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.
I find calvinism FAR more logical and reasonable than any other Christian school of thought and have never seen it lose in a debate. Although, hyper-calvinism is crazy...
I find calvinism FAR more logical and reasonable than any other Christian school of thought and have never seen it lose in a debate. Although, hyper-calvinism is crazy...
Ok. Again, I wasn't saying Sovereign Election and Natural Selection are exact, but they do have some interesting parallels.I was referring to connecting natural selection and calvinism, not the school of thought termed calvinism. I agree that hyper-calvinism is crazy though, I don't even subscribe to regular calvinism let alone something with the prefix hyper.
Howso? I see no absolute contradiction.
Paul said that by one man came death, but I take that as for humans, as humans were different than animals once God breathed a spirit into those first two humaniod like beings.There are many.
The largest being that death did not enter into the world until Adam sinned. Death came through Adam, but Macro Evolution teaches that death produced Adam.
As I said before, this is true for a proper an semi-proper reading. In order to reconcile Evolution, a Christian must begin to go back to their reading of the passage and change it in a variety of ways.
There is absolutely no way to ever arrive at anything even remotely resembling Evolution from the passage in Genesis. In fact, it's quite the opposite. Adam is created from the clay of the earth, and life is breathed into him. It is never even remotely suggested that he is the product of countless genetic mutations that eventually turned lower primates into humans.
Furthermore, it is both a terribly inefficient and sloppy process, and a very ugly process. If you believe that God chose to create man by endlessly producing genetic mutations that are selectively maintained through death, you are far from any remotely reasonable reading of Genesis.
The strata littered with corpses of genetically mutated creatures... it is the result of sin, not the creation mechanism of a holy god.
Why do you believe that ?I believe God evolved humanoid like beings until they could house enough intelligence for God to breathe a spirit into them.
Why do you believe that ?
Paul said that by one man came death, but I take that as for humans, as humans were different than animals once God breathed a spirit into those first two humaniod like beings.
And why would God threaten Adam and Eve with death if they didn't witness death? I think they had an idea of what death was. And either way, man is still made from the molecules (dust) of the earth.
And why wouldn't God use death in natural selection? Who says He can't and that He's evil in doing so? If God was so opposed to death, then I don't think He would have made beings He knew would sin, reject, and perish. I don't think God sees death like we do, especially in the animal kingdom. If it wasn't a sin for Jesus to eat fish, or for us to eat animals now, then it was never a sin or wrong for animals to eat other animals.
Very well put, Iakovos.
I will say one thing for this thread. Previously I thought Calvinism was just a bad idea. Now I'm positive it's both a bad idea and dangerous to say the least.
On the contrary- Calvinism was in the OP, and has been the subject of much of the thread. We all have a right to our opinions, and this forum is designated as a place to share them.This thread is about Evolution. Please stop discussing Calvinism because it is a derailment of the thread.
There are plenty of other threads to discuss that topic. Don't debate off-topic in the Evolution thread.
The genome shows a history of our evolution.Why do you believe that ?
On the contrary- Calvinism was in the OP, and has been the subject of much of the thread. We all have a right to our opinions, and this forum is designated as a place to share them.
Hmm not sure that follows. Just because Augustine used Adam to argue against Pelagius doesn't mean Pelagianism is right if we find Augustine's argument was flawed. Pelagius was wrong regardless of how good Augustine's particular argument about Adam was.While historically Christianity has allowed for some degree of allegory in this passage (indeed some older theologians argued that it had to be allegorical, because it wouldn't take God six whole days to create the world), there are limits to how far you can take allegory. In Christianity, death is an Adamic, Hamartiological condition. To deny this is to veer dangerously into Pelagianism.
Actually, he very often didn't say he was spreaking in parables. What we have again and again in the gospels is the evangelist writing and telling us that Jesus was speaking a parable. For the people listening to Jesus, he just launghed straight into the metaphor or story without any explanation. That is why Nicodemus was so confused. That is why people thought he really meant tearing down the temple and rebuilding it in three days, or that he was really advocating cannibalism.Yes, but there is a big difference between the parables of Christ (which he stated to be parables)
The problem here is that you are assuming the creation accounts are literal history and that because some of the book is history it all has to be.and calling an historical account a parable. Just as there is a big difference between metaphors in a book of prophecy or poetry, which implicitly use metaphor, and a book of history. The two simply are not the same.
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?