Professing to be wise, they became fools

[PhantomLlama]

Anyone that loves the truth will love the Bible, because it is truth.

I 'love' truth but I don't love the Bible. It is interesting in parts but I don't love it.

 

[lucaspa]

Romans 1:22-25
Professing to be wise, they became fools, [23] and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man--and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. [24] Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, [25] who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

Here is a passage that maybe difficult for some people to understand.

In context, it is very easy to understand. Paul is talking about Christians in Rome that are continuing to engage in the worship of the various pagan gods in Rome and participating in the festivals to these gods.

The only fool here is the one trying to enforce his interpretation on the verse.

The result is, their image or theorys about God's creation becomes corrupted also. They exchange the truth of God for a lie. Not only in regard to the Creator, but in regard to creation also.

See? the verse mentions nothing about creation. This is forcing a man-made interpretation on the text.

Then they will loudly proclaim: Evolution is not atheism!

It isn't. Because evolution does not

changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man--and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

Evolution has no image of God in the form of a man. The Roman gods did.

 

[lucaspa]

Again, how did you come to the conclusion that these passages address evolution and science ? Couldn't these passages also address religions which have animals or animal/human hybrids for Gods ?

Which is what the passages do addresss. The answer to that is that JohnR7 is making the Bible into his corrupted image.

 

[lucaspa]

Let me see if I can say it in a way that won't get me in trouble.
IT IS MY OPINION that evolution is religous in nature.
Evolution is a theory which needs NO GOD to bring about life.

Demonstrate to us thru the data that no god is needed to bring about life. To say this, you are accepting the statement of faith of atheism: natural = without God or need of God. Why are you saying you are a theist when you are atheist?

Sure, you TE types believe God used evolution, but that's beside the point. Evolution does not need a God.

Evolution does not require a miraculous intervention of God. But that is totally different than needing God. You are using god-of-the-gaps and say God is needed only when you have a gap. That's bad theology. Actually, it's atheist theology.

Please read the following carefully:
"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once." Butler: Analogy of Revealed Religion.

This is from the dreaded www.theyoungearth.com "effects of evolution" article:
Every religion seeks to answer four questions.
-Who am I?
-Where did I come from?
-Why I am I here?
-Where am I going when I die?
If evolution is true then man is nothing special at all. We are only here by random chance. There is no purpose in our existence. In fact, we are decended from protoplasm that washed up on a beach "millions" of years ago. When we die, that's it! Lights out, it's all over. We become nothing more than wormfood.

Sorry, but none of these are consequences of evolution. For starters, evolution is not random chance. Selection in natural selection is the opposite of chance.

Nor does evolution say anything about being special. In our adaptations of complex speech and abstract thought and ability to make tools to make tools, we are indeed special. Those adaptations give us a technology no other species on the planet has.

Evolution says nothing about what happens after death. Science has no knowledge of that at all. Evolution does not forbid God or an afterlife. Please post to me the articles from the scientific literature that forbid God or an afterlife.

According to the infamous "rule #1" that you guys whine so much about, am I allowed to hold this OPINION??????

Since you are saying that people who accept evolution are not Christians, no you are not. Because the great majority of Christians do accept evolution and realize that evolution does not say what you say it does. By the 9th Commandment, you can't hold this opinion, since it is false witness.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I love the way you guys censor anyone who doesn't agree with your precious evolution theory. I don't know how many times I've been reported by you angry evolutionists because I believe the Bible is inerrant rather than science textbooks.

Let me see if I can say it in a way that won't get me in trouble.
IT IS MY OPINION that evolution is religous in nature.
Evolution is a theory which needs NO GOD to bring about life. Sure, you TE types believe God used evolution, but that's beside the point. Evolution does not need a God.
This is from the dreaded www.theyoungearth.com "effects of evolution" article:
Every religion seeks to answer four questions.
-Who am I?
-Where did I come from?
-Why I am I here?
-Where am I going when I die?
If evolution is true then man is nothing special at all. We are only here by random chance. There is no purpose in our existence. In fact, we are decended from protoplasm that washed up on a beach "millions" of years ago. When we die, that's it! Lights out, it's all over. We become nothing more than wormfood.

THIS IS MY OPINION. According to the infamous "rule #1" that you guys whine so much about, am I allowed to hold this OPINION??????

No, you've been reported because you don't think the rules apply to you.

Are you really so unversed in Christian theology that you cannot see why claiming that evolution is a pagan religion breaks Rule #1?

1) Christians have but one religion - Christianity. To claim that we are following a pagan one is to claim we are not really Christians, according to most Christian theologies.

