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.
There is another way to look at it: In any arument/negotiation/discussion it is useful to find out what the other side really wants as an outome--which is not always apparent or (sometimes) clearly understood by them. For example, creationists are vociferous in their defense of a literal Genesis. Why is that? No essential Christian doctrine depends on it so far as I am aware, so what is it that they are really defending? If we knew, it might be something we don't care about and don't intend to attack.
Original SinFor example, creationists are vociferous in their defense of a literal Genesis. Why is that? No essential Christian doctrine depends on it so far as I am aware, so what is it that they are really defending?
Original Sin
You don't get it, do you?But Genesis is different?
Actually it does.Does not depend on a literal reading of Genesis--
The one I quoted is the definition of the word as almost everyone in this thread is using it. In other words, a complex concept simplified by using common terms and ideas in order so that it could be understood by people who didn't have the benefit of a modern education.
If the bible had been written today God would have written: 'Hey, all that stuff you've discovered about singularities, galaxy formation, planetary accretion, continental drift etc? I did that'.
As far as I am aware, all Christians believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God. Many (most, in fact) do not agree with you about what you think that means. You are the one who has decided that they therefore regard the Bible as nothing but an old book.
People don't want to believe the Bible was inspired by God, else they would have to admit It doesn't contain errors.You were the one who said not all Christians believe the Bible is inspired by God. I just quoted where YOU said that. Now your retracting what you said. Yeah if a person claiming to be a Christian doesn’t believe the Bible is the inspired word of God then yes it is just an old book to them. It’s just a book written by a bunch of men several thousand years ago there’s nothing special about it because it isn’t from God.
Original Sin
You were the one who said not all Christians believe the Bible is inspired by God. I just quoted where YOU said that. Now your retracting what you said. Yeah if a person claiming to be a Christian doesn’t believe the Bible is the inspired word of God then yes it is just an old book to them. It’s just a book written by a bunch of men several thousand years ago there’s nothing special about it because it isn’t from God.
You have twisted my words out of all recognition. I'm sorry, there is just no nicer way to put it. Here is the passage you quoted:You were the one who said not all Christians believe the Bible is inspired by God. I just quoted where YOU said that. Now your retracting what you said. Yeah if a person claiming to be a Christian doesn’t believe the Bible is the inspired word of God then yes it is just an old book to them. It’s just a book written by a bunch of men several thousand years ago there’s nothing special about it because it isn’t from God.
You don't get it, do you?
The Bible was written over a period of 4000 years by the same Author.
By the same token (inspiration), the Book of Mormon, The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, and My Struggles were written over a period of 95 years by the same author.
It only appears to contain errors if it is read literally. Nothing to do with whether it is inspired by God or not.People don't want to believe the Bible was inspired by God, else they would have to admit It doesn't contain errors.
Original Sin
People don't want to believe the Bible was inspired by God, else they would have to admit It doesn't contain errors.
Such behaviour as you describe is contemptibleThe only difference between you and those IFB preachers of yours I see online is that they have the courage of their convictions to be explicit about their hate.
For the other readers, who perhaps don't get the "coy game" he is playing, let me help you out.
The "three books" by the "same author" are not actually by the same author, but rather by three different authors who likely never met each other. Only one of them is actually relevant to this thread or sub-forum. The three books are:
1. The "Book of Mormon" which was written by Joseph Smith, Jr. a semi-literate conman from upstate New York in the early 19th century. Smith used his work to build a new religion and eventually (for himself and his closest associates) a sex cult.
2. "On the Origin of Species" was written by Charles Darwin, a mid-19th century British naturalist. Unlike the other works, this book *is* relevant to the topic of discussion. In the post I quoted, the secondary sub-title is used (instead of the main title) as part of a dishonest two part linguistic ploy.
In the first part we get the poster's repeated attempt to make Darwin's work (and Darwin himself) labelled as a racial supremacist and inspiration for all of the worst things those ideas have triggered (more to come). This is part of his overplayed trope of using or quoting old texts using no-longer common word usages as if they reflect modern usage. Here the poster is implying that the races are races of humans to make the sub-title appear racist. In the mid-19th century the term "races" was used for other groupings of biological organisms as well. They would refer to both species of animals as "races" and also of ethnicities (French race, the Irish race) as races. (At this point, I should also note that the various races of humans are largely sociological, with no significant biological differences.)
The second part of the insinuation is about the word "Struggle" and a deliberate attempt to link it to the third text on his list by using an English translation of the title. This is a clear attempt to tie the two works together and a favorite linguistic trick of the poster. A better subtitle in more modern English for Darwin's book would be "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection of Favorable Traits for Their Environments." (The italicized part is the missing original title/sub-title.)
3. The last book is the infamous prison political polemic of Adolf Hitler, better known by its original title in German, Mein Kampf. By translating the title to English, the poster connects it to the sub-sub-title of Darwin's first masterwork and by implication characterizes Darwin's work as racist and nazi.
This is an old linguistic dirty trick the poster has used many times. It is below decent discussion, but as has been repeatedly demonstrated, not below the poster. (And for the Christians, and especially the anti-evolution sub-set on this thread, he is trying to subvert any theological or scientific arguments you have against evolution with dirty linguistic tricks and insinuations about the developers of evolutionary theory. Be better than him for your own sake.)
I'm not up on Christian beliefs, I understand that Christian is a vast umbrella term and so there are many people within this vast group and these people have differing beliefs.
But, for those Christians that are hell bent on fighting against evolution, what is the root of this resistance?
It really seems that with their arguments they are just reaching for excuses to shoot down evolution.
My thoughts, which could be wrong because of my poor understanding of Christian beliefs. But here they are:
1. Humans are special (god's children, made in god's image) therefore we can't possibly be animals, or apes. Perhaps these people feel uncomfortable about being part of the animal kingdom.
2. All of existence was made as a playground for humans. If humans evolved randomly then it was just chance that we came to be, and then what would be the purpose for the universe existing if humans weren't destined to be? Perhaps these people feel uncomfortable that a universe wasn't destined to have humans, and without humans at the centre of it would be purposeless and therefore goes against the core belief that god created everything for us.
Am I on track here? Or are there other reasons?
The ones above seem incredibly self centred.
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?