Unbelievable Unbelief!

[Gander]

Finding this forum a short time ago has come as quite a shock to me. Never before have I encountered such concentrated unbelievable unbelief amoungst a group that claim to be christian.

I can easily understand why an atheist needs to hold on to evolutionist theory as a basis of their belief. What I can not understand are those who stand as Theistic Evolutionists. In my opinion they are the embodyment of those who have a form of godliness but deny the power thereof.

I do not think that T.Es realise that when they compromise their faith over creation, they compromise their faith over the whole of God's word.
Let me give you an example.

T.Es generally do not believe that God could create Adam in a single day. They generally believe that the creation story is symbolic of an evolutionary event regardless of scientific evidence. My question to them is how did Adam evolve a spirit?

Man is a spirit that possesses a mind and lives in a body. If you deny that God is the true creator of the body how can you have faith that He created the spirit man. If you doubt that God created what you can see, how can you believe in the spirit man within that you can not see.

What is more difficult to create; a human body in a day or an eternal spirit?

Then of course you have 1 Cor 15 where we are told that at the resurrection we will be transformed into a new spiritual body in the twinkling of an eye. This must be a major problem for T.Es because they are unable to believe God created the body we have in a day let alone a spiritual body in the twinkling of an eye.

I suppose someone is going to tell me that the twinkling of an eye represents millions of years, and that really we will evolve into our new spiritual bodies.

As I said; unbelievable unbelief!

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Just because you cannot accept evolutionary theory for personal reasons does not make it wrong. Evolutionary theory has withstood analysis and attacks - from the scientific and religious communities - and come out stronger. Every day - literally every day - there is a mounting body of evidence to support the theory of evolution.

Of course, you are entitled to your personal opinion. But in the end it is nothing more then that.

Now as a christian who apparently takes the bible literally. How do you regard the passages in the bible that describe the Earth as being FLAT, IMMOBILE, RESTING ON PILLARS? How do you regard the passages in the bible that describe the sky as bieng SOLID and HAVING DOORS THROUGH WHICH RAIN POURS? HOw about the Earth being the center of the universe, as described in the bible?

I bet you will say "Oh, well THOSE parts are not ment to be taken literally" (well then how do you explain the fact that for centuries people DID interpret them literally and fought against any alternate interpretation- ever hear of Galileo?).


Guess what, you CAN be a christian and accept modern science. In Jesus' day people believed that illness was caused by demons. Jesus is even described as casting out demons. Today we are a little more sophisticated and realize that illnesses are caused by a myriad of physical - not mystical - conditions.

I believe that Jesus cured a person of epilepsy - as opposed actually cast out a living being called a demon as is described in the bible. Either way, a miracle was performed.

All it takes is for one to realize who the bible was written by. WHat level of understanding of the natural universe did they have (or need for that matter). ?

 

[troodon]

T.Es generally do not believe that God could create Adam in a single day.

This is incorrect. Pardon the double negative but we do not believe that God couldn't create the earth in 6 days, we believe the evidence shows that he didn't create the earth in 6 days. There is an enormous difference.

My question to them is how did Adam evolve a spirit?

I've never heard anyone claim that souls evolved.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

gander, since you are in the UK how can you be shocked. The C of E's official stance is evolutionary. The Catholic church in their schools teaches from an evolutionary perspective. In the UK about the only place you find literalists is on the internet because they are typically laughed at and shunned in the UK. In fact it really is on here or places like the American MidWest and Deep South where you find numbers of literalists who deny evolution. And these Creationists as we all know are so well educated.

 

[Gander]

This is incorrect. Pardon the double negative but we do not believe that God couldn't create the earth in 6 days,

This is even more unbelievable. God could have created the world in 6 days, but he did'nt; He waited for it to accidently happen then claimed the glory for it in his holy word? C'mon, don't make me laugh.

we believe the evidence shows that he didn't create the earth in 6 days.

