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.
No, the evidence used must be verifiable and the conclusions falsifiable. The evidence used is verifiable but the conclusions of ID are not falsifiable.Stinker said:The theory of Evolution and the theory of Intelligent Design are both (general) theories because neither are VERIFIABLE.
In order for a theory to be a (scientific) theory it has to be VERIFIABLE.
So, both Evolution and Creationism will remain in the realm of Philosophy to be debated.
Funniest thing I've seen today.MLML said:As I have said previously, you want to believe in evolution, by all means go for it. If one feeding on milk needs to hold to evolution while being a young Christian, fine by me. I wouldn't subject a young Christian to the meat of scripture until they are strong enough from the milk - Gospels.
Or perhaps they read Genesis slightly different than you. It's quite possible you know. We don't "add" to the Bible. We accept reality instead of attempting to fit it into a model that can't and doesn't exist.MLML said:The only way you get around the issue is to add to the Bible, and that in Proverbs and Revelations says we should not do.
Well, if you read correctly, I have not called you a new Christian. You have mis-interpretated what I have said, so you can argue. Gotta love that flesh, huh. When I said new Christian, I meant new Christians. That is what happens when you try to read it differently, then written.Vance said:A new Christian?! I have been a Christian for 30 years. Not well-versed in Scripture? Wrong again, I have studied the Scripture prayerfully and with the Spirit's guidance for that long as well.
Let's walk through your points:
1. No, I didn't say scientists were not biased. I said SCIENCE was not biased. If the theory is sound, it does not matter what the bias of the scientist is. I never said most scientists believe in God, most do not. But both those who DO and those who do not accept evolution. So, it is definitely NOT any bias which compels the theory, it is the evidence.
2. No theory in science is ever proven. Theories are just explanations of the data that we see and observe. We have evidence, observable and verifiable that shows evolutionary development over billions of years. The theory evolution is just the best explanation for that data that we have. And it is a very good theory because it fits all the data, makes accurate predictions and has not been falsfified.
3. I never said we should not give thanks to God. I just said that you don't seem to expect this in every other scientific proposal, so why evolution? This is NOT a difficult question, but you refuse to answer it.
4. You say that their refusal to "give thanks to God" within their theory shows that it was developed by people with no concern for God. But this does not follow. When I write a legal brief, do I need to include at the end "and all thanks be to God for law and justice" or it would mean I have no concern for God? The presence or absence of a reference to God is no indication whatsoever of the presenters concern for God. The presentation of scientific proposals is an explanation of how the natural world works. God set up this natural world to work without His direct and immediate intervention unless He chooses to. This is why both believers and non-believers come to the same conclusion regarding how it works.
Again, I ask, do you expect to see a "thank you" to God when a scientist explains photosynthesis? Or gravity? Or germ theory? Why not?
5. I have never said we can dismiss Genesis? Where did you get that? I don't know of ANY TE on this forum who has said that.
6. And, no, I do not believe the Scripture is EVER in error. I believe God has presented His message to us inerrantly. I just don't think the message He is giving is literal history and science, so to the extent it does NOT describe literal history accurately is NOT an error.
7. Even most of the YEC's here will agree that whether you read Genesis 1 and 2 literally or figuratively is not a salvation issue. What did Jesus say you must do to be saved?
8. We have covered the original sin issue already and I would refer you to that discussion.
Fantastic. Show me where I demanded you to answer to me. Show me where I said, Morton you don't thank God.grmorton said:As a TE, I give my thanks to God, not to you, and not for public show like the thanks of a publican. Who are you to say that TE's don't thank God for the wonderful world He made?
And if what is good for the TE ought to be good for the YEC. In all the CRSQ articles I have read, I haven't seen the word 'thank you god' very much. INdeed, I don't think it appears in the RATE book either, nor in the ICC proceedings.
Thank you.Dark_Lite said:Funniest thing I've seen today.
