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.
Anything in the Bible that opposes political correctness is a metaphor by default not literal...the exegesis involved in seperating mataphor from literal?? Simply checking whether or not it violates political correctness.What makes a person theologically liberal?
Actually it's the other way around.You are sadly out of touch regarding the status of evolution theory among scientists. Evolution is widely accepted among scientists, so much so that creationists complain they cannot get a hearing for their attempts to deny evolution. And the scientists who do so will seriously take umbrage if you try to characterize them as anything but "true" and "honest". A scientist has to bring truth to the table - it is the medium of exchange in science. Men like Carl Sagan, Neal Degrasse Tyson, Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, they bring real evidence and real logic to the table.
Evolution denial has had its chance for over 150 years and continues to fail where it counts . . . in evaluating and explaining the evidence. Denying evolution is no longer a reasonable stance.
Actually it's the other way around.
When evolutionists are required to prove their theories rather than simply state them as fact as they do to captive audiences in school classrooms - they run from debates like scalded cats.
For the Christian - the most significant point to consider regarding where to come down on this issue is how evolution cuts the heart out of the gospel.
The theory of evolution requires death (millions of years of it), struggle for existence, and survival of the fittest millions of years before man comes on the scene. In this kind of unscriptural theology, death is not the enemy but the very means by which God created everything.
But for a true person of faith the Bible is very clear about the fact that the wages of sin is death. Death came into the world through Adam’s sin. Therefore there was no death prior to the fall of man and therefore there could be no evolution as commonly taught by so called theistic evolutionists before that time.
You folks may say that theistic evolution will not necessarily take the church to the point where she denies these basic truths. But I say she's well on her way to this kind of "post modern" Christianity.
Yes - it does and I've shown you exactly how it does it.Evolution does NOT cut the heart out of the gospel.
You mean the first living dirt don't you?Adam, of course, being the first homo sapiens to become a living soul before God.
I am strengthening the voice of the Spirit of God in the church by repeating what He has clearly said in His Word. I must decrease and He must increase and I'm perfectly fine with that.Whatever changes are taking place that you deplore in the churches, you are weakening your voice against them by being so out of touch with reality as to deny evolution.
Denying the rotation of the earth can hardly be compared to supporting the idea that death came through the transgression of one man and life comes through the obedience of another.You might as well join Martin Luther and oppose the rotation of the earth as the cause of day and night. How did that work out for Christianity?
Toes assist men while walking - providing balance, weight-bearing, and thrust during his steps. I use mine every day.By the way, even as you teach and preach against evolution, you hide in your shoes vestigal, useless digits, inherited from a previous species that actually used all those toes.
Returning to the question posed in the OP - what makes a person theologically liberal is a willingness to exchange the clear teaching of the scriptures for what is the prevailing opinion of secular society.
This - in an effort to avoid the persecution of that society and thus refusing to take up their cross and follow God.
IMO - it is because there was little pressure from society 75 years ago to warp their theology in a manner which goes against what the scriptures clearly teach.In general, Theological Liberals follow the lead of culture, rather than the established law of God. They always seem to find some new and improved way of interpreting a text *after* society is headed in a certain direction. For example, if homosexuality is not indeed wrong, then why did liberals wait until very recently to say so? They had the same texts, so why didn't they claim what they do now, 75 years ago?
I am strengthening the voice of the Spirit of God in the church by repeating what He has clearly said in His Word. I must decrease and He must increase and I'm perfectly fine with that.
Of course it can. And the comparison is apt. Both represent the denial of plain truth based on false understanding of scripture.Denying the rotation of the earth can hardly be compared to supporting the idea that death came through the transgression of one man and life comes through the obedience of another.
Toes assist men while walking - providing balance, weight-bearing, and thrust during his steps. I use mine every day.
That's according to the Word of God which, obviously, you don't believe.
But I'm not going to debate the ins and outs of evolution with you. Better scholars than you and I have done that before us.
What I am going to do is warn you directly that you have denied what the Word of God clearly teaches in order to keep from being frowned upon by the society around you.
Better, as the Lord and I see it, to take up your cross and follow Christ than to compromise the truth just to avoid persecution.
Anything in the Bible that opposes political correctness is a metaphor by default not literal...the exegesis involved in seperating mataphor from literal?? Simply checking whether or not it violates political correctness.
There is no evidence which proves evolution.I know you mean well. But like the pharisees of Jesus' day, you cannot see what is in front of you because your mind has been made up regardless of the evidence.
So you are saying that death did not come through the transgression of one man and life does not come through the obedience of another?Of course it can. And the comparison is apt. Both represent the denial of plain truth based on false understanding of scripture.
Well there you go then. That's the almost solid evidence for the evolution of the species I've ever heard.You just made that up. You use the great toe, of course, to shove off each step. But your little toe is completely unnecessary. You could balance just fine without it.
The scriptures are the ultimate truth which God has given to us.I believe the Bible, and I also believe the Word of God revealed in the stars, the rocks, and the genomes. Each helps me understand, properly, the other.
Debate in a forum like this is always difficult.So you admit the debate isn't an easy cake walk for your side after all.
If you claim to believe the Bible as God's Word and yet read the account of the creation of mankind as evolutionary - I see either one of two choices.Oh, we might debate the facts about evolution. . . whether or not I have denied the Word of God . . but one thing I know, and that is I did NOT choose to accept the truth of evolution "in order to keep from being frowned upon by the society around" me. Your ilk is over and over guilty of telling untruths about the motives for accepting evolution. It is, of course, a proof you cannot reason well, that you are capable of being spectacularly wrong about something.
I never run into that. Only the opposite. I don't know if you're referencing your argument above, but I do not claim that a belief in 'Common Descent' is political correctness. I don't like using the word evolution, evolution literally happens right in front of our faces, it sounds silly to argue 'Evolution.' It's common descent that people are arguing. I at least appreciate that both sides in the common descent debate are using arguments of inference. Political correctness on the other hand is literally a social training tool to violate the law of non-contradiction.Today many people try to argue against things that are correct by labeling them politically correct, as if that suddenly makes them wrong.
Look - you obviously either don't believe that the Bible is God's Word to us or you don't believe what the Bible says about things. That's your choice.
I find myself in a catch22 with you. I'd tell you what God says about what you are doing. But, since you don't believe what God says, it would do no good to do so.
I never run into that. Only the opposite. I don't know if you're referencing your argument above, but I do not claim that a belief in 'Common Descent' is political correctness. I don't like using the word evolution, evolution literally happens right in front of our faces, it sounds silly to argue 'Evolution.' It's common descent that people are arguing. I at least appreciate that both sides in the common descent debate are using arguments of inference. Political correctness on the other hand is literally a social training tool to violate the law of non-contradiction.
Neither the stars, the rocks, or genomes reveal anything which proves the evolution of man in the way it is commonly taught.....You can trust the direct Word of God revealed in the stars, the rocks, and the genomes. You should not offend Him by rejecting that Word.
Neither the stars, the rocks, or genomes reveal anything which proves the evolution of man in the way it is commonly taught.
To the contrary - they reveal the sudden appearance of complex systems which defy (in that sudden appearance) the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
If you honestly feel that the evolution of man is so well established by science that you simply must reject or rationalize the picture given to us in the scriptures, go ahead on.Of course they reveal evolution. And the laws of thermodynamics are not revoked. Indeed, given a constant source of energy flow, development of dissipative complexity is highly favored. From that point of view, you are a complex dissipative structure.
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?