Something I need to get off my chest about the whole creation/evolution thing.

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Why does the NT reference the creation account, which is reiterated all throughout scripture?

Wild goose chase?


God just likes affirming mysteries that we have to cross reference with what men believe?

Let God be true.. That's my philosophy, its simple.

Romans 1 is a completely different creation narrative than Genesis 1, but they affirm the same truths, as do I.

 

[Time4Truth]

Romans 1 is a completely different creation narrative than Genesis 1, but they affirm the same truths, as do I.

Yeah? What "truth" is that?

Is God true and every man a liar?

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Yeah? What "truth" is that?

Is God true and every man a liar?

That God is the God of the universe who created all things within the universe, from the universe itself to the bratwurst I had this evening. That God alone is to be worshiped. That humans have a special place within that creation as bearers of the image of God, and that Christ fulfilled the vocation of humans to usher humanity into God's own Sabbath rest.

Oh. Wait. That's exactly how Paul recounts creation in Romans 1. Nothing about six days there....

 

[Tzaousios]

He can handle himself.

What do you mean by this?

All this is a distraction to avoid the actual thing he believes, which is that Genesis is just a collection of words essentially with no meaning.

No, as you have already been told on more than one occasion, this is a pejorative, strawman representation of the position.

However, the prophecies and events are detailed throughout scripture rather excessively, lending more credence to Genesis than just some collection of "poems".

Another pejorative, strawman representation of the position.

We aren't in the dark ages anymore.

Hmmm...very interesting that you said this. Are you sure that you have not been here before?

If you had, you would have seen on multiple occasions where myself and others have pointed out that "dark ages" does not refer to any distinct historical reality, but rather functions a rhetorical term of demonization for anything that strikes one as "Catholic."

 

[Time4Truth]

No, as you have already been told on more than one occasion, this is a pejorative, strawman representation of the position.

Im not going to entertain semantics.

 

[Time4Truth]

That God is the God of the universe who created all things within the universe..

Did God create Adam, the first male human by forming him from the minerals of the earth and breathing life into his nostrils?


Its a yes or no.

 

[Tzaousios]

Or just good old bible believing Christians like myself..

With a little help from Evangelical and fundamentalist Protestantism.

 

[Time4Truth]

With a little help from Evangelical and fundamentalist Protestantism.

Im not an evangelist, I hold a different office within Christs Church.

Protestantism is no better than Catholicism.

Im somewhere in the middle..

 

[Tzaousios]

No, as you have already been told on more than one occasion, this is a pejorative, strawman representation of the position.

Im not going to entertain semantics.

Just because you might not know some words does not mean that what I said is not a valid criticism. You have been consistently setting up strawmen of positions that you perceive to be anything different from YEC literalism in order to demonize them as "atheist" and "not Christian."

Also, there was more to my reply than what you addressed here.

 

[Targaryen]

Im not going to entertain semantics.

You've been doing a good job of that prior to now.

What changed?

Protestantism is no better than Catholicism.

Im somewhere in the middle..

You mean Anglican...cause nothing you've said rings true for Anglicans either.

 

[Tzaousios]

Im not an evangelist, I hold a different office within Christs Church.

Protestantism is no better than Catholicism.

Im somewhere in the middle..

So you are a lonewolf fundamentalist Protestant?

 

[Melethiel]

God is life.


God created life.


Abiogenesis is the theory outside of a creator.

Again, your understanding of what the scientific term actually means is off. Abiogenesis is opposed to biogenesis.

Biogenesis = life arising from life (via reproduction, from a living source material)
This is contrasted to abiogenesis, which is life arising from "a" (no) life. Again, arising from (as in the source material), NOT "created by."

The Greek root "genea" just means "to begin." Your definition of "create" is simply wrong.

You are the only person Ive met that has challenged this.

You should get out more then.

There are two possibilities for life.

Only 2.

1. Abiogenesis
2. Creator

3. The Creator uses what to our eyes appear to be natural mechanisms to create life. God knitting us together in our mother's womb does not mean that we have to throw our understanding of fetal development out the window.

 

[Time4Truth]

So you are a lonewolf fundamentalist Protestant?

No, I am a Christian, I don't take the monikers people use to identify themselves with for the roof they sit under.

 

[Time4Truth]

Again, your understanding of what the scientific term actually means is off. Abiogenesis is opposed to biogenesis. QUOTE]

Abiogenesis is a hypothesis that says life can come from non life.

 

[Melethiel]

Again, your understanding of what the scientific term actually means is off. Abiogenesis is opposed to biogenesis. QUOTE]

Abiogenesis is a hypothesis that says life can come from non life.

Now you've got it. Nothing about a Creator or the lack thereof, just the root material.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Did God create Adam, the first male human by forming him from the minerals of the earth and breathing life into his nostrils?


Its a yes or no.

Nope. We were never meant to take Genesis 2 literally, either.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Did God create Adam, the first male human by forming him from the minerals of the earth and breathing life into his nostrils?


Its a yes or no.

Oh, and let me ask you a question. Do you believe that the bread and the wine in communion literally become the physical but intangible body and blood of Christ?

 

[Targaryen]

Nope. We were never meant to take Genesis 2 literally, either.

Spiritual truth does not exclude scientific truth for the 99th time.

 

[Gary51]

Nope. We were never meant to take Genesis 2 literally, either.

Where in scripture does it say that? Are you trying to claim Genesis is a parable?

 

[Targaryen]

Where in scripture does it say that? Are you trying to claim Genesis is a parable?

So where in scripture does it says scripture is a parable?

That's a very interesting and rather illogical way of trying to prove a point about literalism. and as such it fails.