I completely understand it is possible. There are vast amount of people who read the Bible differently. There are some who say Jesus is only a good teacher or prophet. Shall I tell them it is ok to believe that because it is their perspective on how they read the Bible? Or should I say who Jesus really is?Dark_Lite said:Or perhaps they read Genesis slightly different than you. It's quite possible you know. We don't "add" to the Bible. We accept reality instead of attempting to fit it into a model that can't and doesn't exist.
You accept your reality, I will tell of the truth written in the Bible.
that you are not well versed in scripture
Are you willing to put your soul on the line for that one?
whilie you have said Vance interpreted it differently, so did I, so perhaps it wasn't clear to begin with?As I have said previously, you want to believe in evolution, by all means go for it. If one feeding on milk needs to hold to evolution while being a young Christian, fine by me.
Just correcting some misunderstandings, as I see them. Don't let the words on the screen get to you, unless they hit home...herev said:MLML, you are growing quite insulting in your posts
Is there something wrong?
Perhaps it is I who have not made it clear to you, herev and others. I have used the quote system provided here to make it clear who I am responding to.herev said:whilie you have said Vance interpreted it differently, so did I, so perhaps it wasn't clear to begin with?
These are just to name a few in this thread alone. I recognnize that many TE's here have not been kind to you as well, but when you make these statements, you attack all of us with untruths that you have been told repeatedly ARE untruths. Is there no room in your heart for you to accept that we are Christians and just as faithful as yourself? Is it not possible for you to believe that we have studied the texts under ther supervision and prayerful guidance of the Holy Spirit, just as you have and still we interpret it differently?
God Bless
This is one of the most profound and thought provoking posts I've read in a long time. - And a very convincing case.MLML said:As I said to Vance, are you so sure that Genesis 1-11, and other parts of the Bible are not salvation issues that you are willing to teach others they aren't and put your own soul on the line for it? God could have given us anything, and so much more than just the Bible, but He gave us the Bible for a reason. I do not take lightly the teachings therein because I believe John when he said if they were to record all of Jesus' works, the earth would not be able to contain them. I believe the same with God, and yet we have about a 2000 page Bible. Not much, as compared to what could have been given if God revealed everything. So it is my belief that what He did reveal is alot more important than many here are giving credit for it to be, by dismissing parts as allegorical, or not needed for salvation.
It is obvious you think I am wrong and you are right. I too can conclude you think the same about yourself, that you are more guided then I.Vance said:While you say it is not for you to judge, but only God knows, you make it abundantly clear that you believe we have not been properly led by the Spirit, are not fully within God's will, and generally are not as "in tune" with God as you are.
Very presumptuous of you. Pride comes before a fall.
no problemMLML said:Just correcting some misunderstandings, as I see them. Don't let the words on the screen get to you, unless they hit home...
It appears that you are making generic statements. I have not been concerned as much on the ones you make clear and are refuting what someone has actually said they believe, the problem comes in when you make the statements like the ones I highlighted--which is NOT what they believe.Perhaps it is I who have not made it clear to you, herev and others. I have used the quote system provided here to make it clear who I am responding to.
actually herev does for his own salvation, herev does not believe YOU have to believe it--herev believes YOU have to believe Jesus is your lord and savior and that you have to accept his gift of eternal life to be saved.The te-ist have a wide range of beliefs. Vance believes there was no Adam and Eve, herev believes there was. Karl believes Jesus wasn't fully God here on earth, Vance and herev do. Vance believe Jesus being conceived of the Holy Spirit is not a salvation issue, herev does.
as I said, it was more the issues I pointed to, such as assuming that someone who disagrees with you is still on milk or that you believe the truth, but we don't, etc.It would be unfair of me to lump you all into one group and respond to you all as a whole, since you all hold a wide range of beliefs here. So I have tried to make it clear who I am responding to. Apparently, I have not been clear enough. Herev, what do you suggest I do more so that you and others are certain to whom I am responding to. I have tried the quote system to make it clear, but by your response here saying I am attacking you all, it wasn't clear to you who I was responding to.
