• 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.

Gun Control and Evolution - A Quick Gut Check

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Site Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
30,831
9,814
NW England
✟1,284,701.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Many Christian liberals support increased Gun Control and even an all out gun ban because "If we can save just ONE life, then it's all worth it" - yet these same liberals are perfectly happy to stand by and allow the teaching of evolution to destroy a young person's eternal life by convincing them there's no God and no Judgment Day.

So, in the same way, would it not be equally worth it to ban the teaching of evolution across the board if it will save just ONE person from ending up eternally lost?
No, because you can accept evolution and still be saved - many are.
How the world was made and how long it took, has nothing to do with whether or not a person accepts that Jesus died for them, and trusts in him for eternal life.

As for gun possession - it's illegal in my country, so not a problem.
 
Upvote 0

Phoneman-777

Active Member
Dec 11, 2022
342
65
Deep South
✟39,148.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Why would I trust the NRA? And I'm not going to ask the NRA, I'm asking you.



That's not a game I intend to play.

-CryptoLutheran
You should ask the NRA because they are among the premiere WATCHDOGS keeping an eye on various anti-2A legislators...or ask NAGR. Make no mistake, gun control isn't the end game, it's a gun ban they want.

Look, the reason people won't answer the question is because they know it exposes them as caring less about a person's eternal life than they do their temporal life - which reveals how much Jesus they actually have in them: none.
 
Upvote 0

Phoneman-777

Active Member
Dec 11, 2022
342
65
Deep South
✟39,148.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No, because you can accept evolution and still be saved - many are.
How the world was made and how long it took, has nothing to do with whether or not a person accepts that Jesus died for them, and trusts in him for eternal life.

As for gun possession - it's illegal in my country, so not a problem.
We're aware that some people claim their faith in God is intact while believing in evolution.

THAT'S NOT THE POINT.

The point is that there are some Christians who turn into atheists because some atheist college professor mocked God's existence and plastered a bunch of evolutionary pseudoscience on the board that convinced them the Bible is untrue.

Therefore, if a total gun ban "is worth it if it can save just one life"...would not a total ban on teaching of evolution "be worth it if it can save just one life for eternity"?
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
39,532
29,043
Pacific Northwest
✟812,781.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
We're aware that some people claim their faith in God is intact while believing in evolution.

THAT'S NOT THE POINT.

The point is that there are some Christians who turn into atheists because some atheist college professor mocked God's existence and plastered a bunch of evolutionary pseudoscience on the board that convinced them the Bible is untrue.

Therefore, if a total gun ban "is worth it if it can save just one life"...would not a total ban on teaching of evolution "be worth it if it can save just one life for eternity"?

What you are describing is not people leaving the faith because of evolution, but because they were taught--wrongly--that to accept evolution means to deny the inspiration and truth of Holy Scripture. What you are describing is the way Young Earth Creationism, when presented as the only acceptable position to have as a Christian, causes injury to faith. The fault is not in the teaching of science (evolution), but in the insistance upon a particular and peculiarly narrow interpretation of the Genesis accounts of creation.

If you told a person that to be a Christian they have to believe that the earth is flat, and if their entire lives they were told that a flat earth is the only acceptable position for a Christian to have, and that to say the earth is round is atheistic, denies the Bible, and only people who hate God believe in a round earth. Well, once that person discovers the earth is round, they're going possibly conclude that everything they were taught was also wrong.

If we genuinely care about this problem, of people leaving the faith when encountering evidence for evolution in the classroom, then we should care about teaching the Faithful that it's okay to be a Christian and accept evidence-based science and that there is no conflict. That there's no conflict between the Christian faith and the theory of evolution--because there isn't. And, in fact, a belief in a woodenly-literal interpretation of the creation stories in Genesis has never been the official position of the Christian religion. Instead, there have always existed many different interpretations, and it has never been a problem.

