DogmaHunter
Code Monkey
- Jan 26, 2014
- 16,757
- 8,531
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
Drawing a connection between the scientific field of biology on the one hand and communism on the other.
Priceless.
Upvote
0
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.
The story/ theory of evolution was never truth.
The communists before/ during/ after wwII stated their purpose and used it on purpose to destroy families and to destroy faith in Jesus and in God.
Can we keep to the thread topic please.
If we evolved, we did not fall and Christ's death is not an atonement for sin.
If we fell, and Christ's death is an atonement for sin, we cannot be evolved.
Not if it made plant-eaters into meat-eaters....which is the claim in Creationism.
In this idea, you have the causality backwards. Humans are fallen from a state of perfection and a symbolic man and woman for all our failings could exist..
I don't think it's possible to fall from an allegory, ...is it?
Lions eating straw seems like such a symbolic, literary description of a time of caring and peace, not a literal plan for animals to all be herbivores.Not if it made plant-eaters into meat-eaters....which is the claim in Creationism.
Which is repeated three times in Genesis 1:27.
Galileo made a statemet that is absolutely true, the Catholic church sould have accepted, and completely irrelavent to the doctrine of creation. In all these yeats I have never understood how Christians cant make the connection between the original creation of life to the promise of eternal life. Does the resurrection or incarnation have a naturalistic explanation because that make no sense to me. Are we going to talk about God being author and finisher of life without accepting that as miraculous? Why must I accept that I'm a sinner if the Genesis account of original sin is somehow flawed? It makes no sense, naturalistic explanations break down and I really do mean especially along evidential lines.A supposed quote by Galilleo comes to mind...
"The bible tells you how to get to heaven. It doesn't tell you how the heavens go".
Not that I agree, but it seems a lot more sensible then how certain theists read the bible. At least such an understanding doesn't require you to deny the evidence of reality.
Lions eating straw seems like such a symbolic, literary description of a time of caring and peace, not a literal plan for animals to all be herbivores.
Ah baloneyThen Genesis is demonstrably wrong all 3 times.
You haven't said yet in your posts (as far as I know or saw) that you were corrected by anyone ever correctly, and appear to still believe the dangerous (types of?) beliefs of what you said your father told you.
Remember Yahweh's Word is even stronger
against false teachings - and for false gospels says anyone who brings one "let them be anathema! (accursed!) "
Hopefully no false gospel is involved, just false teachings, which are still sinful and prevent /stop /corrupt fellowship with the Father and with the Ekklesia in Christ.
No where in the NT does Yahshua (Jesus) and no where in Scripture or ever does Yahweh (God) ever tell us to meekly or gently accept false teachings nor any false gospel, but rather to expose them.
Correct me if I'm being unfair, but it seems like you are uncritically accepting all YEC interpretations. This seems to lead to: "If we assume that YEC are correct, then TE is wrong." Which seems trivially true, and uninteresting as a point of discussion.I agree, but Creationism takes this literally, and this thread is about how only Creationism is in line with Fall/Atonement whilst Evolution is categorically not.
Jesus' sacrifice is based on the idea of restoring us to a previous condition, correcting the good-which-became-bad, but if we evolved out of the apes there is (by definition) no previous condition to be restored to. Rather, there is instead a future condition to be evolved into - “image of God” is not something we were, but something we may possibly become. If true, doesn't evolution thus make a nonsense of the idea of Jesus being a substitutionary atonement (to bring us back to a 'golden age condition of pre-fall Eden); presenting us instead with a salvation that has to be evolved into rather than returned to?
I cannot see a way around this.
Either we were created and fell or we are evolved and arose.
Correct me if I'm being unfair, but it seems like you are uncritically accepting all YEC interpretations. This seems to lead to: "If we assume that YEC are correct, then TE is wrong." Which seems trivially true, and uninteresting as a point of discussion.
Only if you assume the fall is from a literal individual sin of disobedience and fruit misuse. If you assume that fully sentient humans become capable of perceiving good and evil, and then fail to live up the former due to their imperfections (and are thus fallen).I'm accepting the definition of YEC, not accepting the factuality of it. Which is different to assuming YEC is true.
I personally am a TE who has just realised that Evolution and Fall/Atonement are fundamentally incompatible and opposed...which leaves me with very serious questions to answer for myself. So I'm putting the discussion out there for others too.
Can we keep to the thread topic please.
If we evolved, we did not fall and Christ's death is not an atonement for sin.
If we fell, and Christ's death is an atonement for sin, we cannot be evolved.
If you assume that fully sentient humans become capable of perceiving good and evil, and then fail to live up the former due to their imperfections (and are thus fallen).
You're saying becasue animals produce offspring that are not clones, then there is no God.
Have you heard of sozo prayer ? ( related to confusion mentioned )Lets just say I love Jesus’ correction more than yours. That says a lot. Even when He had corrected me the hardest, He always does with an amazing grace that yours seems to lack of.
So far The Lord haven't said anything of my confusion about evolution since I truly believe He created us, but I always wondered how He came up with the idea of earth and I look forward to learn how our beautiful bodies and earth came to His mind. I love the process and development of things created.
I really think we were created out of lots of thinking to obtain something as perfect as it is creation.
I'm saying none of that, so please don't make vague and unsupported accusations.
I'm saying that we have to choose between believing in Creation (if we want the fall and atonement to be meaningful concepts) or Evolution (if we are willing to accept that the fall and atonement are not meaningful concepts).
We cannot fudge our way out of this dilemma. There is NO space in Evolution for "made perfect, fell, needs atoning sacrifice of Christ to restore". None. Nada.
Does the resurrection or incarnation have a naturalistic explanation because that make no sense to me
Are we going to talk about God being author and finisher of life without accepting that as miraculous?
Why must I accept that I'm a sinner if the Genesis account of original sin is somehow flawed?
It makes no sense, naturalistic explanations break down and I really do mean especially along evidential lines.
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?