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.
Name one instance where I have misrepresented something you have said.mhess13 said:oh please Vance. You're the misrepresentation king
Yeah, I bet you will leave it at that, since you know there is nothing to back it up. No, I did not twist your words in that thread. You just did not want to provide a direct answer to the question.mhess13 said:Well yesterday you twisted my words over the virgin birth thing and you constantly misreprest YECs.
I'll just leave it at that so as not to hijack the thread.
In another thread you were arguing for the position that it is ok and still be saved if you believe Jesus was no conceived by the Holy Spirit, thus making Him the Son of God. Without that conception by the Holy Spirit, Jesus would be the Son of Joseph, not the Son of God. Later in the Baptism, Jesus received the an extra measure of the Holy Spirit, this is what you were arguing to say that you can then see Jesus as God. But the prophets received the Holy Spirit as well, this making Jesus no different then the prophets. What makes Jesus distinctly different then the prophets is the Holy Spirit caused His conception. You were arguing that this could not be true and one could still be saved. Basically, you were arguing for the position that Jesus was not the true Son of God, but rather indowed with the Holy Spirit at the Baptism that made Him unique.Vance said:I get upset when people perpetuate false statements about what we believe. This is damaging to the public perception of Theistic Evolution and, thus, could prevent some from considering this alternative who otherwise would. This, in turn, could create a crises of faith in someone which need not occur. This is why it is essential to prevent these false statements from being told over and over.
If you would like to combat a false teaching, then do it without misrepresenting what the other side says. You say we believe X, we tell you that we don't. Then you go right ahead and say that we believe X again! The first time might just be a inadvertent misrepresentation. The second time is an intentional misrepresentation.
And this post is a prime example. I have never once argued that Jesus was not the son of God. Yet, you say that I do. This is a misrepresentation, and since I credit it you with being able to read and understand what I am saying, an intentional misrepresentation.
We, on the other hand, do NOT misrepresent what you are saying. We do not need to resort to this type of tactic.
If you cared about anyone on this board, you would never intentionally misrepresent their position. Since you do, then you must not.
mystery4 said:One of my science teachers (he taught me chemistry and biology) has been questioning things. He isn't a Christian, but he believes there is no doubt there is a greater power who controls the earth. Now he asked me how to explain things on evolution and creation after finding out I was a Christian. At the time, I was researching into both finding out as much as I could on either side. I went away and thought about it, coming up with the idea that nowhere did it mention how long the period of time was between creation and when Adam and Eve sinned. It could've been a short time or a long time, accounting for the possiblity of the old earth idea and thus evolution. I mentioned this to him and well, immediately I rejected the idea. That to him, wasn't a satisfactory answer, he had already thought of something similar and to him, that wasn't the answer. He told me something to the extent of not to go on thinking that type of thing. I do emphase this... he wasn't a Christian, he was a science teacher teaching in a pulic school.
I am not saying that you will not be saved if you do believe that, because that is between the individual and God alone. I have no right to say such a thing. I am only showing an example of where I did start to think alone those lines and the reason I stopped it. Please do not take offense to anything I have said. It was not intended that way.
If Genesis 1 and 2 are not to be read literally, but rather as allorogically, then I would like it explained to me how it is still read as truth? If it happened literally..it is easy to state it as truth...but any other way it becomes blurry. People have explained 'allogory' on the forum but how we apply truth to it when being read like that? What truth is there in it? No one has ever clearly explained this to me.Vance said:Why do YEC's keep saying this? Don't you realize that all of us accept the Bible as pure truth? Even if we don't read it literally.
YEC's find it comforting to reduce this to a "do you believe the Bible or not?" question, since there is only one good answer to that question.
But, really, we all believe the Bible. The only difference is what we believe the Bible says.
But the argument of the sun revolving around the earth and not the other way around, is like the theory of gravity in that it doesnt change Christianity one little bit. The Bible can be read in the correct context and we understand that it still makes perfect sense. The Sun moved around the sky from man's perspective but not from a scientific perspective. However, Genesis doesnt seem to explain a scientific perspective (as in it doesnt go into depth of how God spoke and things were created..maybe a little over our heads...wasnt needed for us to understand the purpose for which it was written)...but it also doesnt explain man's perspective as it wasnt observed by man as the sun revolving around the earth was.Vance said:Oh, the answer is very simple, and the truth I pointed out is a basic answer to the question.