We ought to instead remember these wise words written by St. Augustine of Hippo,

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion." - Augustine, De Genesi ad Litteram

-CryptoLutheran
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Phoneman-777
Upvote 0

Phoneman-777

Active Member
Dec 11, 2022
342
65
Deep South
✟39,148.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What you are describing is not people leaving the faith because of evolution, but because they were taught--wrongly--that to accept evolution means to deny the inspiration and truth of Holy Scripture.
And, what gun ban advocates describe is not people fatally shot by the mere existence of the 2A, but victims of murderers who were taught -- wrongly -- that acceptance of the 2A right means we can deny at our discretion another's right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

So, if a total gun ban is "worth it if it'll save just one life", is a ban on teaching evolution as much "worth it if it'll save just one eternal life"?
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
39,532
29,043
Pacific Northwest
✟812,781.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
And, what gun ban advocates describe is not people fatally shot by the mere existence of the 2A, but victims of murderers who were taught -- wrongly -- that acceptance of the 2A right means we can deny at our discretion another's right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

So, if a total gun ban is "worth it if it'll save just one life", is a ban on teaching evolution as much "worth it if it'll save just one eternal life"?

I don't agree with a total gun ban, I actually think very few do. I think what most people are in favor of--myself included--is that gun access should be more difficult. I don't think responsible gun owners should be "punished", but I do think that there needs to be a very serious national conversation about guns in America, and serious reform. And I think that gun lobbyists, like the NRA, are untrustworthy in the same way that I don't trust the tobacco lobbyists, the oil lobbyists, or the big pharma lobbyists.

I do believe there should be fewer guns, I do think there should be tighter regulations. If you asked me to specify exact details on what should be done, I admittedly don't have the knowledge to answer that. But the simple facts are that America has a gun problem, and a gun violence problem, and they are inexorably connected.

Do I want to have a responsible gun owner's guns taken away? Of course not. Do I want to see stricter gun laws? Absolutely. And I don't believe that mere appeal to the 2nd Amendment absolves the issue.

-CryptoLutheran
 
  • Like
Reactions: john23237
Upvote 0

Phoneman-777

Active Member
Dec 11, 2022
342
65
Deep South
✟39,148.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I don't agree with a total gun ban, I actually think very few do. I think what most people are in favor of--myself included--is that gun access should be more difficult. I don't think responsible gun owners should be "punished", but I do think that there needs to be a very serious national conversation about guns in America, and serious reform. And I think that gun lobbyists, like the NRA, are untrustworthy in the same way that I don't trust the tobacco lobbyists, the oil lobbyists, or the big pharma lobbyists.

I do believe there should be fewer guns, I do think there should be tighter regulations. If you asked me to specify exact details on what should be done, I admittedly don't have the knowledge to answer that. But the simple facts are that America has a gun problem, and a gun violence problem, and they are inexorably connected.

Do I want to have a responsible gun owner's guns taken away? Of course not. Do I want to see stricter gun laws? Absolutely. And I don't believe that mere appeal to the 2nd Amendment absolves the issue.

-CryptoLutheran
So, you believe prohibitive gun laws are good idea that will help save lives....do you think prohibitive laws against the teaching of evolution are a good idea that will help save lives for eternity?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
39,532
29,043
Pacific Northwest
✟812,781.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
So, you believe prohibitive gun laws are good idea that will help save lives....do you think prohibitive laws against the teaching of evolution are a good idea that will help save lives for eternity?

I believe it can be demonstrated that ease of access to firearms means there are people who therefore have access to those firearms who do ill; I do not consider the counter-argument of "If someone with evil intent wants to get a gun, they can get a gun illegally" is a valid counter. Making murder illegal doesn't stop all murders; there are still people who commit murder in spite of the prohibitions and regulations against it; but it is safe to conclude that such laws mean we have fewer murders than if we didn't.

So yes, I do believe that gun reform will have a social net positive. And we can see that has been the case historically and is observably true when we look at plenty of other nations which have gone through major gun reforms.

Since the teaching of evolution does not lead to anyone being damned, then the question is rather meaningless. Nobody has been damned because they were taught, and accepted, the theory of evolution.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

Phoneman-777

Active Member
Dec 11, 2022
342
65
Deep South
✟39,148.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Since the teaching of evolution does not lead to anyone being damned, then the question is rather meaningless. Nobody has been damned because they were taught, and accepted, the theory of evolution.

-CryptoLutheran
Whoaaa...you don't think a Christian man who goes off to school and comes home an atheist (due to a professor's ridicule of the existence of God while teaching him evolution) and goes to a party and dies of a drug overdose or in a terrible car accident afterward is lost?
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
39,532
29,043
Pacific Northwest
✟812,781.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Whoaaa...you don't think a Christian man who goes off to school and comes home an atheist (due to a professor's ridicule of the existence of God while teaching him evolution) and goes to a party and dies of a drug overdose or in a terrible car accident afterward is lost?

