Where do Christians stand?

[LOCO]

It makes sense to me to simply say it is a mystery. I defer to what is in Genesis, by faith.

But when it comes to science, one could argue that the entire subject of what happened so long ago as creation of the universe or of human life, is not entirely scientific, or non-scientific, that is, one may use philosophy and/or pseudo-science along with science, but one really isn't talking about hard solid science.

So whether one says they believe in evolution or YEC, the science involved would be speculative and non-conclusive. Depends on your presuppositions.

Agreed it is still a mystery.

We should not be labelling people as non-christians those who believe in an evolutionary process just as we shouldn't label those who believe in the literal interpretation.

Evolution is both theory and fact.

To understand how it can be both, it is necessary to understand that evolution can be used in more than one way in biology. A common way to use the term evolution is simply to describe the change in the gene pool of a population over time; that this occurs is an indisputable fact.

Such changes have been observed in the laboratory and in nature. Even most creationist scientists accept this aspect of evolution as a fact.

For scientists, evolutionary theory deals with how evolution occurs, not whether it occurs — this is an important distinction lost upon creationists.

There are different theories of evolution which can contradict or compete with each other in various ways can generate strong and sometimes quite acrimonious disagreement between evolutionary scientists regarding their ideas.

Sometimes creationists or those not familiar with evolutionary science will misquote or take scientists’ quotes out of context to make disagreements over the mechanisms of evolution seem like disagreements over whether evolution has occurred. This is indicative either of a failure to understand evolution or of dishonesty.

No evolutionary scientist questions whether evolution (in any of the senses mentioned) occurs and has occurred. The actual scientific debate is over how evolution occurs, not whether it occurs.



It's like gravity, we know it exists, it's a fact.

However there are competing Theories of Gravity such as the Aristotelian theory of Gravity, Newton's theory of gravitation, Le Sage's theory of gravitation, Nordstrom's theory of gravitation, Whitehead's theory of gravitation and Einstein's "general relativity theory" (which includes an explanation of gravity).

​

Blessings

 

[ToBeInChrist]

Agreed it is still a mystery.

Yes, I think a lot of needless contention would disappear if more of us rightly considered how much involves mystery, and how much of what we think/feel/say is tentative.

Evolution is both theory and fact.

Micro-evolution is both theory and fact. But what kind of theory?

And what is macro-evolution? At any rate it is more speculative, doubtful, inexact as testing such a hypothesis in a lab or really verifying it by an equation isn't probable.

 

[LOCO]

Should calling God a liar and a murderer (two things He called the Devil), make one want to become an atheist or a scientist (or both)?

My approach flies both ways, if an atheist called God a liar or a murderer that would not dent my faith. It would be an unconvincing argument as far as I'm concerned.

I would still pray for them and hold my tongue.

Are you saying that Christians cannot be scientists? Being a scientist and a Christian are not mutually exclusive. After all we have scientists who are Christian and believe in Creationism and we have scientists who are Christian and believe in an evolutionary process.

Blessings

 

[tyronem]

If outright condemnation is your thing, go for it. I'd rather hold my tongue and pray for them.

Condemnation: A strong disapproval, pronouncing as wrong or morally culpable.

Jesus had a ministry of condemnation, he expressed strong disapproval and called people on morally culpable behavior, what do you think he was doing when he overturned the tables in the house of the Lord? He was expressing his condemnation of their morally culpable behavior.

Christians must and should always express their disgust and disapproval of morally culpable behavior. Especially on core values such as the murder of unborn children.

You cannot ever truly convert someone to Christ unless they know exactly how far removed they are from Christ.

How can you call someone to repentance if they don't know what to repent from?

This issue is the reason why the Church has people who call themselves Christians yet live like devils, people will not condemn them on their behavior. It's this permissiveness that has caused the rise of divorce, pre-marital sex and much else evil in the Church.

Praying for them is fine, Salvation is so Hard only God can do it, but unless the whole message is preached to them they will never get it and the whole message includes telling them exactly where their condemnable behavior is taking them...

It's foolish and immature to tell someone who does not believe Hell exists that they will go there.