The evidence does not show that. What you mean is that you believe an interpretation of the evidence that contradicts what God says in His word.
Evolutionists have no real evidence. They have theories. Theories based in humanistic belief. Theories without foundation spoon fed to the gullable majority, many of whom are desperate to prove to themselves that there is no God.
Let me put it another way. Evolution is anti-christ.

I've never heard anyone claim that souls evolved.

Exactly. So if as you accept God created the very heart of man; Why would he put an eternal spirit that he created into a second hand container that arrived on the scene by accident?

 

[Chi_Cygni]

No Gander.

Evolution is not anti_christ it is blind literalism of a book that is anti-christ.

 

[Gander]

Just because you cannot accept evolutionary theory for personal reasons does not make it wrong. Evolutionary theory has withstood analysis and attacks - from the scientific and religious communities - and come out stronger. Every day - literally every day - there is a mounting body of evidence to support the theory of evolution.

Of course, you are entitled to your personal opinion. But in the end it is nothing more then that.

Now as a christian who apparently takes the bible literally. How do you regard the passages in the bible that describe the Earth as being FLAT, IMMOBILE, RESTING ON PILLARS? How do you regard the passages in the bible that describe the sky as bieng SOLID and HAVING DOORS THROUGH WHICH RAIN POURS? HOw about the Earth being the center of the universe, as described in the bible?

I bet you will say "Oh, well THOSE parts are not ment to be taken literally" (well then how do you explain the fact that for centuries people DID interpret them literally and fought against any alternate interpretation- ever hear of Galileo?).

I have seen all these mindless arguments about how the bible really is not the truth. I have even been sucked into couple.
The main trouble with people who give these examples of how they feel the bible is wrong is that they have no understanding of spiritual things. That is why when someone tells them the bible is literal truth, they incorrectly apply their interpretation and context, and compare it to the natural world. In reality most of these scripture are talking about a spiritual world they have no hope of understanding because of their lack of faith.

Guess what, you CAN be a christian and accept modern science. In Jesus' day people believed that illness was caused by demons. Jesus is even described as casting out demons. Today we are a little more sophisticated and realize that illnesses are caused by a myriad of physical - not mystical - conditions.

I believe that Jesus cured a person of epilepsy - as opposed actually cast out a living being called a demon as is described in the bible. Either way, a miracle was performed.

A fine example of lack of spiritual understanding

All it takes is for one to realize who the bible was written by. WHat level of understanding of the natural universe did they have

You need to realise that the bible was written by God through man, not about God by man.
God's understanding of the universe is total. I'll take His word over your interpretation of modern science.

 

[Bulldog]

Theories based in humanistic belief.

I almost take offense to that. I'd rather say that your view is humanistic because it takes a human interpretation above what God has shown in His creation.

Evolution is anti-christ.

Only if God's method's are antichrist. Antichrist is just a spirit of anti-christian sentiment, and looking at God's creation is surely not that.

Btw, the Antichrist has already passed. It was Nero.

 

[gluadys]

Finding this forum a short time ago has come as quite a shock to me. Never before have I encountered such concentrated unbelievable unbelief amoungst a group that claim to be christian.

I can easily understand why an atheist needs to hold on to evolutionist theory as a basis of their belief. What I can not understand are those who stand as Theistic Evolutionists. In my opinion they are the embodyment of those who have a form of godliness but deny the power thereof.

I do not think that T.Es realise that when they compromise their faith over creation, they compromise their faith over the whole of God's word.

It is only your opinion that TEs are "compromising" their faith. Just because we do not use your interpretive paradigm, it does not follow that our faith is in any way compromised.

You are also making the assumption that God's word is confined to the pages of the scriptures. IMHO that is a huge compromise right there. The church has never taught this, nor is it taught anywhere in scripture. In fact, scripture quite often points to creation as another locus of God's word. (e.g. Psalm 19:1-6) TEs also look to creation as well as scriptures to hear ALL of God's word.

