Solution to the creation/evolution debate...?

[ottawak]

You can settle for just a saving knowledge if you like, and maybe just barely squeeze in the backdoor into heaven, but I want more than that for people, I want them to "know God", etc, because it's just so much more fulfilling, etc, and is so much very much more fulfilling both right now in this life, and in the next to come, etc...

There are a lot of very very miserable people with just a saving knowledge only, etc...

God Bless!

So if you accept the Gospel of Christ you are just barely saved, but if you accept a literal Genesis you get a better deal? Sounds like works righteousness to me.

Can you get into heaven if you just believe in a literal Genesis?

 

[Neogaia777]

So if you accept the Gospel of Christ you are just barely saved, but if you accept a literal Genesis you get a better deal? Sounds like works righteousness to me.

Can you get into heaven if you just believe in a literal Genesis?

Knowing the truth helps you to know God, etc.

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

So if you accept the Gospel of Christ you are just barely saved, but if you accept a literal Genesis you get a better deal? Sounds like works righteousness to me.

Can you get into heaven if you just believe in a literal Genesis?

And no, it takes at least a/the saving knowledge to be saved, etc, but there is also just so much more than that also, etc...

And I'm most definitely not a "you must do works in order to be saved" kind of person, etc...

We are saved by, at first having at least a saving knowledge, and then after that, by grace and faith (in that) alone, etc...

God Bless!

 

[ottawak]

Knowing the truth helps you to know God, etc.

God Bless!

And who decides what that is? My belief is that one can know God better by not taking Genesis literally.

 

[Neogaia777]

And who decides what that is? My belief is that one can know God better by not taking Genesis literally.

Look, I just came up with a "working theory" that doesn't contradict science, or a literal interpretation of Genesis, and you guys can "take it for whatever you will or however you like", etc, ok...?

God Bless!

 

[AV1611VET]

And who decides what that is? My belief is that one can know God better by not taking Genesis literally.

Did Jesus take Genesis literally?

 

[ottawak]

Did Jesus take Genesis literally?

I have no idea, and don't even know how one would find out short of the Last Trump.

 

[AV1611VET]

I have no idea, and don't even know how one would find out short of the Last Trump.

Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You can settle for just a saving knowledge if you like, and maybe just barely squeeze in the backdoor into heaven, but I want more than that for people, I want them to "know God", etc, because it's just so much more fulfilling, etc, and is so much very much more fulfilling both right now in this life, and in the next to come, etc...

Sounds like even if I'm "saved," I won't be saved enough for your satisfaction...why?

Surely Heaven is every bit as glorious through the back door as it is through the front, right?

And how is your whimsical interpretation of Genesis going to help me "know God" better than any sort of discussion regarding his (allegedly) only begotten Son?

Because I have to tell you, if I think you're spouting nonsense about Genesis, your credibility is more or less going to be shot if you decide to talk about Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John.

There are a lot of very very miserable people with just a saving knowledge only, etc...

God Bless!

Sounds like saving people just isn't satisfying... you're looking to save the saved... need a bigger, more worthy challenge?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Oh, come on, really...?

It is a "working theory", etc, and I can't believe you can't admit at least that, etc...

God Bless!

If you're saying it's a "work in progress," then I wish you the best of luck and can't wait to see the finished product.

If you're claiming it works as is, well... I've already punched several holes in it, and you have all but given up at addressing them.

I'm sure you can't believe that... but that's no concern of mine.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

And clearly Jesus was wrong about that, as the existence of the transgendered proves.

Really, when you read Genesis 1, God's never been all that good at separating things... why would genders be any exception?

 

[Neogaia777]

If you're saying it's a "work in progress," then I wish you the best of luck and can't wait to see the finished product.

If you're claiming it works as is, well... I've already punched several holes in it, and you have all but given up at addressing them.

I'm sure you can't believe that... but that's no concern of mine.

You haven't punched any holes in this theory, etc, lol...

I'm not even sure you even fully understand it yet, or you would automatically know that's just not possible yet, etc, or at least not until some new information is presented first, because until then, it still stands, etc...

