Directed Evolution

[Nathan Poe]

When has Nathan blaphemed or mocked Christianity. He has disagreed with your god, but since your god isn't God, that's not a big problem.

In all fairness, I've probably mocked and/or blasphemed Christianity at some point, but not deliberately, and certainly not while talking to FoC.

Tell me, FoC, is the real problem here that you are simply jealous because people listen to me and not you?

Could be... a Fundamentalist's God is more often than not fueled by its follower's ego.

 

[lucaspa]

Before I get into FoC's specifics, I would like to point out how well FoC has distracted the argument. He has never made even an attempt to argue against the evidence for natural selection and evolution in the OP. He knows that no company is going to invest money like that in something that is not sound. He knows that anyone reading the OP is going to realize that evolution is, practically speaking, "absolutely proven".

Instead, he wants to turn the thread into a referendum on my personal beliefs. As if my personal beliefs have anything to do with how God chose to create.

Ask him some questions about those basics......
Start presenting the little miracles of the NT to him and see how much he believes HAPPENED as written.....
It doesnt stop at creation or global flood......
Soon even Jesus casting out demons is a lie and a myth as well to these folks.

Here we are back again to worrying about what the Bible says, not about the truth of God and Jesus. Notice that this isn't about God or Jesus, but about what is written in the Bible. Also notice that no one has ever said that the stories about Jesus casting out demons are lies and myths. Nor has anyone disputed that the stories depict miracles. So the last sentence is false witness.

The only thing we have discussed is the exact nature of the miracles! Were the miracles literal demons or were the miracles cures that the people of the time thought of in terms of demons?

And here comes the question that FoC will not face: What difference to God or Jesus does it make? FoC sees a difference, but for him the difference is in what the Bible says. Now, if you worship the Bible, this is important. However, if you worship God and Jesus, the Bible is much less important. After all, both God and Jesus have an existence outside and independent of the Bible. But not for FoC, because his god is the Bible.

And he is upset that I will not worship his god.

The bible WARNS that in the latter days that men would not adhere to sound doctrine.

And Biblical literalism is not sound doctrine.

In this very forum you have folks who are ''christian'' yet say that the virgin birth is MYTH

Who has said that?

You tell me, is that cause for alarm?

Is it? From the beginning of Christianity there have been Christians who claimed that Jesus was the adopted son of God, not the biological son of God. Also, does Mary have to be a virgin for Jesus to be the biological son of God. Yes, having Mary a virgin does stop any questions of a human father, but really, God can impregnate a non-virgin just as well as a virgin, can't He?

Again, this is about the Bible for FoC. Not about God or Jesus. He is not concerned with God or Jesus, but whether a literal Bible is correct.

I could ignore evolution altogether if it were not just the first step in a long road to finding that nearly the whole bible is nothing more than parable.

LOL! The "slippery slope" argument. FoC, not even the most ardent Biblical literalist takes the whole Bible as literal truth. No Biblical literalist takes Luke 2:1 as literally true. And they all have allowed extrabiblical evidence to tell them to reinterpret Is. 40:22. The issue is whether we trust God in His Creation to know that a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11 is wrong, like we trusted God in His Creation to know that a literal Is. 40:22 is wrong. IOW, it's not about whether we should interpret some of the Bible as non-literal. All literalists accept that. The issue is whether we should interpret these chapters of Genesis as non-literal.

Do you believe Jesus cast out demons?
If you do then you know that thats what it says.
If you stop believing THAT part of the text, how long before you take the next step and reject even virgin birth..

Slippery slope again. But this isn't about unbelief in God. It's about unbelief of a literal Bible.

And I see any ''christian'' who says ''Jesus didnt REALLY cast out demons, thats not true" as a stumbling block..

Interesting. I see an "christian" insisting that the non-critical parts of the Bible must be literally true as a stumbling block.

Besides, FoC, we can't seem to get you to realize that there are different kinds of truth.

Hes TELLING them to REJECT Gods word and to accept HIS fallible understanding that cannot comprehend that this WAS indeed a demon being cast out

False witness. I never said that. I merely removed FoC's stumbling block that it must be a demon, which went against their common sense. It could have been a demon. But it is not required that it is a demon.

So what do we do with a Christian that uses false witness as evidence?

There are many Christians here who believe evolution and who also say God didnt flood the world....

So what was Gods promise for if He didnt actually destroy the WORLD with a flood?

Literalism. It blinds people to the truth. God has told us plainly in His Creation that the world was never flooded. But literalists can't listen to God. They have to dictate to God. And when God tells them something different, they can't try to figure out what God is saying. All they can do is insist that God must be saying what the literalists want Him to say. No wonder militant atheists think God is made in man's image. The literalist Fundamentalist god certainly is!

The story illustrates that 1) humans can get so bad that God can lose patience with them; God's patience is not infinite, 2) however, even if God loses patience, He still has mercy and compassion.