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.
Certainly that is the most likely, especially if you take the opinion of the majority of Christians into account.or perhaps it is true, but not supposed to be taken literally (however you define "literally") ......
...Nah, there is an even simpler reason: some people just don't find the Bible that compelling.
As usual, if not always, the majority is wrong. Does that change things ?Certainly that is the most likely, especially if you take the opinion of the majority of Christians into account.
The problem is that the evidence is so clear that it could only mean that God lied if the creation myth were true. But if somehow by some miracle the evidence could be shown to be wrong, and that is all but impossible with mountains of evidence supporting only one side, I could change my mind. But seriously how is that going to happen? All of the so called creation "scientist" that I have ever seen are either cowards or incompetent. None of them will put their ideas to the test and therefore cannot claim to have any evidence for them.....hmmm.....
"no matter what"......
even if truth ? ..... or perhaps it is true, but not supposed to be taken literally (however you define "literally") ......
I think most argument against believing the Bible is just because of rebellion, not fact.
The rebellion might be mostly because of what little children were taught by their mommy and daddy.
That is right, many Christians look at it just as a morality tale. A story that teaches a moral or morals but is not based upon reality. There is no need to believe the obvious myths in the Bible to be a Christian. In fact trying to claim that the Bible is flawless amounts to doing the same as making it a "graven image". An activity banned in the Ten Commandments. Do you remember the old vampire movies where a Bible would force vampires away? That is treating it as a magic talisman. That is not what it is for according to the Bible itself. What many literalists do amounts to the same thing.The creation account in Genesis cannot be interpreted to mean the continuation of evolution of air breathing species, including man, as the 'dry land' part of the earth was under water.
No, you think the majority is wrong, and that doesn't change anything. You don't own the Bible and are in no position to dictate to other Christians what they must believe about it.As usual, if not always, the majority is wrong. Does that change things ?
If as it seems you are wrong, then you are wrong.No, you think the majority is wrong, and that doesn't change anything. You don't own the Bible and are in no position to dictate to other Christians what they must believe about it.
No, you think the majority is wrong, and that doesn't change anything. You don't own the Bible and are in no position to dictate to other Christians what they must believe about it.
....hmmm.....
"no matter what"......
even if truth ? ..... or perhaps it is true, but not supposed to be taken literally (however you define "literally") ......
I think most argument against believing the Bible is just because of rebellion, not fact.
The rebellion might be mostly because of what little children were taught by their mommy and daddy.
Jesus said to Jews, does not TORAH say "you are all gods" ?If there is one thing I've learned from creationists on this forum, it's that all of them appear to think they are God.
Very good ! Yes !Truth can be demonstrated, with something other than personal opinion.
Jesus said to Jews, does not TORAH say "you are all gods" ?
and then also
once born again we are created in the image of God..... to live with Him eternally...
starting as soon as we are born of Him, new creations.
As I noted, I can't answer your questions until I know what you consider to be "life"You answered my questions with non-answers. I'm waiting for real answers. To wit: How developed must an organism be before evolution is possible? And how does this development occur? And isn't this 'development' actually evolution without the means of evolution?
As I noted, I can't answer your questions until I know what you consider to be "life"
It's not confusion. It's that there is no "hard line" between non-life and life; it's a matter of definition. For example, I gather that some scientists have hypothesized that semi-living organisms were capable of replication with variation (and thus capable of evolving) before developing to the point that they possessed the full suite of characteristics which we say define "life." Something like modern viruses, perhaps.Why the confusion around that issue?
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?