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.
Because this would show up how fallacious his reasoning is.Psudopod said:Why limit this to evolution? Why not special relativity, the idea gas equation, antibiotics or chemotherapy?
I make the same tired old arguments because you keep making the same tired old claims. You were not able to answer with my arguments before, so I am quite happy to bring the questions up again.the same appeals tothe same tired old arguments, your going to the absurd just shows you refuse to be rational, constructive or even cordial.
i have proven my contention with this thread and after repeated ostings no one will or canrefute what i have provenabout science being outside of the scope of science.
that point has been proved science loses.
You don't take 'the four corners of the earth' or 'the ends of the heavens' literally do you? You do not believe the sun literally 'hurries around the earth' or that the earth literally 'does not move'? Why is there no conflict between accepting what science tells about the shape and motion of the earth and following God, but you do think there is a conflict between interpreting Genesis figuratively and following him? It is a double standard. You condemn TEs for something you do yourself with other sciences.you don't get it. when a person chooses jesus as their Savior, they have entered into the kingdom of God and that means they follow God not the world.
just because one is saved by God's grace does it give permission to disobey Him and return to the ways of the world and create alternatives to His words.
God said it Himself: "why do ye call me Lord Lord but do not do the things i say"
if you say you have chosen to follow God then you have no freedom to dismiss gen. 1 or revelations, no freedom to add evolution when evolution is solely a human/deception construct.
you follow and preach what God says nothing else. which is why i started that thread, 'when did God say...' because God has never said to follow science's 'evidence' or interpretations.
He said 'follow me' or 'the just shall live by faith' turning and following secular science is not doing either.
You don't take 'the four corners of the earth' or 'the ends of the heavens' literally do you? You do not believe the sun literally 'hurries around the earth' or that the earth literally 'does not move'
You were not able to answer with my arguments before, so I am quite happy to bring the questions up again.
God said it Himself: "why do ye call me Lord Lord but do not do the things i say"
if you say you have chosen to follow God then you have no freedom to dismiss gen. 1 or revelations, no freedom to add evolution when evolution is solely a human/deception construct.
you follow and preach what God says nothing else. which is why i started that thread, 'when did God say...' because God has never said to follow science's 'evidence' or interpretations.
Proverbs 3:18
She is a tree of life to those who embrace her; those who lay hold of her will be blessed.
Proverbs 11:30
The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, and he who wins souls is wise.
Proverbs 13:12
Hope deferred makes the heart sick, but a longing fulfilled is a tree of life.
Proverbs 15:4
The tongue that brings healing is a tree of life, but a deceitful tongue crushes the spirit.
why do you equate reading genesis 1 as allegorical to dismissing it?
If I say that Jesus is not a literal lamb, but an allegorical lamb, or that Jesus will not return with a literal sword protruding out of his mouth, but an allegorical sword, would you say that I was being dismissive
If I say the story of the Good Samaritan is not based on a historical event, would you then say I was being dismissive as well?
did God say the Good Samaritan story was historical? How do we determine these things archie? Did he say the "Tree of Life" was literal?
Tell me archie, are these trees of life to be taken as literal trees made of bark and leaves? And what determines if it is or not?
Sure it is, if you preach at us that we are not following God but do the same things yourself.how i take them is of no concern of yours
You only think they are false interpretations because you believe secular science, secular science that you claim is deceived by the devil. When we interpret passages figuratively you say we are making excuses for following worldly science and not believing God's word.but your accusations that the Bible teaches erroneous things is misleading and false.
Like you believe the earth is round? Either it is right to look for different interpretation when science shows us an interpetation is wrong, and this applies to evolution just as well as a spherical earth and heliocentrism, or we stick to a literal meaning and the bible contradicts them all. Anything else is double standards and inconsistency.you are looking for an open door to extrapolate certain elements to the passages you wish to ignore or change to fit what you want to believe instead of believing what God said.
There are plenty of scripture that show God using natural processes. You have never answered about Isaiah 54:16, did God use natural processes to create the blacksmith? That is no different from what Gen 1:24 tells us, that God ordained the natural world to produce different species.Gen. 1:24 does not refer or intimate a natural process plus you do not have any other scripture to back up a claim that it does.
Oh you have tried all right, usually by calling on another of your unfounded arguments or claims about evolution. But you can only change the argument, or claim it is absurd, or refuse to answer. You have never been able to support the actual claims my 'tired old arguments' answered.i have answered them,You were not able to answer with my arguments before, so I am quite happy to bring the questions up again.
That is because you think calling people 'Christians' in inverted commas, saying they don't believe God's word, or the don't follow God, or that they are 'looking for an excuse to ignore God's word and follow their own desires' is not abuse. Until you realise how abusive you really are, you will not get very cordial responses from people.this kind of statement just clouds the issue. and i am not abusive, all abuse has originated with those who hold to alternatives from God's word.
If you really must be spoonfed! Why is it ok for God to teach in allegory in the new testament but not the old??archaeologist said:if that is all you have to say then i am wasting my words.
God spoke for all His creation, why would verse 24 be any different?
there was no natural process used. where does it say that God created evolution and He used evolution to form all things?
you are reading into a verse and ignoring everything else.
If you really must be spoonfed! Why is it ok for God to teach in allegory in the new testament but not the
old??
I like that logic. Let me apply it. God said that John the Baptist literally ate locuts. Therefore, everything in the Bible is meant literally.
Same logic. Better result.
The result is, you get to deal with and craft a basis for exceptions to the rule on the basis of the text itself, not us literalists. I sit back and crack a cold one.
Still waiting for a valid exegesis of v24 Archie. The above is simply a bald assertion with no substance, please explain why God commanded the earth to bring forth. If God created what did the earth have to do with anything?
It was a simple question. One which you don't seem prepared to answer either.
Can't I just as easily say that you are avoiding the question,
please explain why God commanded the earth to bring forth. If God created what did the earth have to do with anything?
That is because you think calling people 'Christians' in inverted commas, saying they don't believe God's word, or the don't follow God, or that they are 'looking for an excuse to ignore God's word and follow their own desires' is not abuse. Until you realise how abusive you really are, you will not get very cordial responses from people
What question were you supposedly asking me? Obviously we've been over this all before in this forum, but since Archie is new around here i'd like to hear what he has to say on the subject.Can't I just as easily say that you are avoiding the question, since the use of some literal narrative creates a presumption that it is all narrative? That seems to be the reflexive of the argument you are making.
So my point was correct. You really think all your accusation and abuse is justified.now that you have brought this up, over the years i have observed that americans have a tendancy to distort meanings of certain words to fit their belief.
i have seen it done not only in america itself but here in korea by all those who come here to teach the english language.
i have not done one iota of abuse, but your acceptance of the distorted meaning has allowed you to charge me with something i have not done and to use it to excuse your unchristian responses.
you say you are a christian then you should be responding like God said to do, 'a soft answer turneth away wrath' or 'do not render evil for evil...'
instead you are more abusive and insulting which isn't of God. so my use of of the word 'christian' in this form is correct. there are many dubious answers and belief a placed upon this board in which i cannot accept as coming from a true believer in Christ thus i will not lend credibility to them by saying all such things are christian , when they are not.
You misrepresented me in another thread and when called out on it you simply repeated the misrepresentation, you refused to apologise and ignored the call for you to apologise when you were shown to be in the wrong. The only reason you are not ignored is because the utter nonsense you write should not be allowed to stand unchallenged.archaeologist said:since you are one of the chief mis-representers here i will ignore your post.
that isn't abuse but a statement of fact.
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?