Is belief in the creation story a salvation issue?

[BobRyan]

Do you still beat your wife?

Do bail instantly when your argument does not survive the details in your own post - or do you wait 5 minutes?

 

[Archie the Preacher]

already fully debunked in the quoted details you are diligently ignoring...

No Bob. Just what I expected, another diversion from the actual substance. I will say this for you, you are determined to avoid saying anything of substance. You are doing a manful job of avoiding.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Do bail instantly when your argument does not survive the details in your own post - or do you wait 5 minutes?

I almost choked on my water when I saw you accuse someone of 'bailing'...

 

[Speedwell]

Do bail instantly when your argument does not survive the details in your own post - or do you wait 5 minutes?

You really are a character--and very clever at contriving false dichotomies.

 

[BobRyan]

How do you suppose that "non-Bible aware pagans would have seen Intelligent Design in nature when the math behind it hadn't even been developed

how do you suppose the Romans 1 text works with Pagans imagining that there is no evidence at all that anything was made by an intelligence at all -- you have yet to show how your attempt at eisegeting such nonsense into the text works at all.

one may argue that a rock does not show that some intelligence is at work - but the pagans were not simply concluding all the 'invisible attributes of almighty God" by looking at a little rock -- according the text they are seen all of nature and in it 'the things that have been MADE" by someone -- in this case -- almighty infinitely intelligent God.

Your argument that the pagan could not look at the butterfly and tell that it has been 'made' and that the one who designed such a creature was infinite in intelligence - is you on your own little non-Bible island so far. You make no attempt at all to show how Paul was making such a nonsensical argument, that is oh-so-necessary in the fiction that you present so far.

Oh, so now you've changed your tune. You are no longer claiming that the intelligent design you are talking about is the specific proposal of the Discovery Institute

again your own argument does not survive the details in your own post.. I am not the one that brings in Discovery Institute into the discussion - you keep doing that while ignoring Romans 1 like it was your Kryptonite.

Paul makes a much stronger argument for Intelligent Design at a much higher level - than the Discovery Institute proposes.

The Discovery Institute argument is more like "can the brain-dead atheist evolutionists finally admit that up is up"... They are satistified with a very tiny, very minimalist scope for Intelligent Design. I don't claim to be making their argument

Paul argues for much more than that in Romans 1.

Thus the 'distinctively atheist nature' in the argument against I.D.

 

[Speedwell]

how do you suppose the Romans 1 text works with Pagans imagining that there is no evidence at all that anything was made by an intelligence at all

I suppose nothing of the kind--that's just a lie you made up about me.

Your argument that the pagan could not look at the butterfly and tell that it has been 'made' and that the one who designed such a creature was infinite in intelligence - is you on your own little non-Bible island so far. You make no attempt at all to show how Paul was making such a nonsensical argument, that is oh-so-necessary in the fiction that you present so far.

I made no such argument. That's just another lie you tell about me.

again your own argument does not survive the details in your own post.. I am not the one that brings in Discovery Institute into the discussion - you keep doing that while ignoring Romans 1 like it was your Kryptonite.

Paul makes a much stronger argument for Intelligent Design at a much higher level - than the Discovery Institute proposes.

The Discovery Institute argument is more like "can the brain-dead atheist evolutionists finally admit that up is up"... They are satistified with a very tiny, very minimalist scope for Intelligent Design.

Paul argues for much more than that in Romans 1.

Thus the 'distinctively atheist nature' in the argument against I.D.

I suppose you think you're very clever, playing an ambiguity game with id (the notion that the universe has an intelligent designer) and ID, the specific proposal of the Discovery Institute. I asked you at the beginning which you were talking about, and you turned it into an opportunity to be unpleasant. You could have just answered the question.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Speedwell, do you think Bob is trying to disgust us into leaving?

 

[BobRyan]

I suppose nothing of the kind--that's just a lie you made up about me. .

Pick a point - pay attention to the actual details in the post - and respond.

We can talk that way.

