs]

Does it ever occur to TEs that the belief that we evolved from common ancestry with animals is closer to what God haters believe than their fundamentalists bros and sisters believe?.

Of course it's occurred to us. Did it ever occur to you that the belief in special creation is closer to what pagans and Muslims believe than to what their more scientifically-informed Christian brothers and sisters believe? Perhaps we should worry more about what's true than about who else believes something.

A sign of true christianity is unity.

So get with the program. Only a small minority of Christians world-wide believe in a young earth, and the churches representing the great bulk of believers have no problem with evolution.

 

[Mick116]

How can all scripture be inspired if some is not true?

Because the bible are the words of God in the words of men. God the Holy Spirit inspired the prophets and the apostles to write God's message for mankind; there was no need for God to correct the human authors' misunderstandings of history or science, because those details are not part of the message.

I believe in inspiration, not dictation.

 

[Mick116]

Tell me a protozoa is in Gods image.

Only as much as the "dust of the earth" is in God's image.

The bible's description of our physical bodies being formed out of the "dust of the earth" is a great way of saying that our bodies are made of the same "stuff" as the rest of creation. This is completely compatible with TE understandings.

A sign of true christianity is unity.

We are united by our faith in Christ as Lord and Saviour.

Ill reiterate by saying no i dont believe he used the method you claim he did.

Each to their own.

I dont believe he experimented with animals in order to get the best human.

I don't think anybody would have put it that way.

I think he knew what he was doing from the start.

Ditto. See? We can agree sometimes...

 

[Melethiel]

Why does "true" have to mean "factual, literal"? That is a very modern viewpoint superimposed onto the text. I believe that 100% of the Bible is true. This does not mean I believe that all of it is a newspaper account, because much of it was obviously not meant to be.

God has an actual form? That's so Mormon...literalism breeds all sorts of heresy.

 

[Willtor]

Im finding it difficult already just because it seems one TEs take on genesis seems to slightly differ from anothers.Whats amusing to me has been the belief that TEs totally 100% believe in the bible while not 100% believing in it.Ok thats probably countered by them saying an OEC is different from a YEC which is true when discussing the length of the creative days.But generally fundamentalists tend to sing from the same page.And id like to point out this forum is dominated by TEs of varying spiritual strength.I see possible atheists masquerading here probably not aware that their arguments are straight from the unbeliever handbook.,I see spiritual TEs who probably do believe in most of the bible and still have some sort of relationship with God,just it seems that their education overrides what they have been taught in sunday school etc.Difficulties arise when theres no unity however.

I think a little reading of peoples' interpretations of Genesis throughout the ages will change your tune. Most literal interpretations of Genesis have been so different from yours as to be unrecognizable. For the best of interpreters, I hope they wouldn't say the same about you as you are saying about us. But some would (e.g., Martin Luther).

That contradicts the bible,3 times in verses 26-27 God emphasises hes making man in his image.He physically moulds man and breathes into his nostrils.Tell me a protozoa is in Gods image.How can a single celled orgainism reflect spiritual qualities anyway?You see what im saying?im trying my best to make it as plain as day.

Interesting. So a gorilla is _more_ in the image of God than a spider, for example? Further, a saint who has lost both his or her legs is less in the image of God than a monster who is physically whole? What skin color does God have? I hope it's white so that I'm close. I wonder if there's an operation people can have to alter their skin color and regain some of the image of God that was lost in the fall. I have blue eyes and my wife has green. Which one of us is more godly in that department? Does God look more like a man or a woman? Or should we be aiming for an androgynous ideal? Is He tall? Does Manute Bol bear the image of God more completely than those of us who are shorter? Maybe they had the right idea about platform shoes in the '70s. Does God have facial hair? I hope His beard is red like mine. I feel more godly already.
(/sarcasm)

IIL, the image of God is _not_ physical. Trust me. Even if you're right about the rest, _that_ is not a literal element of the creation account. The image of God is not something that can be taken from one person by another. And, as has been said, God is Spirit. Prior to the Incarnation, He had no physical body except when He chose to manifest Himself in that way.

Does it ever occur to TEs that the belief that we evolved from common ancestry with animals is closer to what God haters believe than their fundamentalists bros and sisters believe?.A sign of true christianity is unity.
Ill reiterate by saying no i dont believe he used the method you claim he did.
I dont believe he experimented with animals in order to get the best human.
I think he knew what he was doing from the start.

I think we're all in agreement that He knew what He was doing from the start. I also think that if you think we don't think that, you've been reading too much AiG.

 

[Mallon]

i have learnt enough from this forum i think.

It's pretty clear from the way you continue to misrepresent evolutionary creationism that you haven't learned a thing. Your question obviously wasn't asked with a genuine intent to learn about the views of others; it was asked so that you could deride the views of others.