Thanks for the laugh though, lol...

I like how you just "say stuff" and automatically think you have made your point, or just defeated a theory or possible truth just right off the bat automatically and just because you say you have or say so, etc, it's very very laughable, etc...

Or else, "show me the holes", if you can, etc...?

Because there aren't any yet, etc...

But and/or anyway, talking with you further is starting to be "no concern of mine" anymore also, etc, cause your full of "you know what", etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Sounds like even if I'm "saved," I won't be saved enough for your satisfaction...why?

Surely Heaven is every bit as glorious through the back door as it is through the front, right?

And how is your whimsical interpretation of Genesis going to help me "know God" better than any sort of discussion regarding his (allegedly) only begotten Son?

Because I have to tell you, if I think you're spouting nonsense about Genesis, your credibility is more or less going to be shot if you decide to talk about Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John.



Sounds like saving people just isn't satisfying... you're looking to save the saved... need a bigger, more worthy challenge?

I hope you are saved, or will be saved...

If that means anything to you...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

If you're saying it's a "work in progress," then I wish you the best of luck and can't wait to see the finished product.

If you're claiming it works as is, well... I've already punched several holes in it, and you have all but given up at addressing them.

I'm sure you can't believe that... but that's no concern of mine.

And apparently, you do not know the difference between a "working theory" and a "work in progress" also...?

Your very funny, etc...

Makes me laugh, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

And apparently, you do not know the difference between a "working theory" and a "work in progress" also...?

Your very funny, etc...

Makes me laugh, etc...

God Bless!

@TLK Valentine

What I have proposed cannot be disproven yet, etc...

Not until more information is found and/or presented, etc...

And that is the difference between a "working theory" and a "work in progress", etc...

A "working theory" is complete already until more information is found and/or presented, etc...

Very surprised you didn't know that, etc...

God Bless!

 

[TLK Valentine]

Whatever.

I was going to ask whether or not using the correct words were important for you... it would appear I have my answer already.

 

[TLK Valentine]

@TLK Valentine

What I have proposed cannot be disproven yet, etc...

Not until more information is found and/or presented, etc...

Tell that to the 17 purple gnomes living in my bathtub.

What's that? You don't believe me?

Well, too bad -- that's the working theory until you prove otherwise.

And that is the difference between a "working theory" and a "work in progress", etc...

A "working theory" is complete already until more information is found and/or presented, etc...

Very surprised you didn't know that, etc...

More surprised you think your theory works after being eviscerated over 250 posts ago.

 

[Neogaia777]

OK @TLK Valentine, Do you believe Jesus had to die for you to pay for your sins...?

Yes or No...?

Because if the answer to that is still "No", then you are not saved yet, etc...

Or do you believe He rose from the dead...?

Yes or No...?

Because if the answer to that is still "No", then you are not saved yet, etc...

Because those are "essential doctrines" that are absolutely vital to "saving knowledge", etc...

And I don't think you fully buy into them just yet, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

OK @TLK Valentine, Do you believe Jesus had to die for you to pay for your sins...?

Yes or No...?

Because if the answer to that is still "No", then you are not saved yet, etc...

Or do you believe He rose from the dead...?

Yes or No...?

Because if the answer to that is still "No", then you are not saved yet, etc...

Because those are "essential doctrines" that are absolutely vital to "saving knowledge", etc...

And I don't think you fully buy into them just yet, etc...

God Bless!

And for that matter @TLK Valentine, do you even believe Jesus even existed, etc...?

Because if you do not, then you are most definitely "not saved yet", etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Tell that to the 17 purple gnomes living in my bathtub.

What's that? You don't believe me?

Well, too bad -- that's the working theory until you prove otherwise.

What you said here is "nonsensical", and is just plain stupid, etc...

Are you losing your focus, etc...?

More surprised you think your theory works after being eviscerated over 250 posts ago.

Again, "show me the holes", if you can, and I'd be more than happy to address them, because just because you say so, with no proof, just is not enough, sorry...

Can you disprove it, or show how it is just not possible right now, or can you not, etc...?

Because I'm betting the latter, etc...

God Bless!