Why are some Christians anti Evolution?

[Subduction Zone]

Ive responded every time you’ve posted to me. Now your just deflecting because I exposed your error. If I accused someone of contradicting their self and they denied it I would be more than eager to quote their contradiction for all to see.

I made no error and you could never respond to your failure. That is why I can claim that you did not respond to me. If you do not defend your claims it is the same as if you did not respond to me.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Maybe you should check your bible. Surely, if it says it's eternal then who are you to challenge the word of God?

Matthew 25:46
And these will go away into eternal punishment.

Matthew 25:41
Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire...'

Jude 1:7
Just as Sodom and Gomorrah... serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

Revelation 20:10
...and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

Maybe you should check your lexicon because the word aeon doesn’t always mean something eternal it can also mean for a set amount of time like an age. There are other scriptures that specifically state the the soul is destroyed which is exactly why I remain neutral on this particular topic.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I made no error and you could never respond to your failure. That is why I can claim that you did not respond to me. If you do not defend your claims it is the same as if you did not respond to me.

Like I said if I were in your situation I would be ALL TOO EAGER TO QUOTE MY CONTRADICTION and prove it to everyone here. You don’t seem very willing to do that because you can’t.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Like I said if I were in your situation I would be ALL TOO EAGER TO QUOTE MY CONTRADICTION and prove it to everyone here. You don’t seem very willing to do that because you can’t.

Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt. Why do so again? I will give the quick version. You claimed that God is just but also believe in an eternal punishment. Those two beliefs are self contradictory.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It remains to be seen whether that puts you in the majority or minority.

I'm pretty sure that "no niche" counts as a minority. But either way, I don't care.

Should it matter?

 

[Bradskii]

Shouldn't you be asking what I mean by that statement first...

I thought you meant that you were crediting Jesus of Nazareth for much of the ideological and ethical (re)direction in the world.

I'm trying to think of any ethical direction (let alone redirection) He gave that hadn't already been suggested by others.

 

[sjastro]

A better question is how is this related in any way shape or form to the discussion of this thread?

So you are now questioning the relevancy despite defending Deuteronomy 20's treatment towards women.
You have turned this thread into a discussion about the Bible hence any aspect of it is up for scrutiny.

 

[Bradskii]

Maybe you should check your lexicon because the word aeon doesn’t always mean something eternal it can also mean for a set amount of time like an age.

Aeon was never mentioned. And can mean 'an age'. But eternal means eternal. That's why I quoted biblical verses containing that specific word. As in 'eternal punishment'. You know, for ever and ever.

And you say that you doubt what the bible tells you?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Aeon was never mentioned. And can mean 'an age'. But eternal means eternal. That's why I quoted biblical verses containing that specific word. As in 'eternal punishment'. You know, for ever and ever.

And you say that you doubt what the bible tells you?

Aionios is the adjective for for the word aion which is the same word just the noun form of it.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Aeon was never mentioned. And can mean 'an age'. But eternal means eternal. That's why I quoted biblical verses containing that specific word. As in 'eternal punishment'. You know, for ever and ever.

And you say that you doubt what the bible tells you?

“Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭10:28‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

“Behold, all souls are Mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is Mine. The soul who sins will die.”
‭‭Ezekiel‬ ‭18:4‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Only one of the verses you quoted refer to eternal punishment the other three refer to eternal fire. Now you might be right you might be wrong but I know the reason why I remain neutral on this subject. The evidence for both sides of the debate are inconclusive and insufficient to make any sort of definitive conclusion.

 

[Bradskii]

The evidence for both sides of the debate are inconclusive and insufficient to make any sort of definitive conclusion.

You're basing your opinion on evidence? I'm going to need a new Irony Meter.

And you may well argue that some passages are not necessarily transcribed exactly as the author might have meant and could possibly be translated in a way that will subtly change the meaning. In which case one would look elsewhere for some confirmation one way or the other. And Revelation settles the matter beyond any doubt whatsoever.

If you doubt that hell is eternal then you are doubting a portion of scripture that tells you in no uncertain terms that it is. If Revelation had not been written then you'd have a point. It was and so you don't.

 

[Vap841]

What is a "crossover"?

 

[Astrid]

.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I thought you meant that you were crediting Jesus of Nazareth for much of the ideological and ethical (re)direction in the world.

Yes, that is what I meant. How I meant it still remains to be spelled out, though.

I'm trying to think of any ethical direction (let alone redirection) He gave that hadn't already been suggested by others.

If you remember from the previous posts, I didn't say that Jesus came to give ideas that were utterly unique and new. Obviously, we can cull out some bits and pieces of similar wisdom from the likes of Confucius or Siddhartha Guatama and make comparisons with Jesus, but that's not what I'm getting at. I still think Jesus goes further than simply telling us to "Do unto others ..."

