Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
Do I understand by what you are saying, you do not believe that man is created in God's image?
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 creation story in Genesis 1 isn't science and doesn't provide any kind of scientific description for man. So that is a moot point.
There is a very clear fossil record (in addition to genetic studies) that very clearly show human beings are part of a larger lineage of great apes--the hominids, whose closest relatives are the chimps.
So, yes, human beings are animals. Phylogenetically this is easily demonstrated by our clear and demonstrable relation with the other great apes and in bounty of hominid fossils; we aren't plants or fungi, we're animals.
Using Genesis 1 to argue against science is like trying to use Jesus' parable of the shrewd manager to advocate dishonest business practices. That's simply not the point of the story. The point of Genesis 1 isn't to give us a scientific analysis of the created world or to describe the material how of God's creative act but to put forward a theology of creation. Because if you try to take Genesis 1 literally you will immediately come to a major stumbling block when you try reading the creation story in Genesis 2, these are two entirely different stories of creation that, if taken literally, are objectively contradictory. In Genesis 1 God creates vegetation before the beasts and the beasts before man; in Genesis 2 God creates man, then He creates vegetation, and puts man in a garden, and then creates the beasts. In Genesis 1 God creates male and female simultaneously, in Genesis 2 God creates Adam before He creates Eve.
So attempting to use Genesis to reject science simply isn't going to be a useful argument. I don't subscribe to a modern fundamentalist reading of Genesis. Neither, mind you, have many Christians right from the early years of the Christian Church (e.g. Origen, Augustine, and right up through Thomas Aquinas in the high middle ages).
-CryptoLutheran
Jan how would you like to rather than make broad general brushes of philosophical reasons for religion and why you think people created God rather than the other way around; give us evidence and scientific reasoning which is what this forum is actually meant for?Man created God so man obviously made his God look like a man, what better way for man to elevate himself to be more than a mere mortal?
We said we did not want to die so we had to do something about it but what? I know, we will invent a God and believe in that God and tell each other that this wonderful all powerful God will stop us from dying, perfect, the problem of dying has been solved.
And believe it or not the problem of dying has really been solved, it really has because even though we all know it's not really true we have convinced ourselves that it is, and it works, billions of people now do not fear death half as much as they once did, however, having solved the problem of death we have now created other problems with the very monster we created to make death go away, our lives have become ruled by the monster.
yes I'm with you on this one .What evidence convinces you that man is ape?
I am not well versed in your position but agreement is always a good start.yes I'm with you on this one .
Last I checked I can trace to ancestors with two rows of teeth built to chew forever , probably the even replacing loose teeth. because there is never found any teeth missing in their heads. Now the ones with just 1600 years ago or so were head shaping thus putting pressure on the pituitary and simulating man and all creations distant past and for those same reason why all creation was once all
"giants" and not other species or demons either. .
and I can proved to myself my ancestors they had 6 fingers and toes because they were created on the 6th day not the 5th day like beasts of the fields.
Now if there is any properties in common with monkeys it is happening now and since 3 to 4 thousand years ago . because mankind has de - evolved from a 6thday creation to a 5 day creation( or beast of the fields ) and it appears they also have developed a mind of a ape also since 6000 years ago .. and any of those bones they claim as human ancestors are wishful thinking or just a lot of lies and lots putty from men who have lost who they are and were meant to be.
so I'm with you on the fact that man has never been an ape and the closest thing to an ape man has ever been are people now. and DE- evolution started about 5555 years ago..
Man created God so man obviously made his God look like a man, what better way for man to elevate himself to be more than a mere mortal?
"Believing and trusting" in something.
Faith.
trusting in and believing in a theory requires quite a bit o' faith...
but to each his own.
False. That is what evidence we do have. To use conjecture to determine what could have been before is just that conjecture.
I have claimed that all the evidence that is available to us is of very complex structures which would require complex inner workings. Even if I claimed life has always been complex the evidence supports that conclusion and there is no evidence for anything but the complexity of living forms in evidence.
Why would it require faith when we have evidence?
You DO realize that the men inspired by the Holy Spirit to write the Bible were limited, but God ISN'T, right?
Well in case ya' haven't guessed, i don't give credence to the theory of evolution.
You certainly are entitled to your opinion. And yes, EVERYONE that is a child of the Most High God is "limited." It is written that in our weakness, God's power is more manifested. For it is clearly HIS power that is evidenced, and not ours.
I'm pretty sure I said evidence. I mean evidence.
Do you have any scientific arguments for this position? Or is it purely a religious position?
There is no natural occurring chemical replication that produces chirality.
So claims a limited human. Why should we believe you?
it's that it doesn't make no sense....
Don't. I'm certainly not asking you too. And you are correct, i AM limited.
And so are you.
Why should i believe you?
Reality is not limited by what you are able to understand or not understand. Also, I have a strange suspicion that you don't want it to make sense.
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?