I consider that scenario, at face value, absurd.

What is more likely to have happened is this:

That Christian man was raised being taught that evolution was wrong and possibly evil and satanic, and Creationists taught him that evolution is "atheistic" and therefore incompatible with Christianity. That to accept the theory of evolution was to reject the inspiration and authority of the Bible. Et al. Once that man went off to higher education he encountered something he was entirely unprepared for: The preponderance of evidence which backs up the theory of evolution. The man attempts to challenge what he is being told, but is entirely ill-equipped at dealing with a professor with degrees and possibly decades of experience and knowledge to back him up. Overwhelmed, the man begins to wonder if perhaps everything he had been raised to believe was a lie. If the evidence points to biological evolution as a truthful explanation of the diversity of life on earth, and ergo the Young Earth Creationist interpretation of Genesis may be in error, then as he sees it, it's not merely the interpretation of the Bible that was the issue, but rather "this is what the Bible says" and therefore the Bible must be wrong. And if the Bible is wrong about this, he reckons, what else might it be wrong about? After all, he had been taught that if the Bible is wrong about one thing, it must be wrong about everything else. So what the Bible says about Jesus, about God, about God's historical work through Israel, the covenants, the promises, etc--that now collapses down upon him because he has built the entire structure of his faith upon the premise that the Bible says that God created everything in six literal days only several thousand years ago.

It was not the theory of evolution that wrecked the man's faith. It was not the professor "ridicule of the existence of God", as that probably isn't very likely. There are plenty of professors who teach biology and other fields of science who are faithful and believing Christians. There are also many God-believing professors who are Jews, Muslims, or belong to other religious traditions. Are there agnostic and atheist professors, of course. But the idea that a professor teaching the theory of evolution is "ridiculing the existence of God" is something that is quite unlikely to happen.

In high school my biology teacher was a Roman Catholic, a Christian. While he obviously did not force his Christianity on anyone in class, he didn't hide it, it was well known that he was a believing Christian. When I, a Young Earth Creationist, objected to what we were being taught in class (I had been raised, hitherto, in religious private schools, both Baptist and non-denominational), he educated me and, yes, I felt embarrassed and even angry at the time. But he wasn't mocking my belief in God, he believed in God, the same God, he believed in Jesus Christ, the same Jesus Christ.

So I am, on the whole, entirely skeptical of the scenario itself--of professors ridiculing a student's belief in God. Has that happened? Maybe. Is that a regular occurence? I seriously doubt it. Does teaching evolution lead to atheism? No. Does teaching an impressionable child that their faith in God depends on a belief in a literal six day creation week and that the universe is ~6,000 years old have potentially devestating implications when they come into contact with objective reality? Almost certainly.

I consider myself rather fortunate in that I transitioned from being a Young Earth Creationist to what I am now primarily because my foundations had been already established on my faith in Christ. I had, when that happened, already been going through a period of religious deconstruction as years earlier I had come to realize that the things I had been taught most of my life didn't line up with Scripture and with historic, normative Christian teaching. So when my Young Earth Creationism began to fade, it was because I already knew at that point that there will millions of Christians who were Bible-believing and orthodox but fully accepted evolution, and that Young Earth Creationism had never been a major issue, and in fact, there had from antiquity been Christians who understood that the creation narrative in Genesis ch. 1 probably shouldn't be taken too literally. For example, St. Augustine of Hippo.

And I've become aware, even since then, that Young Earth Creationism, as a kind of dogmatic movement, is actually rather modern. It was a very big deal for Seventh-Day Adventists in the 19th century, but didn't really become a key issue for American Evangelicals until the mid-20th century. For example, in the early 20th century most Fundamentalists were Old Earth Creationists. See most Christians had come to accept that the earth was old in the 18th and 19th centuries as geologists began learning more about the age of the earth, with many of those geologists themselves being not only Christians, but often Christian ministers. So the evidence of the rocks showed the earth was old, at least millions of years old based on their observations and experiments; so by the time evolution began to become controversial at the turn of the 20th century, that the earth was quite old was already well accepted--and in fact even evolution was becoming accepted in many churches. But evolution became entrenched into the Modernist Controversy, and so evolution became associated with the Liberal Theological schools of Western Europe which began to make their way across the Atlantic, resulting in the Fundamentalist Movement.

