Why creationists reject evolution

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

not really there are only two commands in scripture love thy neighbor and thy God. pretty simple. if you follow these two you could tell.

Although I loath the idea of this degrading into a biblical debate I’m going to have to disagree with this. Even a cursory reading of the bible uncovers a lot more commands than two. There are entire compilations of scripture dedicated just to murder such as this list .

the scripture NEVER change. again read above only two commands given. Love is the most spoken thing in scripture. it says you can have many things but if you do not have love you have nothing.

Maybe the most ancient versions do not change as far as the actual text goes but I was talking about interpretation. The fact that we have so many versions of the bible these days is evidence that interpretation changes.

again if they did this they would not be true christians because we do not follow what the "religious leader" tells us to do. this would make christianity a "religion" and not what irt is a personal relationship with God. you need to get this straight or you will never get the truth of what true christians teach or should teach. if they dont teach this ignore them.

I really think that you have to give some deep thought to the fact that so many different kinds of Christians also consider themselves “True Christians™”. When you think you have it figured out try and honestly figure out what prevents you from falling victim to the same flaws you perceive in other Christians.

not at all. you have to study scripture and the usages of certain words and how they are used and if they are anology sympolic ect. one good example is the word baptism. it means to dip under water. but it is used to to show or synpolise the Spirit and to be immersed into somethign or association and the favorite of many water baptism. which shows or sympolises Christ death and ressurection.

So are you saying that if you think the bible says that the earth is flat you will believe that even if the evidence found in reality opposes your interpretation? Nobody even truly understands the dialect the original bible was written in. You can get a group of experts together to try and come to a consensus on how the text should be translated but you can’t even be positive it’s correct. There are many versions of the bible today. This shows that even the text is debated much less the meaning of the text. With al this uncertainty it is pretty arrogant to assert that your one view should be deemed the standard by which all Christians should aspire.

as you say "AS" possible. religion, but again true christianity is not a religion by deffinition. it can be made into one, but it is not.

Yes, “as possible”. It’s a pretty good system and is at it’s worst still far better than viewing evidence through religious bias. Even if you consider your theism personal it’s still religion.

 

[Schroeder]

Oh no, Schroeder. Do not get me wrong one instant. I was not talking about the Roman Catholic church. I was speaking about the people participating in the crusades themselves, regardless of the church. I was telling you that you do not know anything about these people, about why they made the choices they did, about what their motives where, independent of the catholic church. You pass judgement on these people without knowing anything about the conditions they were in, what information they had and what led them to their decisions to go. Nothing. So your opinion on whether they were 'True Christians (C) (TM)' holds no water. And what is worse, is that in refusing to learn about them and their stories, you are all the more likely to make the same mistakes they did. And that last part, is the most frightening thing of all.

You pretend that because you are a "True Christian (C) (TM)", you are above them. That is already a sin in itself, pride and arrogance. But you're not above them. You're just as liable to make mistakes in judgement the way they did. Being a "True Christian (C) (TM)" does not all of a sudden make you not human. The only thing that would prevent you from not making the same mistakes, is knowledge. But you refuse to acquire that knowledge. For that, I not only pity you. I think the results of your refusal to do so in your arrogance can be potentially devastating. Because it is not just you. You are part of a larger group of "True Christians (C) (TM)", that refuse in their arrogance refuse to learn, and that makes you dangerous. It makes me regard you with a feeling of fear and of loathing.

added to add: on the positive side, it does give me the idea to change my quote.

give me a break. you sure can twist around what i say. im not being dogmatic. what i say is true, doesnt mean we do it perfectly. it is obviouse that we make bad discisions. i was thinking you saying they folowed the group or church(not the Church) this is why you all or how you all get your distance and never see the Thruth. you hear it the way you want to hear it. refuse to learn what. learn from our mistakes. that is on a personal bases and we should all do this whether your christian or not, or what ever you are. i never hinted i was above anyone. i say what is true whether i follow it perfectly or not is not the point. i am a christian because i truelly believe in christ and what he did and truelly given my life over to him. doesnt make me perfect. i say "true" becaue many say they are but dont live a life that says they are.

 

[Schroeder]

Although I loath the idea of this degrading into a biblical debate I’m going to have to disagree with this. Even a cursory reading of the bible uncovers a lot more commands than two. There are entire compilations of scripture dedicated just to murder such as this list .

i think you all call this quote mining dont you. very easy to do. no need to try to understand the purpose or history or any thing. just find passages that seem bad, and may be, and write them done not checking or trying to understand them. thats what makes it so real or true. it is VERY honest. and a lot of those so called horrors, were the work of man not Gods commands.