 

[The Lady Kate]

When sheep are divided,it makes them easy prey.God bless and best wishes people,i have learnt enough from this forum i think.

When sheep follow each other blindly, they all end up going off the cliff together.

 

[shernren]

Does it ever occur to TEs that the belief that we evolved from common ancestry with animals is closer to what God haters believe than their fundamentalists bros and sisters believe?.A sign of true christianity is unity.

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?” (Gal 2:11-14, ESV)
​

Before Paul confronted Peter, the Jewish church in Jerusalem exhibited remarkable unity. They were of one heart and mind in excluding Gentiles from their fellowship. They were so devoted that even Barnabas joined them in their doing so. Was Paul pleased by their remarkable unity? Did he join hands with them and sing kumbaya?

No, he rebuked them, neither for their unity nor even for their disunity with their Gentile brethren, but simply for their failure to live in light of the gospel.

You see, the gospel has taught us that we are saved by God's grace, not our own works. Thus we are united, not by brilliance or charity or devotion, but by sheer inability. We enter the family not just by knowing the right things and saying the right words but by admitting that we are never good enough to enter on our own.

That is why gospel unity should never be used as a hammer to force Christians into conformity over doctrinal issues. If an idea is right, it is right because it is in accordance with creation and with Scripture; or if it is wrong, it is wrong because it distorts truth and harms lives. But there is never any room for us to manipulate our brothers and sisters into agreeing with us "for the sake of unity". And that is a lesson both creationists and evolutionists need to learn.

 

[JeannieLee]

how much of the bible do you actually believe in?,apologies if this has been asked before

Speaking for Catholics, it doesn't have to be one or the other in reference to the Book of Genesis.. It is open to discussion as long as it is not contradicting to the Human Soul or the fact that God created ALL things..

We do believe all things in the Bible are God breathed, and non contradicting to each other... We do believe the New Testament is the Fulfillment of the Old Testament, and was not intended to change everything, but explain and complete everything.. Yet things are different, and through the NT God started disciplining his children differently, God came to Light in Truth, the truth about his Love.. That in his very essence is Love and Wisdom, Jesus Christ incarnate..

To look at the Bible black and white could get anyone confused.. To put God in a box, not only simplifies his existence but our understanding of Him and His existence.. All things in the Bible should be looked at with their origins, Regions, traditions, conditions, language, and history.. Otherwise a lot of things could be construed as contradicting, and really the Bible wouldn't make any sense and in reality has been a major cause of division among Christians..

 

[JeannieLee]

Is God physical? Doesn't the Bible say that God is a Spirit? That's why it was a big deal when the Son became incarnate as the man Jesus of Nazareth.

The image of God is therefore not physical, but spiritual - a reflection of the nature of God. That is why, when man sinned, this image was tarnished.

Do you believe that Jesus wasn't in existence until his incarnation OR do you believe that He existed in the beginning and His human nature was incarnate??

Do you believe that Jesus is God's Love and Wisdom personified?

 

[JeannieLee]

Really you need to swot a bit more before commenting if you dont think God doesnt have a form.When i finish doing some work like i should, ill show you some verses.
If he doesnt have a form why did he say lets make man in our image.
Image ----form.
Btw im not disagreeing that we inherited spiritual qualities either so lets not go down that road.
No straw in the thread please.

It says, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." This may not mean God's physical appearance, but maybe their very essence, Love and Wisdom and quite possibly God's Immortality.. As most Christians do believe we have an immortal soul.. Do animals have an immortal soul most likely not.. Do they have the spirit to worship and follow God, no they don't.. God breathed in their nostrils the breath of life, and did not do that to any other creature..

In reference to Adam and Eve, male and female... Really you could look at the very word Wisdom which is a feminine word.. Or like I said before, maybe we are made in likeness of God's very essence..

 

[JeannieLee]

Before Paul confronted Peter, the Jewish church in Jerusalem exhibited remarkable unity. They were of one heart and mind in excluding Gentiles from their fellowship. They were so devoted that even Barnabas joined them in their doing so. Was Paul pleased by their remarkable unity? Did he join hands with them and sing kumbaya?

No, he rebuked them, neither for their unity nor even for their disunity with their Gentile brethren, but simply for their failure to live in light of the gospel.

You see, the gospel has taught us that we are saved by God's grace, not our own works. Thus we are united, not by brilliance or charity or devotion, but by sheer inability. We enter the family not just by knowing the right things and saying the right words but by admitting that we are never good enough to enter on our own.

That is why gospel unity should never be used as a hammer to force Christians into conformity over doctrinal issues. If an idea is right, it is right because it is in accordance with creation and with Scripture; or if it is wrong, it is wrong because it distorts truth and harms lives. But there is never any room for us to manipulate our brothers and sisters into agreeing with us "for the sake of unity". And that is a lesson both creationists and evolutionists need to learn.