I agree that you should not remain silent if you feel God is telling you to speak. But words are all we have on the computer screen, we can't see love in your eyes or hear compassion in your voice, we can't feel your hand around our shoulder. All we have are words to witness with. When you choose words (either out of malice, ignorance, or neglect) that belittle, you are not witnessing, you are pushing others away. I've said since day one in this area that we need to speak to each other with respect in order for us to have true communication. In other words, TE's should not be calling YEC's intelligence into question--not one bit!! YEC's should not be calling TE's faith, Christianity, or spiritual maturity into question--these things are insulting and do not further conversation.Room in my heart for to accept, is a rather judgemental statement. I assume since you are a pastor you would understand that when God disciplines and punishes He does so out of love. Paul did the same, as do parents today with their children. What would show I have not room in my heart for you or others would be to remain silent.
But Jesus, while he turned over tables in the Temple to show disdain for those who would cheapen God's house, sat down and supped with sinners, he loved them as they were. Let's follow that example.I do not equate myself with any of the above mentioned names. I am only but a servant to God. I do try to follow their examples, as God saw it important for them to be written in the Bible.
to say you disagree is one thing, to assume others are not Christian is another. All we have to go on is their word--their salvation is between them and God alone. There really are Christians that I know who deny the virgin birth--I don't get it--I don't know how they do that, but I accept that they believe Jesus is God and that he is their personal lord and savior.In Psalms it says sin is passed on through conception when a male and female come to together. If Mary came together with any man, sin would be passed on to Jesus Christ, as the Bible states. Jesus Christ was without sin. He took our sins on Himself at His death. To say that it isn't a salvation issue that Jesus could have been conceived naturally is to say Jesus was in sin, for this follows the teachings of the Bible. One must add or subtract to rectify it. If Jesus was with sin, Jesus could not have been God, because God does not sin. Vance stated in another post this wasn't a salvation issue, I beg to differ and will say to teach this is false teaching.
I've never heard Karl say that. I think it would violate the requirement here that he accept the Nicene Creed if he didKarl says Jesus wasn't fully God here on earth. This flys in the face of Biblical teachings throughout the Gospels. 'The Father and I are One', would be the most obvious. Another would be when Christ says 'I AM.' Stating Jesus was not fully God here on earth is also false teaching.
We're in the Christian only area, these issues don't apply hereHerev, when the atheist tell others God doesn't exist, shall I be quiet? When the mormons say they too can become God, shall I sit quiet and not speak a word then too? When a Christian claims Jesus didn't raise from the dead, shall I be quiet and allow this teaching to be undisputed?
first of all, they're not MY rules, secondly of course not--no one wants to silence you--I'm only asking that you examine your word choices and insinuations--and I'm not asking as a mod either, but as a fellow Christian--a brother in the faith.When a Christian claims that Jesus wasn't God here on earth shall I hold my tongue so to obey your rules?
see aboveWhen a Christian claims Jesus could have been born as we are today, thus in sin, shall I kept my mouth shut as if ashamed?
see above, but this is one of the problems. I accept TE, but I do not believe the Bible is in error--this is one of the points I am trying to make.When a Christian claims the Bible is in error, so it should be read differently, shall I be quiet or show that if one pays attention to grammar they would better understand?
Good for you!Reality is what you make it, it is your perception. My reality is that I don't belong to this world, I am not subject to this worlds judgement, I am subject to God's and only God's judgement.
I do it all the timeAs I said to Vance, are you so sure that Genesis 1-11, and other parts of the Bible are not salvation issues that you are willing to teach others they aren't and put your own soul on the line for it?
we all agree on that one--really we do--this is what I suggest that your heart is hardened against believing. WE interpret it differently and you think we disregard it.God could have given us anything, and so much more than just the Bible, but He gave us the Bible for a reason.
Nor do I, nor does any TE that I know. WE all agree on those things.I do not take lightly the teachings therein because I believe John when he said if they were to record all of Jesus' works, the earth would not be able to contain them.