 

[BobRyan]

Speedwell, do you think Bob is trying to disgust us into leaving?

Let me guess - yet another evolutionist whose speculations and made-up-stories did not survive 'the details' in the post and response.

How do you guys ever get taken seriously without actually responding to details and answering the point raised????

 

[BobRyan]

I suppose nothing of the kind--that's just a lie you made up about me.
I made no such argument. That's just another lie you tell about me.
I suppose you think you're very clever, .

Let's try this again -

Notice the details in the post that deal with your own posts -- I have copied your posts 'for you' to help you focus.

=======================================

How do you suppose that "non-Bible aware pagans would have seen Intelligent Design in nature when the math behind it hadn't even been developed

how do you suppose the Romans 1 text works with Pagans imagining that there is no evidence at all that anything was made by an intelligence at all -- you have yet to show how your attempt at eisegeting such nonsense into the text works at all.

one may argue that a rock does not show that some intelligence is at work - but the pagans were not simply concluding all the 'invisible attributes of almighty God" by looking at a little rock -- according the text they are seen all of nature and in it 'the things that have been MADE" by someone -- in this case -- almighty infinitely intelligent God.

Your argument that the pagan could not look at the butterfly and tell that it has been 'made' and that the one who designed such a creature was infinite in intelligence - is you on your own little non-Bible island so far. You make no attempt at all to show how Paul was making such a nonsensical argument, that is oh-so-necessary in the fiction that you present so far.

Oh, so now you've changed your tune. You are no longer claiming that the intelligent design you are talking about is the specific proposal of the Discovery Institute

again your own argument does not survive the details in your own post.. I am not the one that brings in Discovery Institute into the discussion - you keep doing that while ignoring Romans 1 like it was your Kryptonite.

Paul makes a much stronger argument for Intelligent Design at a much higher level - than the Discovery Institute proposes.

The Discovery Institute argument is more like "can the brain-dead atheist evolutionists finally admit that up is up"... They are satistified with a very tiny, very minimalist scope for Intelligent Design. I don't claim to be making their argument.

Paul argues for much more than that in Romans 1.

Thus the 'distinctively atheist nature' in the argument against I.D. - because Paul goes way beyond the claims of today's I.D.

 

[BobRyan]

No, John 1 doesn't reference Genesis. It says God created everything, which is what I believe. .

That only works if you re-imagine the Bible with John 1 as the first chapter of the Bible leaving "you" to make up anything you wish about what his reference to creation actually means.

As it is -- we live in the real world - where none of that will fly.

obviously.

The Bible-denying that starts in Genesis 1 - never ends there.

So if you don't believe the Genesus creation account, you deny everything in Scripture prior to John 1. .

Sadly for you I am not the one posting wild speculation about John not being informed about the Genesis 1 fact that God created everything.

Who here has said that they want to delete the entire Bible before John 1? .

Wonderful - so then John 1's reference to creation - is in fact a reference back to the Genesis 1-3 creation fact which also includes the fall man and explains the basis for the Gospel solution.

The point remains.

No, John 1 doesn't reference Genesis. It says God created everything, which is what I believe. .

That only works if you re-imagine the Bible with John 1 as the first chapter of the Bible leaving "you" to make up anything you wish about what his reference to creation actually means.

As it is -- we live in the real world - where none of that will fly.

obviously.

The Bible-denying that starts in Genesis 1 - never ends there.

John 1 specifically says that Gid created everything. It does not specifically be cite Genesis 1.

Hint - John 1 comes after Genesis 1 - where we are told that God created everything.

Is your argument that John was not aware of Genesis 1 or that John assumed all of his readers rejected Genesis 1?

What "creation" event or account is John 1 referencing -- for those who "imagine" that John did not know about Genesis 1?

Let us see just how seriously you take your own wild speculation.

What wild speculation? I have continually said that God created everything, and that John in fact stated that.

Please tell me this very simple post sequence has not left you confused about the details in the posts again.