T.Es generally do not believe that God could create Adam in a single day. They generally believe that the creation story is symbolic of an evolutionary event regardless of scientific evidence.

Wrong on three counts. It should read:

T.Es generally do not believe that God did create human beings in a single day. They generally believe that the creation story is symbolic of an evolutionary event because of scientific evidence.

My question to them is how did Adam evolve a spirit?

If you are speaking of an individual person, then you need to learn that individual organisms do not evolve. Biological evolution occurs in species, over generations, not in single individuals.

Man [sic] is a spirit that possesses a mind and lives in a body. If you deny that God is the true creator of the body how can you have faith that He created the spirit man. If you doubt that God created what you can see, how can you believe in the spirit man within that you can not see.

I believe scripture says that both male and female were created in the image of God i.e. possessing mind/spirit/soul. You err in limiting this quality to man only. You also err in saying "man [sic] is a spirit". Angels are spirits. Humans are physico-spiritual beings.

You also err in assuming TEs deny God's creation of the human body. On the contrary TEs affirm that God is the Creator of all things, including the human body. So your conclusion is also erroneous.

What is more difficult to create; a human body in a day or an eternal spirit?

An eternal spirit, by definition, is not created. Do you believe there are eternal spirits other than God? Created spirits, by definition, are not eternal, though they may be or become immortal.

Then of course you have 1 Cor 15 where we are told that at the resurrection we will be transformed into a new spiritual body in the twinkling of an eye. This must be a major problem for T.Es because they are unable to believe God created the body we have in a day let alone a spiritual body in the twinkling of an eye.

Again, garbage in , garbage out. You come to erroneous conclusions because you do not understand the position you are criticising.

I suppose someone is going to tell me that the twinkling of an eye represents millions of years, and that really we will evolve into our new spiritual bodies.

Well, it will certainly be the twinkling of God's eye. What that may mean on a human scale is anyone's guess. What ever God chooses is fine with me.

 

[gluadys]

This is even more unbelievable. God could have created the world in 6 days, but he did'nt; He waited for it to accidently happen then claimed the glory for it in his holy word? C'mon, don't make me laugh.

Why do you describe evolution as an accident? This shows that you do not know much about evolution. It is no more accidental to create humans through evolution than to create stars through gravity and nuclear fusion. Did it never occur to you that God made the fundamental particles and forces of the universe as they are for a reason? And that the reason is to accomplish God's purposes?

If God so arranged the nature of the universe to give it the capacity to generate life, why would the generation of life through that same God-given nature be accidental?

The evidence does not show that. What you mean is that you believe an interpretation of the evidence that contradicts what God says in His word.

Contradicts what God says or what some human teachers claim God says? What gives your interpretation of scripture a privileged position in regard to other interpretations. Remember no one in this forum is denying creation. What TEs oppose is the creationist's caricature of creation.

Evolutionists have no real evidence. They have theories.

There is abundant evidence for evolution when you don't refuse to look at it. And the theory of evolution is based on this evidence.

Theories without foundation spoon fed to the gullable majority, many of whom are desperate to prove to themselves that there is no God.

There is a reason why theistic evolution is called theistic. Those who hold to this theology belief are theists. They believe in God and are in no way desparate to prove God's non-existence.

So if as you accept God created the very heart of man[sic]; Why would he put an eternal spirit that he created into a second hand container that arrived on the scene by accident?

Leaving out half the human species again I see. And God did not put an eternal spirit into humans. God put a created spirit into humans---unless you are going to contend that humans are gods. The rest of the statement is drivel based on either ignorance of, or misrepresentation of, evolution and a TE perspective.

 

[gluadys]

The main trouble with people who give these examples of how they feel the bible is wrong is that they have no understanding of spiritual things. That is why when someone tells them the bible is literal truth, they incorrectly apply their interpretation and context, and compare it to the natural world. In reality most of these scripture are talking about a spiritual world they have no hope of understanding because of their lack of faith.