In the mid-20th century, a second wave of that occurred as, in the years following the Second World War, Fundamentalism had largely become insular, Modernism and Liberal Theology had, in many ways, found themselves killed off in the gas chambers of Auschwitz. In the United States post-war society began to buckle as a confluence of societal changes began to take effect, the Civil Rights Movement and Feminist Movements, and by the 1960's the Anti-War Movement. In this societal upheaval as long-standing societal structures were starting to become challenged, we also see, for example, the end of school-led prayer, the forbidding of teaching religious-based instruction in public schools.

We can't forget the Cold War in all of this too. Though the Soviets had been our allies during WW2, our alliance with the Soviets was always going to be an alliance of convenience. So while the Stalinists and Soviets effectively made themselves the enemies of religion and imposing a kind of "State Atheism", in the US our anti-Soviet and anti-Communist sentiments meant we were going to go the other direction. So, for example, we added "One Nation under God" to our national pledge of allegiance, we added "In God We Trust" to our currency.

So when social upheaval began to show up, and major societal changes began to happen, like the ending of Segregation, various Civil Rights legislature coming onto the scene, young people rebelling against societal norms such as opposing the war in Vietnam, rebelling against sexual norms, etc. And at the same time, for example Bob Jones University got in trouble for keeping its school segregated; then school-led prayer being abolished, etc. Well, it was a ripe opportunity for people to find their own cause. That's where we find Francis Schaeffer, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson becoming deeply influential in the shaping of mid-to-late 20th century Evangelicalism, a movement which had originated in the 30's and 40's partly in response to Fundamentalism's insularity. The rise of the Moral Majority, and the beginnings of what, today, we still refer to as the "Culture War".

Evolution, therefore, became co-opted into the socio-religio-political "culture war" that began in the 60's and lasts even to this day.

But evolution itself simply isn't an issue. The real issue is the ways in which conservative Christianity has largely been hijacked by particular ideologues who have a vested interest in the maintenance of power, rather than the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and true discipleship under the Lordship of Jesus.

-CryptoLutheran
 
  • Like
Reactions: john23237
Upvote 0

Belteshazzar(Daniel)

Active Member
Mar 14, 2021
113
28
57
Ohio
✟26,892.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Banning guns will not in anyway stop mankind from destroying another person. I have came to the conclusion that mankinds' greatest ambition in government is to find better ways to kill itsef. History shows that when people cannot defend themselves against a government the people become slaves to the government. Look at Hitler the first steps he took to gain power were to create fear and disarm the populous.
Where does the banning stop once it is started shall we ban knives; baseball bats; or any other murderous" weapon"? I have been to a gun store and you know what the guns in there never once tried to kill me I figure they either liked me or it was because there wasn't someone there to pull the trigger.
As far as evolution it is up to us as the parents to steer our children away from nonsense. Just as it is to teach them the value of human life.
 
Upvote 0

Belteshazzar(Daniel)

Active Member
Mar 14, 2021
113
28
57
Ohio
✟26,892.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I consider that scenario, at face value, absurd.

What is more likely to have happened is this:

That Christian man was raised being taught that evolution was wrong and possibly evil and satanic, and Creationists taught him that evolution is "atheistic" and therefore incompatible with Christianity. That to accept the theory of evolution was to reject the inspiration and authority of the Bible. Et al. Once that man went off to higher education he encountered something he was entirely unprepared for: The preponderance of evidence which backs up the theory of evolution. The man attempts to challenge what he is being told, but is entirely ill-equipped at dealing with a professor with degrees and possibly decades of experience and knowledge to back him up. Overwhelmed, the man begins to wonder if perhaps everything he had been raised to believe was a lie. If the evidence points to biological evolution as a truthful explanation of the diversity of life on earth, and ergo the Young Earth Creationist interpretation of Genesis may be in error, then as he sees it, it's not merely the interpretation of the Bible that was the issue, but rather "this is what the Bible says" and therefore the Bible must be wrong. And if the Bible is wrong about this, he reckons, what else might it be wrong about? After all, he had been taught that if the Bible is wrong about one thing, it must be wrong about everything else. So what the Bible says about Jesus, about God, about God's historical work through Israel, the covenants, the promises, etc--that now collapses down upon him because he has built the entire structure of his faith upon the premise that the Bible says that God created everything in six literal days only several thousand years ago.

