If there was no death (of animals) before the Fall, then why would animals need to eat?

[Subduction Zone]

I can promise you no scripture was whipped on my watch.

I think you overlooked the beginning of this silly discourse.

Mr Laurier said


Since Jesus is God and has always been
Hebrews 1:8
But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;
I posted scripture saying that Jesus was the creator of the animals.

Mr Laurier then posted back saying that Jesus has only been around for 2000 years.
So again I posted a scripture saying Jesus is God the son and has always been.

I can't help it if Mr Laurier doesn't know the Bible.

The "Jesus is God" interpretation is only one of many. Not all Christians accept the Trinity.

But I do not want to get into a discussion of various sects and the pluses and minuses of them.

How about we stick to the subject at hand?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Danno often resorts to a uberliteral interpretation of Scripture, probably to parody literalists.

Different Christians have a different stopping point for their literalism.

 

[coffee4u]

The "Jesus is God" interpretation is only one of many. Not all Christians accept the Trinity.

But I do not want to get into a discussion of various sects and the pluses and minuses of them.

How about we stick to the subject at hand?

All Christians believe that Jesus is God.
It is part of the Nicene Creed which is part of the statement of faith for this site.
Terms of Service and Christian Forum Rules | Christian Forums

But yes, lets get back to the subject. When I first posted a simple Bible quote I did not envision a long conversation about such a basic principle.

 

[Subduction Zone]

All Christians believe that Jesus is God.
It is part of the Nicene Creed which is part of the statement of faith for this site.
Terms of Service and Christian Forum Rules | Christian Forums

But yes, lets get back to the subject. When I first posted a simple Bible quote I did not envision a long conversation about such a basic principle.

Not all Christians follow the Nicene creed. Talk to some Jehovah's Witnesses some day. The rules of this forum do not apply to all Christians around the world.

 

[coffee4u]

Not all Christians follow the Nicene creed. Talk to some Jehovah's Witnesses some day. The rules of this forum do not apply to all Christians around the world.

The Jehovah's Witnesses are a cult.

Any one who claims that Jesus is not God is not a Christian. Christian's do vary a lot in doctrine but not in that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Different Christians have a different stopping point for their literalism.

I somehow don't think Dan is one of those.

 

[BNR32FAN]

There is one theory of evolution.
There are at the very least hundreds of versions of the doctrine of the Trinity.

The theory of evolution has had several changes over the years and scientists don’t agree on exactly how or when the evolution process occurred making them completely different theories. Your simply trying to over generalize the theory of evolution while at the same time over specifying the doctrine of the Trinity based on each individual’s beliefs concerning the Trinity.

 

[Mr Laurier]

You are addressing science, I'm not. I mostly post scripture-welcome to CF.

Please do note that this thread is about science.
When I post on a thread about mythology and religion, I will use the terms of mythology and religion. In a science thread, speak science.

 

[Mr Laurier]

I can promise you no scripture was whipped on my watch.

I think you overlooked the beginning of this silly discourse.

Mr Laurier said


Since Jesus is God and has always been
Hebrews 1:8
But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;
I posted scripture saying that Jesus was the creator of the animals.

Mr Laurier then posted back saying that Jesus has only been around for 2000 years.
So again I posted a scripture saying Jesus is God the son and has always been.

I can't help it if Mr Laurier doesn't know the Bible.

The fact that I read the bible several times when I was a christian, rather refutes your claims abut me.
But the bible is not relevant to science.

 

[Mr Laurier]

The theory of evolution has had several changes over the years and scientists don’t agree on exactly how or when the evolution process occurred making them completely different theories. Your simply trying to over generalize the theory of evolution while at the same time over specifying the doctrine of the Trinity based on each individual’s beliefs concerning the Trinity.

Wow. I seldom see this degree of wrong.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Wow. I seldom see this degree of wrong.

Oh so your suggesting that scientists around the world all unanimously agree on the specifics about evolution? Is that what your implying?

 

[Mr Laurier]

Oh so your suggesting that scientists around the world all unanimously agree on the specifics about evolution? Is that what your implying?

No. And you know it.
There is ONE theory of evolution.
While there is not unanimous agreement on all details, there is still only ONE theory of evolution.

 

[BNR32FAN]

No. And you know it.
There is ONE theory of evolution.
While there is not unanimous agreement on all details, there is still only ONE theory of evolution.

So there’s one theory of evolution even tho people don’t agree about the specifics but there’s several doctrines of the Trinity because people don’t agree on the specifics? That’s obviously a double standard.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Jehovah's Witnesses are a cult.

Any one who claims that Jesus is not God is not a Christian. Christian's do vary a lot in doctrine but not in that.

I agree that they are a cult, but they are still a Christian cult. And you will find others that do not accept the Trinity either. I agree that the majority of Christians are Trinitarians, but Christianity is a very very broad religion.

 

[tas8831]

The theory of evolution has had several changes over the years and scientists don’t agree on exactly how or when the evolution process occurred making them completely different theories.

Examples?

 

[tas8831]

Oh so your suggesting that scientists around the world all unanimously agree on the specifics about evolution? Is that what your implying?

The difference is that scientists do not claim that the ToE is 100% true and perfect, authored by an inerrant, Omniscient being, etc.

The fact that the 100% true and inerrant bible can be interpreted a number of ways (to include the big ways - old earth/young earth) actually counts against its unrelenting veracity.

 

[AV1611VET]

Examples?

Lamarckism.

 

[Bradskii]

Lamarckism.

That's like being asked for another Christian religion. And you say 'Islam'.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's like being asked for another Christian religion. And you say 'Islam'.

QV please:

Lamarckism, also known as Lamarckian inheritance or neo-Lamarckism, is the notion that an organism can pass on to its offspring physical characteristics that the parent organism acquired through use or disuse during its lifetime. It is also called the inheritance of acquired characteristics or more recently soft inheritance. The idea is named after the French zoologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744–1829), who incorporated the classical era theory of soft inheritance into his theory of evolution as a supplement to his concept of orthogenesis, a drive towards complexity.

Introductory textbooks contrast Lamarckism with Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. Darwin's book On the Origin of Species however supported the Lamarckian idea of use and disuse inheritance, and his own concept of pangenesis implied a Lamarckian soft inheritance.

SOURCE

QV also: My Bad Seed Challenge

 

[Bradskii]

QV please:

Lamarckism, also known as Lamarckian inheritance or neo-Lamarckism, is the notion that an organism can pass on to its offspring physical characteristics that the parent organism acquired through use or disuse during its lifetime. It is also called the inheritance of acquired characteristics or more recently soft inheritance. The idea is named after the French zoologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744–1829), who incorporated the classical era theory of soft inheritance into his theory of evolution as a supplement to his concept of orthogenesis, a drive towards complexity.

Introductory textbooks contrast Lamarckism with Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. Darwin's book On the Origin of Species however supported the Lamarckian idea of use and disuse inheritance, and his own concept of pangenesis implied a Lamarckian soft inheritance.

What's that you say? Lamarkism, whereby characteristics which are acquired during a lifetime can be passed on to offspring (which isn't the theory of evolution) was contrasted with Darwin's theory of passing on characteristics by natural selection (which is the theory of evolution).

I've noticed that you have a tendancy that when it's been pointed out that you are in error in regard to some aspect of evolutionary theory, you cut and link to something in a manner which at first glance supports your position, but which, in actual fact, detracts from it.

Saves admitting that you were wrong, I guess.