Maybe the most ancient versions do not change as far as the actual text goes but I was talking about interpretation. The fact that we have so many versions of the bible these days is evidence that interpretation changes.

the interpretations is not important and doesnt change the Truth. and again that is why it is a PERSONAL relationship, so you can get the Truth of the passages and not rely on some one elses interpretation. you may get it wrong, but that is why there is only two commands, love your neighbor and God. hard to mess this up or interprete it wrong.

I really think that you have to give some deep thought to the fact that so many different kinds of Christians also consider themselves “True Christians™”. When you think you have it figured out try and honestly figure out what prevents you from falling victim to the same flaws you perceive in other Christians.

i have given it deep thought. i know what is true. to love one another. how can you mess this up. it is when we try to add to this other commands that messes things up and puts us into groups or divisions against each other. You need to realise this yourself. you dont get this which is why you have such a problem with christianity. ITS PERSONAL, you and GOD through Christ by the Spirit.

So are you saying that if you think the bible says that the earth is flat you will believe that even if the evidence found in reality opposes your interpretation? Nobody even truly understands the dialect the original bible was written in. You can get a group of experts together to try and come to a consensus on how the text should be translated but you can’t even be positive it’s correct. There are many versions of the bible today. This shows that even the text is debated much less the meaning of the text. With al this uncertainty it is pretty arrogant to assert that your one view should be deemed the standard by which all Christians should aspire.

it does not say it is flat. that part is a anology or sybolism. See you still wont let yourself get it truely. it is a personal relationship between you and God through christ and the Spirit. we are told to LOVE one another. ITS very simple. If you wish to make it harder then Fine thats your discision

Yes, “as possible”. It’s a pretty good system and is at it’s worst still far better than viewing evidence through religious bias. Even if you consider your theism personal it’s still religion.

wrong again. it is NOT a religion by deffintion. look its meaning up.

 

[Tomk80]

give me a break. you sure can twist around what i say. im not being dogmatic. what i say is true, doesnt mean we do it perfectly. it is obviouse that we make bad discisions. i was thinking you saying they folowed the group or church(not the Church) this is why you all or how you all get your distance and never see the Thruth. you hear it the way you want to hear it. refuse to learn what. learn from our mistakes. that is on a personal bases and we should all do this whether your christian or not, or what ever you are. i never hinted i was above anyone. i say what is true whether i follow it perfectly or not is not the point. i am a christian because i truelly believe in christ and what he did and truelly given my life over to him. doesnt make me perfect. i say "true" becaue many say they are but dont live a life that says they are.

You accuse me of twisting around what you say, but 'misread' what I said? And then you accuse me of doing that on purpose, because I want to remain 'distant'. I have been clear from the very start that I was talking about the people participating in the crusades and not about the church, and that you should learn their story to fully comprehend why they did what they did. Even if they were following the catholic church, that is hardly sage advice. You have dismissed that suggestion from the start, so how can I conclude anything else but the things I accused you of? But good, if that is not what you wanted to convey, my apologies.

Which leaves me just one question. So the christians participating in the crusades could very well have been 'true christians' after all?

 

[Schroeder]

You accuse me of twisting around what you say, but 'misread' what I said? And then you accuse me of doing that on purpose, because I want to remain 'distant'. I have been clear from the very start that I was talking about the people participating in the crusades and not about the church, and that you should learn their story to fully comprehend why they did what they did. Even if they were following the catholic church, that is hardly sage advice. You have dismissed that suggestion from the start, so how can I conclude anything else but the things I accused you of? But good, if that is not what you wanted to convey, my apologies.

Which leaves me just one question. So the christians participating in the crusades could very well have been 'true christians' after all?

well i was more responding to the other part of your post not dealing with the crusades. it was not a christian movement, it used the ideas of christianity.(tried at least) but i will concede that there may have been true christians mislead by the church of england, but if they were lead by the Spirit they would have seen the misuse of there faith and not followed. But i doubt there were many True christians involved. But again i really cant prove this.

 

[Kripost]

well i was more responding to the other part of your post not dealing with the crusades. it was not a christian movement, it used the ideas of christianity.(tried at least) but i will concede that there may have been true christians mislead by the church of england, but if they were lead by the Spirit they would have seen the misuse of there faith and not followed. But i doubt there were many True christians involved. But again i really cant prove this.

The problem is that true Christians have never existed in human history, if you want to define the term very strictly.

Interestingly, the word "true Christian" is usually used in first person, while "untrue Christian" is almost always used in second and third person.

 

[Tomk80]

well i was more responding to the other part of your post not dealing with the crusades. it was not a christian movement, it used the ideas of christianity.(tried at least) but i will concede that there may have been true christians mislead by the church of england, but if they were lead by the Spirit they would have seen the misuse of there faith and not followed. But i doubt there were many True christians involved. But again i really cant prove this.

Church of england?