Ducking the question, I see. And contradicting yourself. And misrepresenting scripture. No, most of those passages about a flat earth, a solid heaven, foundations, windows, etc. are NOT about a spiritual world. They are descriptions of THIS world in the language and concepts used in pre-scientific times. They were understood at the time of writing to be the literal, physical description of heaven and earth.

And if they were about a spiritual world? All speech about a spiritual world is analogical. Because we have no way to speak about a spiritual world except through language fitted to describe a physical world. Note how often Jesus says the kingdom of God is "like" yeast, a pearl, a mustard seed, a field, a feast, etc. We constantly use physical analogs to speak of spiritual things because that is the only language we have. But such analogies are, by definition, figures of speech which are not to be interpreted literally. So you can hardly fault a person for not interpreting literally what is necessarily not literal.

You need to realise that the bible was written by God through man, not about God by man.

It was written about God and God's works by human authors (some of whom may have been female) as they were inspired to write by the Holy Spirit. The bible is not the qur'an, a direct dictation (so Muslims believe) from God. And it should not be treated as if it were.

God's understanding of the universe is total. I'll take His word over your interpretation of modern science.

But what you are really doing is taking a human misinterpretation of scripture over God's word in creation.

 

[Gander]

As expected my original post has produced a multitude of confused babbling from the T.E element.

Apart from the usual flat earth, pillars, and windows of heaven you have managed to come up with some new (to me) beauties.

Women writting the bible? Nero the anti-christ? No demons causing sickness? These along with the usual stuff only prove my point.

If you compromise your faith on one part of God's word you compromise it on all. That is why T.E's have no spiritual understanding. They have no word foundation because of unbelief.

As evidenced T.E's faith is based on their humanistic understanding not on God's word. The main difference between those who believe in creation and those who believe in T.E is not a disagreement over how God created the world. The main difference is creationist have faith in God and His word while T.E's only have faith in their understanding, believing the bible to be as accurate as "Lord of the Rings".

No one has yet given a coherent answer to why a God who can create a spiritual body in a twinkling of an eye would not create man as part of creation in 6 days.

If creation is not the truth why did God allow it to be in His word? Are you telling me that God is not powerful enough to stop error being written as part of his word, in His Name? Sounds like a lack of faith to me! Sounds like a form of godliness denying the power thereof.

So T.E's find themselves (unwittingly) in a boat where they are either calling God a liar or weak or both. Mis-interpretation of science and the limits of our tiny brains do not cut it as valid excuses.

You can not pick and choose what you believe in the bible. Its either God's word and you have faith in it or you compromise and wallow blindly in unbelief.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Guess what Gander. The bible is fallable. Thats right, I said it. Inspired or not, the bible is the creation of man. People have editied and re-written the bible over the years for their own purposes. Why isn't the Gospel of Thomas in our bible? Because some group of men decided - on thier own - that it didn't fit with the type of christianity they were creating.

It is God that is infallable.

Let me ask you a question - totally hypothetical. Lets say a missionary went to some remote part of the world to preach christianity to the natives. When he gets there he finds he has lost his bible. Does this mean he cannot convert the people, cannot preach to them, cannot get them to know Jesus - all because he lost the book?

Or here is another hypothetical situation. One day, some world dictator orders that all christian scripture be destroyed. All printed or electronic material is then gone. Well then, I guess that means all of humanity fromthere on in is lost?

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Quote:
"You can not pick and choose what you believe in the bible. Its either God's word and you have faith in it or you compromise and wallow blindly in unbelief"

Do you mean to tell me that if one single sentance in the bible was wrong whe whole bible is wrong? Your entire faith could be shattered based on a single mistranslated or deleted word?

Jesus supposedy said that "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God" (Mark 10:25). However that is wrong. In ancient Aramaic, the word "gamla" means either camel or rope used for rigging sails. Whoever translated the original aramaic made a mistake. He must have been more familiar with gamla=camel then gamla=rope. Makes more sense doesn't it, trying to pass a rope through the eye of a needle in place of thread is easier to understand then a large animal. An easy mistake. According to your logic, your whole faith should now be in ruins knowing that this one - often quoted - passage is slightly wrong.

