- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,246
- 52,665
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
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.
Is that a felony? or a misdemeanor?Indeed... anyone who claims to believe in God needs to look at the world around them and concede that He is incredibly creative... that has to apply to His words as well as His actions.
If I drop my bigotry and accept Genesis as allegory, will you drop your bigotry and accept Genesis as literal?
No, that's just bigotry on your part. You have blinded yourself to the possibility that God could inspire any other form of literature besides 100% accurate literal history--which does an injustice to both God and His Word.
Is that a felony? or a misdemeanor?
No. You are entiled to your view and I am entiled to mine. We must each make our own way in the matter as we judge it to bring us closer to Christ. What I object to is the the assertion that to reject a literal interpretation is to reject divine inspiration. That is the bigotry I speak of.
No. Let's put it this way: You (may) think that Genesis must be literal because it is divinely inspired. I think it may be divinely inspired even if it is not literal.If I reject an allegorical interpretation, am I rejecting divine inspiration?
You really are shameless. I challenge you to quote me from anyplace whatever that I have rejected the miracles performed by God.There’s more at work here, it’s not just a literal translation that your rejecting but the miracles performed by God.
I've seen this time and again when I try to explain how God restored the earth's plant life after the Flood, they just can't get it.There’s more at work here, it’s not just a literal translation that your rejecting but the miracles performed by God.
Would you know it if it did occur ... then was cleaned up seamlessly?I sure dont get believng one is infallible about the truth of "flood" when it 's quite so obvious that no such event actually occurred.
No reason at all. I don't think that's what He did do, but there is no reason He couldn't have.I've seen this time and again when I try to explain how God restored the earth's plant life after the Flood, they just can't get it.
If God can create plant life all over the earth in one day, why can't He do it again after the Flood?
Now you have two options:Would you know it if it did occur ... then was cleaned up seamlessly?
Because He didn't have to?I don't think that's what He did do,
I sure dont get believng one is infallible about the
truth of "flood" when it 's quite so obvious that
no such event actually occurred.
Would you know it if it did occur ... then was cleaned up seamlessly?
Just out of curiosity, do you consider yourself qualified to speak for/against creationists?Now you have two options:
1. The clean-up was done in a miraculous way such that scientists cannot detect it.
2. Scientists have detected it but are lying about it as part of worldwide satanic conspiracy to deny Christ.
The second, of course, is the Creationist position.
Just out of curiosity, do you consider yourself qualified to speak for/against those who will claim that God painstakingly wiped away all the evidence?Indeed -- there are those who will claim that God painstakingly wiped away all the evidence (and then forgot to document the cleanup) as some sort of bizarre test of faith...
No.And secretly?
It may not be your choice but it is certainly the most popular position of our YEC colleagues in this forum. How many times have you seen it posted that science is a lie?Just out of curiosity, do you consider yourself qualified to speak for/against creationists?
In your above scenario, Number One is the interpretation I subscribe to.
Yet you seem to think Number Two is our choice for an explanation.
What's up with this?
So you're saying I'm right and they're wrong?It may not be your choice but it is certainly the most popular position of our YEC colleagues in this forum.
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?