2) It is personally offensive for you to say this.

3) It is untrue that we are following any pagan religion.

Three reasons you should retract. Or is offensiveness part of your creed?

 

[Bushido216]

Romans 1:22-25
[22]Professing to be wise, they became fools, [23] and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man--and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. [24] Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, [25] who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

You are the only one professing wisdom.

 

[JohnR7]

The only fool here is the one trying to enforce his interpretation on the verse.

I presume your talking about yourself here.

 

[lucaspa]

I presume your talking about yourself here.

If you read further in my post, you see I am referring to you. You are forcing the verse in Romans to refer to creation when Paul is clearly referring to the Christians in Rome, not creation.

You are making a corrupted image of the Bible and then trying to worship that corrupted image. Not a good thing to do, John.

 

[mhess13]

No, you've been reported because you don't think the rules apply to you.

Are you really so unversed in Christian theology that you cannot see why claiming that evolution is a pagan religion breaks Rule #1?

1) Christians have but one religion - Christianity. To claim that we are following a pagan one is to claim we are not really Christians, according to most Christian theologies.

2) It is personally offensive for you to say this.

3) It is untrue that we are following any pagan religion.

Three reasons you should retract. Or is offensiveness part of your creed?

I already edited my orignal post. My question is, is it ok w/you I have have the opinion that evolution is a religion? Am I allowed to have opinions?

 

[lucaspa]

I already edited my orignal post. My question is, is it ok w/you I have have the opinion that evolution is a religion? Am I allowed to have opinions?

The opinions don't match the evidence. So, are you allowed to have opinions that are false but that you pretend are true?

Evolution is not a religion. You can argue that atheism is a faith/religion. But evolution is not atheism and atheism isn't evolution.

 

[Bushido216]

mhess, I can have the opinion that all african americans are a certain six-letter word. However, I can't express that opinion because it is wildy offensive to certain groups, namely african americans.

By purporting that evolution is in some way a pagan religion is very offensive to me because I tend to think that of all the things that I am, a pagan isn't one of them.

 

[danaman5]

is it ok w/you I have have the opinion that evolution is a religion? Am I allowed to have opinions?

Sure, but it is a completely baseless opinion. You said in a previous post that a religion attempts to answer 4 distinct questions. Evolution attempts to answer none of the 4 questions. By your own reasoning, evolution is not a religion. Therefore, your argument is reduced to little more than "Evolution is a religion! Nyaaaa!"

 

[Nathan Poe]

I presume your talking about yourself here.

You presume much, Johnny, but never say anything of consequence.

 

[JohnR7]

I 'love' truth but I don't love the Bible. It is interesting in parts but I don't love it.

I remember once I was reading the 119 psalm and David was talking about his love for the law of God. That sort of surprised me, because at the time I did not think that the law was something a person could love. I thought the law was a list of things we wanted to do, but were not allowed to do. But then I began to see how the law protects and shelters us and I began to understand the love he had for it. For me growing up in a school system where the rules were developed for the convience of those who make the rules. But in the Bible I began to see that the law was developed for our benifit.

Psalm 119:97
Oh, how I love Your law!
It is my meditation all the day.

 

[JohnR7]

You presume much, Johnny, but never say anything of consequence.

Oh, I talk about consequences, I do not white wash anything. But I would rather talk to people about the benifits.

 

[PhantomLlama]

Oh, I talk about consequences, I do not white wash anything. But I would rather talk to people about the benifits.

Benefits are consequences.

 

[JohnR7]

You are the only one professing wisdom.

I am not professing wisdom, I am pointing out what the Bible has to say about wisdom. Solomon had a lot of wisdom given to him, yet we have the mind of Christ. So our understanding will be greater than that of Solomon.

 

[Bushido216]

I am not professing wisdom, I am pointing out what the Bible has to say about wisdom. Solomon had a lot of wisdom given to him, yet we have the mind of Christ. So our understanding will be greater than that of Solomon.

Don't even pretend like you don't know the real reason why you posted this.

 

[Ishmael Borg]

I am not professing wisdom, I am pointing out what the Bible has to say about wisdom. Solomon had a lot of wisdom given to him, yet we have the mind of Christ. So our understanding will be greater than that of Solomon.

Why do we have to put up with this in the science forum? If he started this thread to preach about biblical views on wisdom, as he asserts, this is definitely in the wrong forum.

Mods... Help!

 

[Ishmael Borg]

I've never checked out the 'report' function on posts until a minute ago. I wanted to know if it is appropriate to suggest a forum change there (I didn't see it in the list of reasons for report). If anyone knows, please let me know. Thanks.