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.
No, you just don't get it. I said the Son of God incarnate miraculously as the child conceived by Joseph and Mary. The virgin birth story as well as the December 25 come from Pagan beliefs in the Roman world.
Let's get back to evolution.
I did qualify my statement with the term "most evolutionists"...
Are you saying that these people you mentioned were evolutionists?
Lewis was neither pro nor anti evolution early in his Christian life but by the 1950's, he had developed a more anti mindset. Here is one of his quotes in a letter to Captain Acworth.. ‘What inclines me now to think you may be right in regarding [evolution] as the central and radical lie in the whole web of falsehood that now governs our lives is not so much your arguments against it as the fanatical and twisted attitudes of its defenders.’
Right, Gabriel isn't calling Mary a virgin, you are seeing things that aren't there.No, Jesus is not a son of Joseph in any way. He was the son of a virgin, Mary. There's no redefinition and obfuscation of Jesus as "Son of God" by virgin birth.
Luke 1:35
35 The angel replied to her:
“The Holy Spirit will come upon you,
and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.
Therefore, the holy One to be born
will be called the Son of God.
No.
ThanksI dont deny that, but even Christians can reject Jesus with there actions. Like God said, people honor me with their lips but their heart is far from me. Jesus also said do not store treasure on earth but in heaven, because where our treasure is, so is our heart. He also said why do you call me Lord and not do the things i say?
THe commands given by the apostles, even Paul, are the Lords commands. Paul says to put away division and have no divisions among us. This doesn't mean to agree to disagree because he also says to speak the same thing. That means we only speak what is agreed in Christ. We can honor God with our lips and we can call Jesus Lord, but if we would rather argue over a fallible scientific theory, politics, or a denomination, then we are not speaking the same thing and are not undivided. We are only paying lip service to God, but not honoring him with with our actions. This is because our heart is divided between God and carnal things. Our heart is far from him.
I guess im done with this debate. Im tired of incessant division, contention and worldly things. If people want to believe in evolution that's their business, but they should keep it to themselves and speak only the words of Christ and His apostles, because that's what paul commanded, that we all speak the same thing, and that we let the word of Christ dwell in us richly.
Why make that statement that about "most evolutionists" unless you are implying that one has to abandon one's faith to accept the propositions of evolution, something that is not true? Most car mechanics or pharmacists or gas station owners may be atheists as well - that doesn't make them bad company to keep, and that doesn't say anything about the validity of the theories undergirding the nature of their occupations.
I think there are many quotes of C.S. Lewis that show he had no problem with evolution, rather with evolutionism, which includes grand narratives beyond the realm of science. His quotes are too long to paste here, but the BioLogos website may have some. In any case, C.S. Lewis did not hold to a young earth model, so he had no problems with a non-literal interpretation of Genesis.
The original poster asked the question why Christians couldn't accept evolution, and suggested "Its [sic] because it undermines the creation story and that people will become irreligious?" No, it doesn't undermine Genesis 1-3 because Genesis 1-3 is not a scientific account, and no, people do not become irreligious as many passionate, God-loving, Christians accept it. In fact, if truth matters, then one dare not dismiss it, based on evidence to date. It is unfortunate that many don't understand that evidence, and many seem to misinterpret Gen 1 - 3.
Hard evidence? That would indicate you can show that one kind has evolved into another. That would be 'hard evidence'.In science, EastCoast, it doesn't matter what the religious beliefs of the scientists are. The work is valid on the basis of hard evidence, not on the basis of one's religion beliefs or lack thereof. Also, you have not taken a survey, so how do you know who the majority are or what they believe?
The original poster asked the question why Christians couldn't accept evolution, and suggested "Its [sic] because it undermines the creation story and that people will become irreligious?" No, it doesn't undermine Genesis 1-3 because Genesis 1-3 is not a scientific account, and no, people do not become irreligious as many passionate, God-loving, Christians accept it. In fact, if truth matters, then one dare not dismiss it, based on evidence to date. It is unfortunate that many don't understand that evidence, and many seem to misinterpret Gen 1 - 3.
Evolution does undermine Christianity.
Exodus 20:11 says that in six days God made the heavens, the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and on the seventh day He rested, therefore they were to keep the Sabbath day holy. Therefore, it's impossible to put millions of years in Genesis 1.
God created everything, not random chance over millions of years of death.
The foundation of the gospel is from Genesis 1-3 - rip it out, and you are left with nothing.
God's creation was very good (Genesis 1:31), and death had no part in it. Originally man and animals were vegetarians (see Genesis 1:29-30). Death is what God told Adam would happen if he ate the fruit God commanded him not to eat (Genesis 2:17). Adam ate, and death came to all men, both spiritual death and physical death (Romans 5:12).
But God did two remarkable things on that sad day. Number one, He promised a Savior from the Seed of the woman (who we know now as Jesus) (Genesis 3:15). Number two, He instituted the first blood sacrifice for sin (Genesis 3:21). It doesn't say what animals died, but animals don't give up their skins without being killed. God used the skins to make clothes for Adam and Eve, to cover their shame and nakedness. Recall that they made fig leaf coverings themselves, but they still hid from the presence of God (Genesis 3:7-10). Only the sacrifice God provides can cover the shame of our sin - not our own human effort (Romans 3:20). Through the rest of the Old Testament, God drove home the point that the shedding of blood was required to pray for sin (Leviticus 17:11, Hebrews 9:22). This is because the life of a creature is in the blood (shedding blood - causing its death). God Himself said death would be the penalty for sin before it happened (Genesis 2:17, Romans 6:23a).