It's interesting indeed to see that 'true christians' are always those that belong to ones own group, and that the 'others' are never true christians. What is even more interesting is that the Fourth crusade and the Albigensian crusades were all waged by 'true christians' (in this case the Roman Catholic church) against non-'true christians' (constantinopel, french 'heretics' respectively).

 

[vossler]

By definition, all you have to do to be a christian is to agree with the Nicean Creed. I believe that is even the definition that ChristianForums uses.

Which in and of itself cheapens the Christian faith. Since we have to 'label' ourselves with rules and formulas it becomes easy to comply outwardly and it have no inward effect that is outwardly reflected.

What can be said is that christians commit sin. I really don't see this as a reason to discount christianity. In fact, since christians are humans it is expected. Christians did participate in the Crusades, and I am sure even atheist mercenaries participated too. The point is that christians do contort and twist christian theology to bring about sin, just as fascists and anti-semites twisted the Theory of Evolution to commit atrocities. It is human nature, not religion or scientific findings, that leads to these problems.

Yes, unfortunately this is correct, at least by the so-called 'Christians' that live in churches today. It should be different, and sometimes it is, but many times it isn't. As a Christian we're suppose to overcome human nature through the Holy Spirit living inside of us, yet because many 'christians' are false converts and then present themselves to the world as true Christians, God's true people can look inept.

 

[Tomk80]

Which in and of itself cheapens the Christian faith. Since we have to 'label' ourselves with rules and formulas it becomes easy to comply outwardly and it have no inward effect that is outwardly reflected.

Although I mostly agree with you on this in general, I do not think this in effect can be said of the Nicean creed. One of the most important point in it are the central statements in which you profess belief (belief in one almighty God, Jesus as the son of God and the holy spirit). By saying one adheres to these, one effectively states to believe these. This is inherently an inwardly issue, not one of outwardly complying.

 

[Schroeder]

Although I mostly agree with you on this in general, I do not think this in effect can be said of the Nicean creed. One of the most important point in it are the central statements in which you profess belief (belief in one almighty God, Jesus as the son of God and the holy spirit). By saying one adheres to these, one effectively states to believe these. This is inherently an inwardly issue, not one of outwardly complying.

yse it is a inward issue. BUT BUT BUT it is easy to say you "believe" this creed and follow it, BUT BUT your life will have to prove you do. Whicj is where you find out who is or isnt a true christian. this doesnt mean lableing him not one because of a mistake or two but how he lives his life over sall and deals with certain sistuations. So the MOST important part of it is NOT NOT saying you believe it but that you live it. Which again is why it is a PERSONAL relationship. and why you judge each on his own merit or life and not on what the denom or church leaders do or how they act or what they teach. though you should not judge because even then only God knows for sure who is saved or not. the problem i have with a lot of you in this forum is that you lump us all in together. like if a black man beat me up all black men are mean and crooks. this tends to happen to christians, you all always bring upt he few odd balls who claim this or that and say see look how you all are.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

i think you all call this quote mining dont you. very easy to do. no need to try to understand the purpose or history or any thing. just find passages that seem bad, and may be, and write them done not checking or trying to understand them. thats what makes it so real or true. it is VERY honest. and a lot of those so called horrors, were the work of man not Gods commands.

What do you mean “the work of man”? Aren’t all those passages actually in the bible? Isn’t that supposed to be the work of god? If the passages are out of context (as you allege by saying they are quote mined) then why don’t you show us the context and explain how they mean something different?

wrong again. it is NOT a religion by deffintion. look its meaning up.

re•li•gion n.
1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

 

[vossler]

This is inherently an inwardly issue, not one of outwardly complying.

Yes it is, but the inward change is reflected outwardly and should be evident for all to see.

 

[Schroeder]

What do you mean “the work of man”? Aren’t all those passages actually in the bible? Isn’t that supposed to be the work of god? If the passages are out of context (as you allege by saying they are quote mined) then why don’t you show us the context and explain how they mean something different?

for one a lot of what the isreal nation did God did not intend or wish to happen. He did not want them to have kings or rulers but to have Him rule them. they didnt head this and demanded a leader or king, which god told them would lead them down wrong paths and into bad situations. God delt with them in this situation. Life is not perfect and bad things happen, not all of them are because God told them to do it. And evil is evil and it at times must be gotten rid of to allow life to continue. Besides if you believed in a God would you expect to understand all he did or told you to do. the times back then are a lot different from how things are done now. Why would you not try to look up the goutes given and determine if indeed they were oor were not instead of taken the sites word for it. I already know what they are about, most of them, so its up to you to judge them by studing what they say. or as much go to a christian site which deals with these critics and read what they have to say. or will you just say the are biased and not do this. they will do a much better more indepth comentary on what the critics try to say.