For a more detailed answer as to why he would do it this way, the parallel with geocentrism works here as well. Why would he allow the Scripture to be written in such a way as to convince every Christian for 1500 years that it was saying that the sun did, literally, revolve around the earth? This is, in fact how they read it, and it was a MAJOR shock to the collective Church when scientists discovered this was not the case. It took them a couple of hundred years to accept it.
Now, did God know that every Christian would read those Scriptures in that incorrect way? Of course He did. Yet, He let it be written that way, anyway. Was this deceptive? Of course not. Did Christianity fall apart because people had to realize their interpretation was wrong and re-read it in light of the scientific realities? Of course not. I think God let it be written in a way that would make sense to those who were reading it first, and for a long time, but then knew that when we discovered the actual way the solar system worked, we would just say "ah, I see, then this Scripture need not be read THIS way, it should be read THAT way".
The same is true now regarding Genesis 1 and 2. God let it be written in a way that would be understandable to those reading it then, and for a long time, and which conveyed His greater truths in a powerful way. He knew that we would eventually we would discover the way it really worked, and we would say "ah, I see, then then this Scripture need not be read THIS way, it should be read THAT way".
True, when we first discovered the truth about heliocentrism, there were some who held firm to their geocentrist interpretation for a very long time, and some hang on doggedly to this day. At first, they did cause some problems by not following God's plan of "Ah, I see", causing doubt and conflict within the Church and persecution of those presenting the natural evidence. But eventually the truth won out and the stubborn few retreated to a fringe of Christianity, where you can still find them.
The same parallel is happening now with the YEC phenomenon. While most of Christianity has accepted evolution and an old earth and simple said "ah, I see", as before, there are still some who are doggedly hanging on to their interpretation. Yes, they are also causing doubt and conflict, but eventually the truth will win out and these groups will retreat to the fringe to join the geocentrists and God's work will go forward in full force.
I have not read it but it appears it might be a good idea for me to browse it as I can learn a lot from the different perspectives and interpretations of Genesis. I dont, however, agree with any arguments that millions of others believe something so I should. The majority of fundamentalists I have come across believe in YEC so shouldnt that be the better choice from my perspective if I was to believe something because the majority does???? Obviously fundamentalist will have major problems believing anything without seriously questioning it when it is a belief held by non-fundamentalist groups, if it goes against the traditional fundamentalist belief.Vance said:But, you see, there are two problems with your position.
First, the modern geocentrists would completely disagree with you about an acceptance of the heliocentric reading (just perspective, etc) not effecting Christianity. Ask them!
Second, it really can be read in a way that makes sense with evolution. This is why millions of Christians are able to believe in both! True, it would be difficult (although not impossible according to GR Morton) to reconcile it with a literal reading, if you consider a non-literal reading, it all works fine. Again, the proof is in the puddin', millions of Bible-believing Christians all around the world for whom this is not a problem at all.
Have you read about the Framework theory? This is one of the explanations as to why the literary structure of the text was used to convey the message as it did. There is a book called the Genesis Debate, which covers the YEC (literal), Progressive and Framework readings of Genesis, each presented by its proponents.
But the argument of the sun revolving around the earth and not the other way around, is like the theory of gravity in that it doesnt change Christianity one little bit.
I am able to read something from a non-literal point of view, but if it isnt able to be understood by all, why would God blind some Christians to the correct reading of Genesis?
It changes how I see my beginning as being created in the image of God and special, not just some evolved being and also changes my perspective of the fall of man to the point where I am then unsure of things like when we became someone in the image of God and became different to just some animal. Maybe it doesnt change your perspective but then I have still never heard a non-literal interpretation that can explain all the important things like fall of man - sin and death entering the world, etc.artybloke said:In what way does a non-literal reading of Genesis alter Christianity one little bit?
The literal reading makes perfect sense to me and to many other poorly and well educated Christians around the world and in 3rd world countries even so I wonder about your statement that the Gospel is simple but the rest isnt? It seems that many denominations come from differences even on the Gospel. I think it is more that the Apostles were correct in warning us all of false prophets and there are so many warnings that we know it was obviously going to be a major thing especially in the end times.artybloke said:What do you mean, understood by all? The overall message of the Gospel is perfectly simple - love God, love your neighbour, follow Christ - but if the Bible was so easy to understand in detail, there wouldn't be so many denominations, would there? I mean, whose right about Communion, your particular (I would guess small) branch of the Christian Church, or the over one billion Christians worldwide who believe in the Real Presence?
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?