If the evolutionists are not even interested in their own arguments - how can we be expected to help them??

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Let me guess - yet another evolutionist whose speculations and made-up-stories did not survive 'the details' in the post and response.

How do you guys ever get taken seriously without actually responding to details and answering the point raised????

Hi, Bob. Nice day here.

 

[Speedwell]

Pick a point - pay attention to the actual details in the post - and respond.

We can talk that way.

Why should I respond to your false accusations?

 

[Speedwell]

If the evolutionists are not even interested in their own arguments - how can we be expected to help them??

You appear to be making up our arguments for us--we're certainly not interested in them.

 

[Archivist]

Hint - John 1 comes after Genesis 1 - where we are told that God created everything.

Is your argument that John was not aware of Genesis 1 or that John assumed all of his readers rejected Genesis 1?

What "creation" event or account is John 1 referencing -- for those who "imagine" that John did not know about Genesis 1?

Let us see just how seriously you take your own wild speculation.

I'll tell you what, let's see if you can stay on topic. I have said several times that Genesis and John both tell us that God created everything, but that isn't what we are discussing. John was obviously aware of Genesis, but that isn't what we are discussing eithe. We are discussing whether belief in the Genesus account is a salvation requirement. Stay on topic. Also please make an effort to be polite because you have bit been to this point.

 

[Speedwell]

I think the situation is pretty clear. There is nowhere in scripture where belief in a literal Genesis is specifically set forth as a requirement for salvation--and Jesus Himself was pretty specific about what the requirements were.

The argument has been made that Jesus' use of Genesis in His preaching constitutes an unequivocal endorsement of a literal Genesis, but Jesus is not recorded as having imposed any such belief on His followers--even if the argument is correct.

 

[rjs330]

I think the situation is pretty clear. There is nowhere in scripture where belief in a literal Genesis is specifically set forth as a requirement for salvation--and Jesus Himself was pretty specific about what the requirements were.

The argument has been made that Jesus' use of Genesis in His preaching constitutes an unequivocal endorsement of a literal Genesis, but Jesus is not recorded as having imposed any such belief on His followers--even if the argument is correct.

Why would he need to? Based upon what he said and the apostles said it's obvious they believed it. So it follows they,would think,their followers would too. Especially if when the books of Moses were,their bible and Moses proclaimed it. Remember it was until very recently in history that people started proclaiming Genesis wasn't real and that came,about after men started trusting ungodly men's theories.

 

[Speedwell]

Why would he need to? Based upon what he said and the apostles said it's obvious they believed it. So it follows they,would think,their followers would too. Especially if when the books of Moses were,their bible and Moses proclaimed it. Remember it was until very recently in history that people started proclaiming Genesis wasn't real and that came,about after men started trusting ungodly men's theories.

Even given--for purposes of argument--that they believed it, it was never imposed as a belief required for salvation. Figurative interpretations of Genesis are almost as old as the book itself, so it is entirely possible that a person holding to such an interpretation would be regarded as eccentric, but not barred from salvation thereby.

 

[rjs330]

Figurative interpretations of Genesis are almost as old as the book itself, so it is entirely possible that a person holding to such an interpretation would be regarded as eccentric, but not barred from salvation thereby.

That's a pretty big claim. Care,to back,it up?

Also I and others are not claiming its a salvation requirment. But disregarding Genesis as truth makes it easy for the unbeliever to point out that even Christians don't believe the bible. So why should they. Its a matter of weakness of faith in Gods word.

 

[Speedwell]

That's a pretty big claim. Care,to back,it up?

It's a well-known and commonplace fact of Bible history. Ask a Jew; it's their book. The notion that it's all Darwin's fault is Creationist propaganda.

Also I and others are not claiming its a salvation requirment. But disregarding Genesis as truth makes it easy for the unbeliever to point out that even Christians don't believe the bible. So why should they. Its a matter of weakness of faith in Gods word.

You are assuming that the "truth" of Genesis can only be 100% accurate factual history.