expos4ever
Well-Known Member
- Oct 22, 2008
- 11,253
- 6,244
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
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.
Your point being?Luk_18:8 I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?
No, those are wrong because
- they are naturalistic models i.e. God didn't do a thing, it's all just natural processes (and that's why they need a LOT of time).
- the naturalistic models have huge gaps and don't explain what we see today.
- the evidence for it is ambiguous
- naturalism is a belief.
Your point being?
No, those are wrong because
- they are naturalistic models i.e. God didn't do a thing, it's all just natural processes (and that's why they need a LOT of time).
- the naturalistic models have huge gaps and don't explain what we see today.
- the evidence for it is ambiguous
- naturalism is a belief.
It is only in the USA where a large segment of Christians interpret Genesis literally. .
Let me be clear. A factual observation is not a bash. Nor was it intended as a bash. I regret that you took it as a bash but that is your problem not mine.
Hmmm. As I suspected. That's what is so frustrating about these discussions - some people think its acceptable to substitute pontification for engagement of the actual issue.People who don't believe in a literal reading of Genesis 1 are faithless pseudo-Christians. That was the point in quoting Luke 18:8.
-CryptoLutheran
Rejection of the Genesis account as mere myth strikes at the very heart of Christianity for the following reasons.
1. Jesus himself is described as lending it historical credence
2. Peter. Paul, Jude, Luke, Mathew, John, specifically lend it historical credence
3. It removes the basis for the theme of paradise lost to paradise regained.
4. It removes the need for redemption and a redeemer-the fall of man from original perfection.
5. It strikes at Jesus' authenticity as the Son of God by describing him as gullible and a propagator of mere myth.
These five things alone are extremely serious reasons why Christians are opposed to accepting the anti biblical demonically inspired, propaganda which has become popular during these last days.
Dr. John Lennox, another Oxford professor believes in the Genesis account and has written a book about "Seven Days That Divide the World: The Beginning According to Genesis and Science"
He views the creation story as "perhaps this text is a little more sophisticated than people think it is". Which I agree, more people be they Atheist or Christian alike, it's well worth a listen imo. He explains it in a brief, average and understandable manner here:
Are you kidding?Methodological naturalism is how science works. If you have a problem with methodological naturalism when it comes to something like evolution, then you should also have a problem when it comes to medicine, the internal combustion engine, germ theory, gravitation.
I suspect something else...But I suspect you don't.
I hope i have made clear that you're comparing apples with oranges.Methodological naturalism is only attacked in a select couple instances because it happens to offend some people's sacred cows when it comes to how they want to read the first chapter of Genesis.
Hmmm. As I suspected. That's what is so frustrating about these discussions - some people think its acceptable to substitute pontification for engagement of the actual issue.
So without a "proper" knowledge of the OT, one can't be saved, zat it? How very SDA sounding.
Creed of the Church.
Creed of the Church
Creed of the Church
Creed of the Church
Ah, the folks who believe that God "made the world look old" so as to deceive us. Bash away!
Where'd all the water go? <Laugh>
With the implicit marriage between siblings?
Ahhh the opening bash against
virgin-birthists,
bodily-resurrection-ists,
ascension-of-Christ-ists,
miracles-of-Christ-ists,
Bible-creation-ists,
Bible-flood-ists,
Bible-defined-marriage-in-Genesis-2-ists
Shazam! Let me write that one down for future reference! <Laugh>
Dang, you got another'n right!
In the beginning! Thanks for the insight!
I'm gratified that you've read that much of the New Testament.
Not sure what you mean. I read a post in which the author appeared to be suggesting that to challenge the literal reading of Genesis means you are a bad person on whom God will take revenge.I think viacrucis' post you are quoting was being "extra-" and "hyper-" pontifical in an attempt to mock the person's post he was quoting.
Be careful about bashing someone's post that is really just there as bait.
Your argument that some Christian believe is not as popular in some other part of the world - so then that must say something about the Christian doctrine being wrong -- is so general in the "detail" that it appeals to - that it attacks almost every Christian doctrine.
There are in excess of 40,000 Christian churches and denominations some of which regard almost every other church or denomination to be misled and/or evil. To some here I am regarded as heretical or apostate and to some others here you are. That says a lot about we Christians and our doctrines. Notice also that historically doctrines have done more to exclude people from God than to instruct or include them.
Not sure what you mean. I read a post in which the author appeared to be suggesting that to challenge the literal reading of Genesis means you are a bad person on whom God will take revenge.
Clearly, that is not responsible debate and fully deserves to be "bashed".
The post I posted isn't arguing for a YEC viewpoint. If indeed I gave that impression it was unintended.I really appreciate the fact that you contrast John Lennox's musings against the post you quote - where the first point is that Christ affirms this as a historical account and not zillions of days of time.
Perhaps there is no survey, but I believe it is clear that it is only in the USA that a sizeable fraction of Christians take the Genesis account as literal. So I am quite confident that, worldwide at least, the majority of Christians do indeed take the account as myth.
An amoeba into a prancing horse? But will it be able to neigh?that is true. it is the "belief" that "an amoeba will sure enough turn into a horse over time given a talented enough amoeba and a long and talented enough period of time filled with just-so improbable much-imagined events".
Some would try to marry that belief to the bible.
Many just hold to that belief and don't make any attempt at all to marry it to the Bible.
Rejection of the Genesis account as mere myth strikes at the very heart of Christianity for the following reasons.
1. Jesus himself is described as lending it historical credence
2. Peter. Paul, Jude, Luke, Mathew, John, specifically lend it historical credence
3. It removes the basis for the theme of paradise lost to paradise regained.
4. It removes the need for redemption and a redeemer-the fall of man from original perfection.
5. It strikes at Jesus' authenticity as the Son of God by describing him as gullible and a propagator of mere myth.
These five things alone are extremely serious reasons why Christians are opposed to accepting the anti biblical demonically inspired, propaganda which has become popular during these last days.
Dr. John Lennox, another Oxford professor believes in the Genesis account and has written a book about "Seven Days That Divide the World: The Beginning According to Genesis and Science"
He views the creation story as "perhaps this text is a little more sophisticated than people think it is". Which I agree, more people be they Atheist or Christian alike, it's well worth a listen imo. He explains it in a brief, average and understandable manner here:
The post I posted isn't arguing for a YEC viewpoint. If indeed I gave that impression it was unintended.
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?