So, why is it significant to the gospel? Because in order to satisfy the justice of God, there has to be a blood sacrifice to pay for sin. God can't just forgive. Since the blood of bulls and goats can't take away human sin (Hebrews 10:4), we needed a perfect man to die in our place. But all men descend from Adam and inherit a sin nature. The only way God could offer us grace and forgiveness was by Himself being clothed in flesh and becoming a sinless sacrifice. Jesus' death on the cross and all that led to it was unimaginably brutal. Jesus wouldn't have done it if there was any other way for men to be forgiven. He asked His father to let this cup pass from Him, if it were possible. I still don't understand why He loves us so much.
The main reasons people believe in millions of years is because of the fossil record, which is full of death (even sickness and animals eating other animals). It's supposed to represent the time before man evolved. However, the Bible says the entire world was flooded, so that gives us a good idea of how many of the fossils and rock layers came into place. Further, since God says death is the penalty for sin, there shouldn't have been death prior to man. Some people say, "Well, man didn't die prior to Adam's sin, but that doesn't preclude animals from dying for millions of years." God wouldn't have called His creation "very good." People don't realize the curse affected everything in creation - not just the serpent's legs, the woman's childbearing, the thorns and death to mankind (Romans 8:20-22). For example, man (Genesis 9:3) and some animals are carnivorous. Animals (many) are afraid of man (Genesis 9:2). When Jesus comes back and reigns on the earth for a thousand years, the animals will return to their Edenic diets and dispositions (see Isaiah 11 and Isaiah 65). Since this is part of the removal of the curse, it also follows that it was not part of creation prior to the curse. Death is an enemy, not a means of creating.
I hope this helps you. God bless.
How does having a common ancestor not mean evolving from them? If everything evolved from the same source then we are all the same. Is it a wonder to you why many people just regard life as meaningless, because we are just another animal?Sorry, I thought you meant apes. If you mean common ancestry, yes, that's what the theory of evolution suggests. And so, yes, that's what many Christians, notwithstanding the majority of pentecostal, contemporary, evangelical, fundamentalist-leaning churchgoers, don't have a problem with.
This is baloney, it's form Zeitgeist or something.No, you just don't get it. I said the Son of God incarnate miraculously as the child conceived by Joseph and Mary. The virgin birth story as well as the December 25 come from Pagan beliefs in the Roman world.
Yeah, let's just deny Christ is the Son of God as a sidenote, and back on topic again.Let's get back to evolution.
I've pointed this out before Hog, but if you're as intelligent as you say, then could you figure out how to quote what it is you're replying to so it has context... thanx.Speak for yourself, Extraneous. It maybe makes you unfruitful, but that's because you do not know how to profit from it.
I think there are many quotes of C.S. Lewis that show he had no problem with evolution, rather with evolutionism, which includes grand narratives beyond the realm of science. His quotes are too long to paste here, but the BioLogos website may have some. In any case, C.S. Lewis did not hold to a young earth model, so he had no problems with a non-literal interpretation of Genesis.
It was post #1852 but you don't seem to be much about details... you present yourself as superior to everyone else's knowledge on here and when I call your hubris, you claim personal attack. You are condemned by your own words sir.Look, EastCoast, personal attacks, such as you just sent me in 1853 are totally inappropriate in a theological discussion.
Blind faith is trusting the writings of holy men. We have real evidence.
Never, the Bible was written by men who didn't even claim to be writing by inspiration. I would only be making, as ou say, a liar, out of the control freaks in religion that promote their writings as Gods. The people who killed Jesus knew the truth but they were moral cowards.
It was done to you and so you do it to others.
God did indeed create the life that evolved.
Colter said: ↑
Never, the Bible was written by men who didn't even claim to be writing by inspiration. I would only be making, as ou say, a liar, out of the control freaks in religion that promote their writings as Gods. The people who killed Jesus knew the truth but they were moral cowards.
It was done to you and so you do it to others.
Its only an attack on the men of church government who derived their authority and wealth from the claim that their writing is Gods writing.
God doesn't write books, Jesus didn't leave ANY writing behind and for this very reason!!!
He subscribes to a quasi form of Mormonism.... he considers the Book or Urantus to be profitable for doctrine.This is baloney, it's form Zeitgeist or something.
Again, where do you get all this wisdom?Yeah, let's just deny Christ is the Son of God as a sidenote, and back on topic again.
If you have faith in evolution then your faith in God is not absolute.... can you be a Buddhist Christian? Or a Hindu Christian? If not, then why? Is it because the teachings of Buddhists or Hindus are contrary to Christianity? Even though you don't see it, so are the teachings of evolution contrary to the teachings of Christ.Why make that statement that about "most evolutionists" unless you are implying that one has to abandon one's faith to accept the propositions of evolution, something that is not true?
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?