It was not the theory of evolution that wrecked the man's faith. It was not the professor "ridicule of the existence of God", as that probably isn't very likely. There are plenty of professors who teach biology and other fields of science who are faithful and believing Christians. There are also many God-believing professors who are Jews, Muslims, or belong to other religious traditions. Are there agnostic and atheist professors, of course. But the idea that a professor teaching the theory of evolution is "ridiculing the existence of God" is something that is quite unlikely to happen.

In high school my biology teacher was a Roman Catholic, a Christian. While he obviously did not force his Christianity on anyone in class, he didn't hide it, it was well known that he was a believing Christian. When I, a Young Earth Creationist, objected to what we were being taught in class (I had been raised, hitherto, in religious private schools, both Baptist and non-denominational), he educated me and, yes, I felt embarrassed and even angry at the time. But he wasn't mocking my belief in God, he believed in God, the same God, he believed in Jesus Christ, the same Jesus Christ.

So I am, on the whole, entirely skeptical of the scenario itself--of professors ridiculing a student's belief in God. Has that happened? Maybe. Is that a regular occurence? I seriously doubt it. Does teaching evolution lead to atheism? No. Does teaching an impressionable child that their faith in God depends on a belief in a literal six day creation week and that the universe is ~6,000 years old have potentially devestating implications when they come into contact with objective reality? Almost certainly.

I consider myself rather fortunate in that I transitioned from being a Young Earth Creationist to what I am now primarily because my foundations had been already established on my faith in Christ. I had, when that happened, already been going through a period of religious deconstruction as years earlier I had come to realize that the things I had been taught most of my life didn't line up with Scripture and with historic, normative Christian teaching. So when my Young Earth Creationism began to fade, it was because I already knew at that point that there will millions of Christians who were Bible-believing and orthodox but fully accepted evolution, and that Young Earth Creationism had never been a major issue, and in fact, there had from antiquity been Christians who understood that the creation narrative in Genesis ch. 1 probably shouldn't be taken too literally. For example, St. Augustine of Hippo.

And I've become aware, even since then, that Young Earth Creationism, as a kind of dogmatic movement, is actually rather modern. It was a very big deal for Seventh-Day Adventists in the 19th century, but didn't really become a key issue for American Evangelicals until the mid-20th century. For example, in the early 20th century most Fundamentalists were Old Earth Creationists. See most Christians had come to accept that the earth was old in the 18th and 19th centuries as geologists began learning more about the age of the earth, with many of those geologists themselves being not only Christians, but often Christian ministers. So the evidence of the rocks showed the earth was old, at least millions of years old based on their observations and experiments; so by the time evolution began to become controversial at the turn of the 20th century, that the earth was quite old was already well accepted--and in fact even evolution was becoming accepted in many churches. But evolution became entrenched into the Modernist Controversy, and so evolution became associated with the Liberal Theological schools of Western Europe which began to make their way across the Atlantic, resulting in the Fundamentalist Movement.

In the mid-20th century, a second wave of that occurred as, in the years following the Second World War, Fundamentalism had largely become insular, Modernism and Liberal Theology had, in many ways, found themselves killed off in the gas chambers of Auschwitz. In the United States post-war society began to buckle as a confluence of societal changes began to take effect, the Civil Rights Movement and Feminist Movements, and by the 1960's the Anti-War Movement. In this societal upheaval as long-standing societal structures were starting to become challenged, we also see, for example, the end of school-led prayer, the forbidding of teaching religious-based instruction in public schools.

We can't forget the Cold War in all of this too. Though the Soviets had been our allies during WW2, our alliance with the Soviets was always going to be an alliance of convenience. So while the Stalinists and Soviets effectively made themselves the enemies of religion and imposing a kind of "State Atheism", in the US our anti-Soviet and anti-Communist sentiments meant we were going to go the other direction. So, for example, we added "One Nation under God" to our national pledge of allegiance, we added "In God We Trust" to our currency.