Jesus prayed:

"I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me." John 17:20-21

Do you not see that our very disunity among theological beliefs drives people away from even believing in Jesus Christ.. We should be striving for unity in all things, just as the Apostles where.. It is ridiculous that there is near 40,000 different Protestant denominations that have formed since the reformation only 500 years.. No wonder it is hard for anyone to believe in Jesus Christ.. Before this was only ONE Separation through the Schism, and still East and West are in more like mind aside from quite interesting, the Topic of the post, and their Authoritative head.. But funny the Pope(Father) / Pontiff(Bridge Builder) is making every possibly move to bring the entire Catholic Church into unity again.. You can see the Catholic Church opening the doors the the Anglican Church for those Priests who no longer have a home who do not share in the same beliefs in which the Anglican Church has changed to.. 100's of 1000's of Anglicans are now converting, now that is called building a bridge!!

This is the kind of unity we should be striving for.. What then if the East and West can say they are unified, after an unnecessary separation.. What then can Protestants do to do the same???

We must be one mind, so that people may believe.. And still we must strive for this for the sake of our own congregation for this separation even confuses those within the one fold..

 

[shernren]

In the high priestly prayer of John 17, how is this unity achieved? Jesus tells us in the last verse:

"I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them.” (John 17:26, ESV)

Of course love does not mean leaving your brains at the door. But it does tell us how those brains should be treated.

I have every right to disagree in doctrine with my brother. But I have no right to do so for no good reason. And I have no right to clobber him with "unity", to insist that he must change his beliefs and join me for the sake of Christians being united. (Why, my changing my mind and agreeing with him would accomplish the same goal, after all!) Rather, I may consider my beliefs more correct than his because those beliefs would bring him benefit, and so in love I would speak the truth, never seeking to tear down except to build up from the ruins, never seeking to refute except to teach and exhort afterwards.

Of course, these are lofty ideals that no Christian or Christian church can fully live up to. Because we are not at the End yet, there will always be legitimate disagreements. We have no right to construe such disagreements as signs of divine disapproval, and neither does the disbelieving world. When they have settled between themselves whether capitalism or socialism is better, whether the left or the right is right, then let them come back and mock our doctrinal disunity! The real question is what do we do with our differences? Shall we with no good reason condemn anyone who believes even slightly differently from us? Or do we learn to accept with love those who have different perspectives?

The answer will tell us how much we are exhibiting godly unity.

 

[philadiddle]

Stop trying to hijack the thread please,ive barely touched on what i want to talk about.And the link i looked at was missing the first 5 chapters.
I agree with those 3 ways and have no problem with all 3 being intertwined.However im having a real problem trying to correlate the idea that God not only made adam in his likeness or image with the idea we evolved from protozoas.
It simply doesnt say that.
Its actually funny reading some of the responses,its stock standard fundie explanations. im agreeing with it.lol.
So how does the evolving from protozoas enter into the equation?
We agree that God instituted spiritual as well as physical qualities into man? or not?
Genesis 2 even tells you how he made the form of man from the ground and breathed through his nostrils.
Now theres a logical disconnect to what a TE believes.
Its really obvious.

God making us from dust is symbolic of that cultures understanding. You'll have to explain why evolution as "how" God created us contradicts the scriptures that were written by a pre scientific culture.

As far as Genesis 3:15 goes, I just want a quick 1 line answer from you. What does it mean? I've taken a few moments to attempt to answer your question, even if you don't accept it, at least I tried.

 

[Melethiel]

Do you believe that Jesus wasn't in existence until his incarnation OR do you believe that He existed in the beginning and His human nature was incarnate??

Do you believe that Jesus is God's Love and Wisdom personified?

The latter (with the qualification that both the divine and human natures were incarnate - to say that only the human nature was incarnate is heresy), and yes.

Altho, your former statement could be true as well - while the Divine Son existed in the beginning, the physical man Jesus of Nazareth did not exist until the incarnation.

 

[philadiddle]

When sheep are divided,it makes them easy prey.God bless and best wishes people,i have learnt enough from this forum i think.

I call poe. You can only pretend to be a creationist for so long before you get bombarded with too many questions that you can't respond to.

 

[Melethiel]

Before this was only ONE Separation through the Schism

That is simply not true. There were always fringe groups splitting off, and there was a major schism before the Great Schism of 1054 - have you ever heard of the Chalcedonian controversy and the Oriental Orthodox? And even before that was the Nestorian split.

There isn't going to be a re-unification of East and West for at least another 200 years, because the Orthodox will not accept many of the Catholic dogmas about the Pope. That was, after all, one of the major reasons for the break.

But, regardless, what does it matter if it is 1, 2, or "40,000" (I think that number is blown far out of proportion - it's really not fair to count all the various national churches as separate, even if they are in fellowship with each other, and yet clump all the Orthodox together)? If one schism is one too many, than there should be no pointing of fingers - speck and log and all that.