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.
When they presuppose that the book is inerrant/infallible, then they've already clouded sound and rational judgment in regards to what constitutes realityThat’s the bit I don’t understand about creationists. When a book co traduces reality the book must be wrong: not the other way around.
"Do not love the world or anything in the world. ... Do not love the world or anything in the world. ... anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in him."I hope that all the christians will reject this post, because otherwise it would be prime example of how christianity is anti-science, anti knowledge and anti education.
God's word is truth. Satan is the father of lies. Satan will do what ever he can to hinder people from receiving God's word. Satan has done an excellent job on you, sad to say.When they presuppose that the book is inerrant/infallible, then they've already clouded sound and rational judgment in regards to what constitutes reality
When they presuppose that the book is inerrant/infallible, then they've already clouded sound and rational judgment in regards to what constitutes reality
How has science become anti-Christian? Did it do that when it showed that the world was spherical and not flat? Or did it do that when it showed that the Earth was not fixed in place?"Do not love the world or anything in the world. ... Do not love the world or anything in the world. ... anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in him."
Science has become worldly. Some of the greatest scientist ever were Christians. They were careful to give God the glory. Science has been hijacked by godless atheism and is used to sow seeds of doubt and unbelief. Science has become anti Christian, not Christians become anti science. Yes, there are scientists who are Christian. How does the scientific community treat them? As if they were mentally deficient because they won't toe the PC line. How do I know? I follow the commentary against people like Professor James Tour, Stephen Meyer, David Berlinski and others who reject evolution. Not all of those men are Christians. All are subject to abuse from people who really should know better.
How has science become anti-Christian? Did it do that when it showed that the world was spherical and not flat? Or did it do that when it showed that the Earth was not fixed in place?
Except inerrant is definitely wrong, there are things the Bible is absolutely mistaken on, like rabbits chewing the cud or that you can breed sheep in front of striped sticks and get striped sheep. Infallible is at least moving the goalposts in an honest fashion of the "supernatural" being beyond human kenNeither one is wrong. Some people just don't realize that many parts of scripture aren't meant to be taken 100% literally.
Yeah, continue that script, that'll convince people and not just show that you're out of your gourd and refuse to engage rationally with anyone.God's word is truth. Satan is the father of lies. Satan will do what ever he can to hinder people from receiving God's word. Satan has done an excellent job on you, sad to say.
Science has been hijacked by godless atheism and is used to sow seeds of doubt and unbelief.
Yes, there are scientists who are Christian. How does the scientific community treat them?
. However, if the genetic information was not contained in the original mongrel dogs, they could not have been selectively bred.
I have referred to and linked biologos, a Christian evolution website, quite a few times. I have never seen non-Christians attacking the site, probably because they do follow the scientific method, nor have I had an responses from creationists that tell me they have gone to the site.You do know there is tremendous irony in saying this in a thread whereby equating evolution and atheism has seemingly blinded creationists to God's Creation.
Francis Collins seems to be well respected. He's an evangelical Christian.
The problem is deciding which bits. Personally, when God says continually, Old and New Testaments, the He created everything, then I am happy to agree. Mountains clapping their hands? Symbolic - that's a no brainer.Neither one is wrong. Some people just don't realize that many parts of scripture aren't meant to be taken 100% literally.
The problem is deciding which bits. Personally, when God says continually, Old and New Testaments, the He created everything, then I am happy to agree. Mountains clapping their hands? Symbolic - that's a no brainer.
I'll answer your first question now. I was taught evolution pretty much from "Origin of Species". It included trips to the Natural History Museum in London, courtesy of my Grandmother. There you could see the now discredited evolutionary progression of horses from creatures the size of a sheep to the giant carthorse. All very logical and plausible. Just wrong. The now known to be fake Haeckel drawings were also in our textbooks.
It does not have to be contentious. The Word explains itself. And the details are incredibly significant, if you delve into them. For example, the difference in the way God created animals and the way He created Adam are much different. And for very good reasons. Likewise the way Eve was formed has tremendous spiritual import. You might like to read "The Glorious Church" by Watchman Nee. He goes into much detail and I have been much blessed by it.I agree that God created everything. The issue in contention seems to be the details of how He did it.
Well that certainly may explain something about your views. Watchman Nee was no doubt a devout and committed Christian but was influenced by the Plymouth Brethren and as a consequence had some pretty strange theological notions. Are you a Darbyite?It does not have to be contentious. The Word explains itself. And the details are incredibly significant, if you delve into them. For example, the difference in the way God created animals and the way He created Adam are much different. And for very good reasons. Likewise the way Eve was formed has tremendous spiritual import. You might like to read "The Glorious Church" by Watchman Nee. He goes into much detail and I have been much blessed by it.
If you were living in Britain during your schooldays, you were more fortunate in your education than I was. I was taught very little about science at primary school; I think that religion was the single subject that took up the largest amount of time. I remember my parents taking me on one trip to the Natural History Museum during my primary school days, but a single trip, however interesting, was not enough for me to learn much about any aspect of biology.
I was taught biology at secondary school for one or two years, but that was mostly about basic anatomy. Evolution was hardly mentioned, although perhaps it formed a part of the O-level or A-level course. However, my secondary school library didn't even have a copy of The Origin of Species; I first read it in a copy that I borrowed from the local public library (and even that had an anti-evolutionary foreword by W.R. Thompson).
I also read about Haeckel in library books and perhaps saw his drawings of embryos, but the books were generally dismissive of his hypothesis that ontogeny repeats phylogeny. Since Haeckel died in 1919, it would be interesting to know whether you have learnt anything about embryology that has been published since his time.
Finally, it would also be interesting to know your opinions of geology and palaeontology. In particular, do you accept that sedimentary rocks have been deposited over periods of millions or billions of years, and that there is a succession of fossils from the Cambrian period to the present day that provides a valid method of correlating rocks of the same age from different parts of the world?
I don't know what a Darbyite is. I know something of the Brethren. They rejected Watchman Nee because he chose to meet with someone who was not Brethren. Watchman Nee was influenced also by Andrew Murray, George Mueller and Jesse Penn Lewis. Not too many people are influenced by no one. What do you find strange about W. Nee's theology?Well that certainly may explain something about your views. Watchman Nee was no doubt a devout and committed Christian but was influenced by the Plymouth Brethren and as a consequence had some pretty strange theological notions. Are you a Darbyite?
A Dispensationalist.I don't know what a Darbyite is.
Mueller split off with the Open Brethren but the distinction is not much known of here in the US, nor any of the other fringe Nonconformists you refer to. Dispensationalism here is mostly associated with some of the American Fundamentalist Evangelical sects, notably the Southern Baptists.I know something of the Brethren. They rejected Watchman Nee because he chose to meet with someone who was not Brethren. Watchman Nee was influenced also by Andrew Murray, George Mueller and Jesse Penn Lewis. Not too many people are influenced by no one. What do you find strange about W. Nee's theology?
I refuse to wear any label other than Christian. If someone can work out what label to put on me from what I say, they are welcome. I just won't wear it.A Dispensationalist. Mueller split off with the Open Brethren but the distinction is not much known of here in the US, nor any of the other fringe Nonconformists you refer to. Dispensationalism here is mostly associated with some of the American Fundamentalist Evangelical sects, notably the Southern Baptists.
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?