Jeffrey Dahmer's Confession

[ThePhoenix]

Wait, so you're saying that taking part of God's word nonliterally (the bloodline stretching back to Adam, or humans being created as God created the earth) is ok, but accepting the fact of evolution is not ok? Exactly how is this based in anything?

 

[herev]

Thanks Tommy for your kindness. I appreciate it sincerely !

I think my post quoting Ron will answer some of my concerns about Biblical understanding. I agree totally that some things in the Bible are not to be taken literally - the one you mention about God and wings a very good one - since Scripture clearly says elsewhere that God is Spirit.

However, i do believe, as i said in the post to Ron that i do believe Genesis 1 is literal. And if it is not to be taken literally, why not ?? Because "science" said so ??

The problem comes when we choose to decide by whatever way/whatever reason that this passage of Scripture (and others) is no longer literal when for 100's of years it was and Christians were united in their belief that it was literal. What about all the scientists in past centuries, be they deists/theists/Christian who were Creationists and their scientific research did nothing but strengthen their belief in a literal 6-day Creation ??

The various camps regarding origins of life in the Christian community can only serve as a stumblingblock to new Christians just discovering the truths of God's Word. To be perfectly frank, i'm VERY suprised at the number of "theistic evolutionists" who are Christians especially among Evangelicals - a real eye opener to say the least !


Ray

I for one can answer why not, if you r interested. First, I accord history as something that has been witnessed by someone, and Creation, by its very nature was not witnessed by anyone but God. Second, the two Creation accounts (Gen 1:1-2:4 and the Balance of Gen 2) differ enough that serious questions are called into the picture--the resolution requires that all either deny the differences or infer something that is not in the text to resolve the differences, so it is difficult for me to suggests that it is literal. and Third, I just don't believe in my heart of hearts that God frowns on the intellectual attempt to understand our world He created. While certainly, there is debate, the general consensus of the archeological and geological evidence supports a non-literal reading of Creation. I know others disagree and that's ok with me, really it is. Because I believe it is not to be taken literal, the reality is that it is no big deal to me. When I get to heaven, either I find out I was right or wrong, and who will care then. What's important is that you and I agree that Jesus died on the cross for our sins--beyond that, when you and I meet in heaven--and I suspect we will--then we can discuss this with perfect vision that we don't have now.
as to the various camps causing a stumbling block, I agree and it saddens me, but consider this--there are those, like myself, who are inherently right-brained. When confronted with issues of faith, we struggle--we want to see something. For those people who are adamently against any literal understanding of Genesis 1 and 2, could it not help them to hear that I don't think they are heathens for it or that I think they should give up their logical understanding of Creation in order to be a Christian? Many have been turned off by the Christian community's refusal to acknowledge that there are other ways of looking at the world that don't necessarily require atheistic views. I hope that in my acceptance of people, despite their creation/evolution beliefs, I am able to actually reach some that otherwise will never be reached with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Thanks again for your ferver and determination. I pray God's blessings on you for it!!!
God bless
Tommy

 

[Ron21647]

Here is a web site posted in another thread on this forum that gives a pretty good explanation of theistic evolution. http://www.ualberta.ca/%7Edlamoure/3EvoCr.htm

Ron

 

[Athanasian Creed]

Thanks Ron - i'll read it.

The reading i have done about the dangers of "Theistic evolution" have been from Creationist sites (which i've posted previously about) I looked over their points about it and do agree with them. They are, contrary to the slanderous accusations of some, men of science who, i believe, seek to honour God and do so despite the constant attacks.

Call me simple minded, narrow minded, or a fuddy-duddy - i'm just an ordinary Christian who believes Genesis 1 to be literal - period.


Ray

 

[Chi_Cygni]

Call me simple minded, narrow minded, or a fuddy-duddy - i'm just an ordinary Christian who believes Genesis 1 to be literal - period.


Ray

Actually this makes you a somewhat out of the ordinary Christian.

 

[herev]

Call me simple minded, narrow minded, or a fuddy-duddy - i'm just an ordinary Christian who believes Genesis 1 to be literal - period.


Ray

And despite my different opinion, I fully support your right to believe it that way--more power to you!!! God bless