Anyway, I'll leave you be while you work through the ethical directions that He sparked. If you're still having problems in this regard, I suggest you get Orlando Patterson's book, "Freedom in the Making of Western Culture." That's more or less what I had in mind when I made my earlier comment to AV1611. If you want to discuss it, we can.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You're basing your opinion on evidence? I'm going to need a new Irony Meter.

And you may well argue that some passages are not necessarily transcribed exactly as the author might have meant and could possibly be translated in a way that will subtly change the meaning. In which case one would look elsewhere for some confirmation one way or the other. And Revelation settles the matter beyond any doubt whatsoever.

If you doubt that hell is eternal then you are doubting a portion of scripture that tells you in no uncertain terms that it is. If Revelation had not been written then you'd have a point. It was and so you don't.

There's three or four threads being run by Universalist Christians up in the Controversial Theology section in which the turf of "eternality" is run over back and forth quite a bit. You may want to have a look at those when you have time.

Of course, if I could---and I'm not allowed to here---I'd stand my own ground in stating that at present, I take an Annihilationist view and I think you're incorrect here, Bradskii. It is difficult to tell what the semantic turns are in the New Testament language overall regarding Hades, Gehenna, Tartarus and/or the Lake of Fire and their durations. And being that Hermeneutics is everything; lexicons are but one part of that ongoing process, and none of us can really claim to have a superb grasp of interpreting the Bible very well, especially where transcendent terms are being referred to in the New Testament.

 

[Bradskii]

Yes, that is what I meant. How I meant it still remains to be spelled out, though.

If you remember from the previous posts, I didn't say that Jesus came to give ideas that were utterly unique and new. Obviously, we can cull out some bits and pieces of similar wisdom from the likes of Confucius or Siddhartha Guatama and make comparisons with Jesus, but that's not what I'm getting at. I still think Jesus goes further than simply telling us to "Do unto others ..."

Anyway, I'll leave you be while you work through the ethical directions that He sparked. If you're still having problems in this regard, I suggest you get Orlando Patterson's book, "Freedom In the Making of Western Culture." That's more or less what I had in mind when I made my earlier comment to AV1611. If you want to discuss it, we can.

Again, if you don't mind, I'll skip the homework. And this isn't a book club. I'm interested in what members of the forum personally think. Not what they've read. And I'm keen to know what you think are good examples of the ethical direction that Jesus was responsible for giving the world. Your words...not mine.

A couple of succinct paragraphs would be preferrable to reading 500+ pages trying to find anything Patterson might have said about Jesus. As you've read it perhaps you can quote his views on His influence on ethics.

 

[Bradskii]

There's three or four threads being run by Universalist Christians up in the Controversial Theology section in which the turf of "eternality" is run over back and forth quite a bit.

I'm only interested in one person's views on the matter. Specifically how it can be claimed that the bible is innerant yet deny the validity of certain passages. Or one certain passage in this case.

 

[Bradskii]

Yes, that is what I meant. How I meant it still remains to be spelled out, though.

I missed this comment. So...

If I were to say that Sagan can take much credit for popularising science or Attenborough for doing the same for the wonders of nature then how I mean it is how it is written. I don't mean anything other than those two deserve credit for the advancement of science as regards the general poulation. And I'd give numerous examples to justify what I'd said.

You can't make a statement, have it clarified, state that it is indeed what you meant and then, when asked for examples to back it effectively say 'how I meant it isn't the same as what I meant'.

That is mangling the English language to a nonsensical degree.

 

[BNR32FAN]

You're basing your opinion on evidence? I'm going to need a new Irony Meter.

And you may well argue that some passages are not necessarily transcribed exactly as the author might have meant and could possibly be translated in a way that will subtly change the meaning. In which case one would look elsewhere for some confirmation one way or the other. And Revelation settles the matter beyond any doubt whatsoever.

If you doubt that hell is eternal then you are doubting a portion of scripture that tells you in no uncertain terms that it is. If Revelation had not been written then you'd have a point. It was and so you don't.

What verse are you referring to in Revelation?

 

[Astrid]

I missed this comment. So...

If I were to say that Sagan can take much credit for popularising science or Attenborough for doing the same for the wonders of nature then how I mean it is how it is written. I don't mean anything other than those two deserve credit for the advancement of science as regards the general poulation. And I'd give numerous examples to justify what I'd said.

You can't make a statement, have it clarified, state that it is indeed what you meant and then, when asked for examples to back it effectively say 'how I meant it isn't the same as what I meant'.

That is mangling the English language to a nonsensical degree.

Philosophy majors are the most tiresome people on campus.