So when social upheaval began to show up, and major societal changes began to happen, like the ending of Segregation, various Civil Rights legislature coming onto the scene, young people rebelling against societal norms such as opposing the war in Vietnam, rebelling against sexual norms, etc. And at the same time, for example Bob Jones University got in trouble for keeping its school segregated; then school-led prayer being abolished, etc. Well, it was a ripe opportunity for people to find their own cause. That's where we find Francis Schaeffer, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson becoming deeply influential in the shaping of mid-to-late 20th century Evangelicalism, a movement which had originated in the 30's and 40's partly in response to Fundamentalism's insularity. The rise of the Moral Majority, and the beginnings of what, today, we still refer to as the "Culture War".

Evolution, therefore, became co-opted into the socio-religio-political "culture war" that began in the 60's and lasts even to this day.

But evolution itself simply isn't an issue. The real issue is the ways in which conservative Christianity has largely been hijacked by particular ideologues who have a vested interest in the maintenance of power, rather than the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and true discipleship under the Lordship of Jesus.

-CryptoLutheran
So as the church accepts such things so should the people? Where is your Biblical proof of your old earth theory? So we now have to question everything in the Bible because Genesis cannot be trusted. Where does faith begin if one can't believe what was said of Creation what other aspects do we question? Where does Biblical truth begin? As God asked Job where were you when I ............? So may I ask you the same question were you there to know without a doubt what you claim to be your truth? Or sir should I take the Word that was there is there and always will be there and by His Spirit of Truth guides me into all Truth at His Word. I know who I follow
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
39,532
29,043
Pacific Northwest
✟812,781.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
So as the church accepts such things so should the people? Where is your Biblical proof of your old earth theory? So we now have to question everything in the Bible because Genesis cannot be trusted.

That is precisely the false premise I was speaking about. Of course Genesis can be trusted, it is divinely inspired Scripture, it's God's holy word.

Where does faith begin if one can't believe what was said of Creation what other aspects do we question?

Who said anything about questioning the Bible? I didn't. Once again, that's the false premise I was speaking about.

Where does Biblical truth begin?

In every single page of God's precious and holy word.

As God asked Job where were you when I ............? So may I ask you the same question were you there to know without a doubt what you claim to be your truth? Or sir should I take the Word that was there is there and always will be there and by His Spirit of Truth guides me into all Truth at His Word. I know who I follow

I follow Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, who is of the same Being with the Father, truly God with the Father; who was conceived and born of the Virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit, who suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, buried, who rose on the third day, ascended into heaven, seated at the right hand of the Father from whence He will come again to judge the living and the dead. His kingdom will have no end.

You take the Creation narrative in Genesis 1 literally, I don't.

I imagine that there are parts of the Bible that I take literally that you don't.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
39,532
29,043
Pacific Northwest
✟812,781.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
I was asking where do I start believing the Word?

Believe all of it, because all of it is divinely inspired and true.

If I cannot take Genesis as literal and true at what point does truth starT?

That's a false equivocation. Truth, in the Scriptures, starts at Genesis 1:1.

What parts are literal and what parts do I take as a made up fairy tale?

None of it is a "made up fairy tale".

But the way to understanding what is literal and non-literal is through diligent study and exegesis. And even then, there will be differences of opinion about interpretation.

Some differences of opinion and of interpretation are serious enough that they constitute a problem. Other differences are significantly minor.

Some interpret the two genealogies in Matthew and Luke as pertaining to different ways of talking about Joseph's genealogy, some think that one of them is Mary's genealogy.

Some think that Jesus' siblings are the children of Joseph from a previous marriage, others that they were Jesus' cousins, and some that they were children born to Mary and Joseph after Jesus was born.

Some interpret the creation story in Genesis as literal, some don't.

As for me, I think both genealogies are about Joseph, because that's what the text explicitly states. I think that it's most likely that Jesus' siblings are step-siblings from Joseph's previous marriage because the way they act toward Jesus is how one would treat a younger brother. And I don't interpret the creation story in Genesis 1 as being literal.

But I do believe that God called a man named Abram out of Mesopotamia, made a promise with him, and that his descendants were captives in Egypt, and God delivered them through His servant Moses. Through Moses God established a covenant with the Jewish people, and from the tribe of Judah arose a king named David. And the promises made to Abraham, to Moses, and to David were all fulfilled when the archangel Gabriel visited a young virgin named Mary and said she would conceive and bear a Son, by the power of the Holy Spirit, that He would be the long-awaited Messiah who would redeem not only His people, but all people.