GAMLA

 

[Gander]

Jesus supposedy said that "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God" (Mark 10:25). However that is wrong. In ancient Aramaic, the word "gamla" means either camel or rope used for rigging sails. Whoever translated the original aramaic made a mistake. He must have been more familiar with gamla=camel then gamla=rope. Makes more sense doesn't it, trying to pass a rope through the eye of a needle in place of thread is easier to understand then a large animal. An easy mistake. According to your logic, your whole faith should now be in ruins knowing that this one - often quoted - passage is slightly wrong.

GAMLA

More babbling.

The eye of a needle was a gate in the walls of Jerusalem. This gate remained open, unlike the main entrances, after dusk.
The eye of the needle gate was too small to let a fully laden camel through, so if you arrived after dusk you would have to unload your camel on the outside, carry the load through the gate, squeeze your camel through (I believe on its knees), and reload your camel.
Hence the saying you quote "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God"

It makes perfect sense if you are not tripping over yourself trying to prove God's word a lie. Like every other T.E I have spoken too, you prove to have little understanding of context, translation and interpretation, let alone spiritual things.

If you read your post back to yourself you will see a fine example of where T.E's go wrong. They can not see beyond their own limited understanding.

You really are making this easy for me!

GAMLA = CAMEL

 

[Bushido216]

Eh, I still want to know what difference it makes who said what if the scientific evidence points one way?

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Do a quick google search on Gamla camel needle and guess what you find.
Here I already did the work for you. http://www.google.ca/search?q=gamla+camel+rope+aramaic&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&meta=

It seems that, yes indeed, Gamla means both camel and rope. Camels were very common in ancient Judea, quite understandable that whoever translated it into Greek thought "camel" instead of "rope". Besides, this way it is more literal.

Oh and please indicate to me where I said anything about scripture being a lie. I said scripture can be scientifically incorrect, I never said it was a lie.

And also, please either address my questions instead of simply attacking me. You are welcome to attack me and call names if you like, but at least have the courtesy to answer the question.

http://www.google.ca/search?q=gamla+camel+rope+aramaic&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&meta=

 

[Ceris]

First of all I believe both sides really need to calm down. And as for the question of the word meaning camel or rope, does it really matter? Either way, the passage means that its really hard for a rich man to get into the kingdom of heaven.

 

[Ceris]

Or here is another hypothetical situation. One day, some world dictator orders that all christian scripture be destroyed. All printed or electronic material is then gone. Well then, I guess that means all of humanity fromthere on in is lost?

Hmm, sounds like something that might happen during the Tribulation.

 

[ThePhoenix]

More babbling.

The eye of a needle was a gate in the walls of Jerusalem. This gate remained open, unlike the main entrances, after dusk.
The eye of the needle gate was too small to let a fully laden camel through, so if you arrived after dusk you would have to unload your camel on the outside, carry the load through the gate, squeeze your camel through (I believe on its knees), and reload your camel.
Hence the saying you quote "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God"

It makes perfect sense if you are not tripping over yourself trying to prove God's word a lie. Like every other T.E I have spoken too, you prove to have little understanding of context, translation and interpretation, let alone spiritual things.

If you read your post back to yourself you will see a fine example of where T.E's go wrong. They can not see beyond their own limited understanding.

You really are making this easy for me!

GAMLA = CAMEL

http://www.biblicalhebrew.com/nt/camelneedle.htm

Wow, some bible scholars seem to disagree with you. Too bad that gate in Jeruselum doesn't exist. But go on, this is fun.

The view that Nero was the antichrist is the preterist interpretation of the bible.

P.S. What would be the problem with women writing the bible? Obviously the authorship of large parts of it is unknown. It could be a man or a woman writing there (to paraphrase Virginia Woolf: 95% of the time anon. is a woman).