Again, believing it is allegorical is not to dismiss it--see what I mean--I take Genesis 1, 2, and 3 VERY SERIOUSLY. I simply interpret it differently than you do. And again, my comments on anything being necessary for salvation outside of faith stand. I will not take away from the gospel by adding to the requirements of salvation.I believe the same with God, and yet we have about a 2000 page Bible. Not much, as compared to what could have been given if God revealed everything. So it is my belief that what He did reveal is alot more important than many here are giving credit for it to be, by dismissing parts as allegorical, or not needed for salvation.
Good, but do you accept that I am of God, that I believe in His Son, and am obedient to the Spirit?You want to believe evolution, as I said I am fine with it.
Yes, that does seem to be a problem for you, but it is also by definition a judgmental one--if you believe that our belief in salvation is flawed then that is a judgment.The problem lies when anyone teaches parts of the Bible are not salvation issues or are not needed to be concerned with.
You'll have to prove that one to me. That is a gnostic teaching. We are not saved by any knowledgeI am wholly convinced we will each be judged according to what we had the chance to know.
and yet, scholars study it their whole lives and never know all of it. Many good Christians study it and disagree on it's interpretation.We here have the chance to know all of the Bible
judged how?and I believe we will be judged on the fact of what we did with God's Word here on earth.
this is the insulting part again. Despite being told repeatedly we are not simply picking and choosing and simply dismissing parts of the Bible, you continue to pass that judgment against us. This is exactly what I meanDid we believe and obey, or did we pick and choose what we wanted to believe and obey...
California Tim said:MLML said:As I said to Vance, are you so sure that Genesis 1-11, and other parts of the Bible are not salvation issues that you are willing to teach others they aren't and put your own soul on the line for it? God could have given us anything, and so much more than just the Bible, but He gave us the Bible for a reason. I do not take lightly the teachings therein because I believe John when he said if they were to record all of Jesus' works, the earth would not be able to contain them. I believe the same with God, and yet we have about a 2000 page Bible. Not much, as compared to what could have been given if God revealed everything. So it is my belief that what He did reveal is alot more important than many here are giving credit for it to be, by dismissing parts as allegorical, or not needed for salvation.
You want to believe evolution, as I said I am fine with it. The problem lies when anyone teaches parts of the Bible are not salvation issues or are not needed to be concerned with. I am wholly convinced we will each be judged according to what we had the chance to know. We here have the chance to know all of the Bible and I believe we will be judged on the fact of what we did with God's Word here on earth. Did we believe and obey, or did we pick and choose what we wanted to believe and obey...
This is one of the most profound and thought provoking posts I've read in a long time. - And a very convincing case.
Since I have not researched every thread related to the above comment, I cannot comment with auhority on this matter. I have been relatively focused on the origins forum and in particular those matters relating to the narrative historical aspect of the Genesis creation account. That having been said, and without making an individual judgement, I will concur, based on personal experience and associations, that time and effort alone do not necessarily spawn spiritual maturity. I have, for example, seen many disturbing statisitics demonstrating clearly a departure from the fundamentals of the Gospel within the clergy itself. Many "so-called" pastors (all very well versed in Biblical and doctrinal study) late in their careers come to question the essentials of the faith, not to mention the Biblical stance on peripheral issues such as homosexuality and abortion. Furthermore, many university theological scholars are very liberal (at best) insofar as Biblical application is concerned, yet few would argue their knowledge of the text. Paul summed it up well in this verse referring to many people in the latter days before Christ's return:Vance said:MLML said:
"Again, I repeat from your conclusions that you have shared on this forum I would conclude you are not well versed in scripture. And your 30 years of attaching yourself to the name Christian has no bearing on how mature you are as a child of God. I believe you are a child of God, but I believe you have not read the Bible and understood what is written inside."
Tim, what would you say about this conclusion?
Here in the first sentence you have concluded that the passages that I spoke of are non-essential matters.Vance said:Oh, I would agree that we are always growing and maturing in the faith, which is exactly why we should refrain from doctrinal dogmatism in non-essential matters. What is prideful and hubristic in the extreme is to assume that the degree to which someone doesn't agree with your own particular interpretation of Scripture is the degree to which they must be an "immature" Christian.
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?