And this Messiah, Jesus,, who is the very Divine Logos, Eternal Son of the Father, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, assumed our own humanity in the womb of this blessed virgin woman, she became the very mother of God. God and man, united in the undivided Person of Jesus Christ. He is Emmanuel, God with us. God was conceived and born, flesh of flesh and bone of bone, from Mary. He grew in wisdom, matured, and when He was around 30 years of age He went to His cousin John who was baptizing in the River Jordan and fulfilled all righteousness by beginning His messianic work. After spending a period of time in the Judean wilderness and tempted by the devil, He then went on to call and make disciples, He worked wonders and proclaimed the kingdom of God. He came to fulfill the Scriptures that the Messiah would be handed over to wicked people, suffer, crucified, and on the third day rise again. And that happened, on the night He was betrayed He took bread and wine and said "This is My body" and "This is My blood", He was betrayed by one of His closest friends, delivered over to the Sanhedrin and then over to Pilate the governor of Judea who sentenced Him to punishment and death by crucifixion. He was nailed to a cross, where He bleed and suffered, the True Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. He died, breathing His last breath, that we might live. He was wrapped in burial clothes and placed in a rock-hewn tomb. Three days later, on the first day of the week, early in the morning, the stone to His tomb was rolled away, and He appeared to His followers, they beheld the wounds in His hands and His side. He gave evidence to them that He was alive, death could not keep Him, and then stayed with them for some time until finally He was taken out of their sight and into the heavens where He is now seated at the right hand of the Father, reigning as Lord and King Messiah on the Throne He was promised, exalted above all thrones, powers, and dominions. Given all power and everlasting kingdom, He reigns over and through His Church which preaches His Gospel, calling upon all men to turn from sin and to believe in this same Jesus. And He will come again, at a day and time no one can know, at which time the dead shall be raised incorruptible and He shall judge all flesh. And, at long last, there will be new heavens and new earth, God shall renew all things and be all in all. And so I, with countless saints and angels, pray:

Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty, Heaven and Earth are filled with Your glory. Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: john23237
Upvote 0

HARK!

שמע
Christian Forums Staff
Supervisor
Site Supporter
Oct 29, 2017
64,441
10,678
US
✟1,556,467.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
Jesus Christ of Nazareth said this.
Blessings.
Not really.

This is closer to what he really said;

(CLV) Mt 26:52
Then Jesus is saying to him, "Turn away your sword into its place, for all those taking the sword, by the sword shall perish.


That means something a little bit different doesn't it; especially in the greater context that it was Yahshua who told them to sell their clothes to buy swords in the first place; and that they were surrounded and outnumbered by swordsmen.

Don't bring a sword to a gunfight.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
39,532
29,043
Pacific Northwest
✟812,781.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
I simply pray, before I read and let the Spirit of Truth reveal what God would have me recieve.

That sounds very spiritual. Unfortunately that's not how understanding the Bible works. It's a deeply flawed misunderstanding of

"But I have said these things to you, that when their hour comes you may remember that I told them to you.

I did not say these things to you from the beginning, because I was with you. But now I am going to Him who sent Me, and none of you asks Me, 'Where are you going?' But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart. Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send Him to you. And when He comes, He will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me; concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see Me no longer; concerning judgment; because the ruler of this world is judged.

I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all truth, for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak, and He will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take what is Mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is Mine; therefore I said that He will take what is Mine and declare it to you.
" - John 16:4-15

The Holy Spirit leads who into all truth? You and me? No.

It matters who Jesus is talking to here, Jesus isn't talking to you or to me. Because those very people Jesus was speaking to would go on to preach the Gospel, proclaiming the word of God to the nations. And then we were left with a record of their teachings, their writings preserved and read throughout the churches as Scripture. What we call the New Testament.

And they they tell us how to persevere in the faith: Holding firm to the teachings we received from the beginning and not being led astray into error.

That is why Bible study is actual work, it is serious work of applying good hermeneutical skill and exegesis. God doesn't just beam truth into our brains, but rather He calls us to be members of the whole Body, abide in Christ, abiding in grace, hearing the word preached, receiving the Sacraments, and sharing life together in the fellowship of this holy Christian Church; holding firm to the faith once and for all delivered, and which we receive, and continually confess.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0