Do you know what the majority of evangelists do today? They ask people if they want to go to Heaven - which is foolish because everyone wants to go there - Have you ever heard someone other than Christopher Hitchens say well no I'd rather go to Hell instead. (in reality he is just sensationalizing)

By your statement it would be also foolish to tell them about a God they don't believe exists, or a Jesus they don't believe was ever here on earth, or a Heaven because they don't believe it exists. In fact, don't tell them anything because they don't believe it.

How will that statement make them believers when they don't believe Hell exists and how does outright condemnation help them to want to know more about Christ?

A single statement will never make someone a believer. They need to
People need to know what the consequences are for their rejection of Christ and exactly what those consequences are. How irresponsible it would be to not tell them exactly what the fruits of their iniquity will be.

Hell is not the entire message, Hell is a part of the message, a necessary part.

If I was a non-believer, the spiteful manner in which it was delivered in would not make me want to become a Christian, I'd find it quite humorous, either harden my heart, turn and bolt away or it would confirm my suspicions that these are not followers of Christ. They do not act like him. They are throwing stones.

Spiteful manner? Showing malicious ill will and a desire to hurt? No the message of the doctrine of Hell is never delivered in this manner by learned theologians and missionaries. The doctrine of Hell is given from the Heart that desires people to not go to Hell because they love people. It is an expression of your love for fellow man and a desire to see them not hurt, not in an eternity of torture that will be a result of their iniquity.

Listen to your statement in hypocrisy the accusation of throwing stones by throwing stones. People don't like to hear they are doing wrong period, you try telling a thief he did wrong by stealing something, he will reject it and say he was justified because he needed the money and besides that they have insurance so will get it back anyway. Lot's of people will never admit their failure towards God, but unless you give the whole message to people you will never find the elect who will turn themselves over to Christ.

I believe we should always correct from a place of love. Love never fails. How about we focus on that despite our differences.
Blessings

You can in a loving way show how people are in the path of Hell. You can in a loving way show them just how removed they are from a Holy, righteous God. You can tell them if they do not repent and accept Jesus Christ as savior they will end up in Hell.

At the end of the day What would you have someone do if you were standing on a railway track in the path of an incoming train, Give it to you straight and true, or just tentatively try to get your attention until it's too late. While you might stand there and argue that the train is not coming and end up splat anyway at least that person gave it their best.

People also often use the excuse, oh he's not dying for years we have plenty of time, well then what happens if the Lord returns tomorrow and the time of forgiveness is at an end? They are as bound for Hell as though they had died that day.

It is absolutely loving to preach every part of the Gospel, every part of the Bible needs to be preached.

 

[ToBeInChrist]

Proverbs 26:4-5 "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit."

Hm, which way to go this time? Well let me not be like the fool, but let the fool be answered let he be wise in his own conceit -- how do I balance these two verses! A challenge, isn't it?

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Proverbs 26:4-5 "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit."

Hm, which way to go this time? Well let me not be like the fool, but let the fool be answered let he be wise in his own conceit -- how do I balance these two verses! A challenge, isn't it?

This is good advice for anyone.

 

[tyronem]

Proverbs 26:4-5 "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit."

Hm, which way to go this time? Well let me not be like the fool, but let the fool be answered let he be wise in his own conceit -- how do I balance these two verses! A challenge, isn't it?

What do you mean which way to go?

Answer not a fool according to his folly ..... i.e do not answer a fool according to the folly they entertain - i.e do not accept their position of folly

Answer a fool according to his folly .... - reflect that folly back upon themselves i.e I do not accept your position but if I did then this and this would also be true which is in contradiction to a position of common sense.

 

[LOCO]

Condemnation: A strong disapproval, pronouncing as wrong or morally culpable.


It is absolutely loving to preach every part of the Gospel, every part of the Bible needs to be preached.

This essay has nothing to do with what I am talking about.

I am talking about a specific posting, about being rude and ill-mannered. One poster disagreed with Linux so he condemns him to Hell.

It's convenient to hide behind the need to preach the Gospel and justify it that way, but don't tell me it is coming from a place of love when it is couched in the language used.

I am not interested in prosletysing on this particular forum. I am interested in engaging and debating with people Christian or not, in a civilised and polite manner.

There are so many conflicting viewpoints on here on the most basic tenents of Christianity.

I am a Christian and my mind boggles with what I read on here. If I was a non-Christian I would be shaking my head and thinking 'what drugs are these people on?'

Blessings