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.
Note that in Genesis it refers to the field, and Paul says that we are Gods field. Note that in Genesis God refers to himself in plural form, and that he says that man should not be alone, singular form. Then he creates a helper for man. Note that the holy spirit is mans helper in John 14. Note that God had not allowed it to rain on the earth yet, and there was no man to till the ground yet, so nothing grew yet. Note also how the apostles water the plants, and the apostles are one, they are not alone either but are of one mind, the mind of Christ, i would assert. There is much here to consider i think.
Yes there is, people screwing their eyes shut just s tight as they can and pretending it doesn't exist notwithstandingBecause it's the best supported by evidence.
God compares evangelism to a ripe field being harvested - this does not mean there is "no such thing as a field or as literal evangelism" as I think we all agree. But God uses real physical events to illustrate abstract concepts.
Pride is the enemy of man, Some would rather spend time in prideful argument rather then accept that they could be mistaken...
If I am wrong, Then so be it, I will be corrected. I can not be the person I want to be by pridefully arguing about trivial subjects. If someone seeks the truth,, and thirsts for it,, Why would the truth offend them? I welcome the chance to learn, And expect to be wrong from time to time.. But know that Pride is an enemy, pride makes husbands argue with wives, pride makes liars uphold their untruths, pride turns friends against each other, and pride makes one feel small and weak when they don't live up to expectations..
I will humble myself when it is necessary, But I will not spend time arguing the same arguments as my grandfathers. This evolution debate. It has no end to it..
These hand's I wash them of this debate.
It's not me that's casting doubt on your character because you're doing a fine job of that all by yourself. I didn't say God "evolved" us from dirt God said HE created us from the dirt
This is a thread contrasting the junk-science religion of blind-faith-evolutionism -- to the fact that the Bible is correct about a pile of dirt will never turn into a rabbit. I would not give up too quickly on the thread just because there are so many atheists, agnostics and some T.E. that choose the "pile of dirt --> rabbit" option no matter how nonsensical it is.
Notice that in Matt 4 - the devil challenges Christ to turn a pile of dirt into bread - claiming that only God could do such a thing - and Christ would thereby prove Himself to be God.
But most atheists and agnostics will claim that rocks,dust,gas would have turned into a rabbit, horse... loaf of bread "over time" if only the sun was shining.
Evolution doesn't claim that a pile of dirt turned into a rabbit, but keep strawmanning, that's the way to make your position credible.Why do Christians have a hard time doubting the Bible in exchange for the irrational "belief" that a pile of dirt has turned into a rabbit -- given a sufficiently large pile of dirt and a sufficiently long period of time filled with "just-so" stories?
Or maybe the claims of blind faith evolutionism regarding its doctrine on origins - do not even begin to compare with the more reasoned Bible doctrine on origins that says - infinite Creator God did what He said He did -- and there is no such thing as dirt turning into a rabbit.
I think i know some key ideas. Its because it undermines the creation story and that people will become irreligious?
Well wouldnt that be an issue about the idea of the earth is flat if the bible is literal on that part i mean?
What i mean is that science explains our physicial world. The main point i am making is that Creation Story had two interpretations in medieval ages. Allegory" basically a deeper meaning than it is. Or "Literally" like just like it is written.
So basically allegory seems to be the key point then. Since that can be used. Since God is outside our understanding. Science is a method just to understand the world we live in more or less.
So i dont see the problem with evolution, because it doesnt undermine the scripture in the sense of it not being true?
Although i do believe its a shame that more people who lack understanding go away because of ignorance and just dont bother trying to understand why Christianity is a religion to help your life.
But i am curious to what you think?
The Line of Jesus Through Mary
Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Sala, the son of Nahshon, the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Arni, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. (Luke 3:23:38)
Except evolution doesn't require materials to "self organise" but whatever makes it easier for you to dismiss, I guess.here then is a "not-so-subtle" detail. Blind faith in evolutionism engages in gross "equivocation" between the painter taking raw materials and painting the Mona Lisa -- vs the raw materials themselves self-organizing into the Mona Lisa.
And we are simply "not supposed to notice" that not-so-subtle paucity in logic of their argument.
It isn't as simple as it might at first seem. Please note that the Israelites later referred to as the Jews, including the prophets Jesus and the Apostles, all considered the Genesis account as genuinely historical. In fact, the very genealogical record of Jesus' ancestry found in the Gospels depends on the Genesis account to trace Jesus directly back to Adam via along line of ancestors to David, Abraham Noah- and finally Adam who is referred to as the son of God and in that way offers evidence to legitimize his being the Messiah or Christ.
So a belief that the Genesis account is fictional means that all these men who are believed to be inspired and even Jesus himself whom many believe to have been God incarnate, were deluded. If indeed they were, then they were teaching lies. It would then follow that everything that was said that included references to the Genesis account was drivel
. That would include Jesus' reference to the Devil, to Adam and Eve, to the Noachian Flood, and to Sodom and Gomorrah. It would include the Apostle Paul's teachings concerning the origin of sin in Eden, the references that Peter makes concerning the Flood, the references that Jude makes about the fallen angels, and a host of other references. All these must then be viewed as drivel.
In turn that would mean that Christianity itself is based on drivel and that the whole salvation message is merely the product of human fervid imagination. So it isn't as simple as it might at first appear.
Except evolution doesn't require materials to "self organise"
You show me a quote of Dawkins, or anyone else for that matter, making such a claim about piles of dirt, if you can.until you actually talk to one of them - who like Dawkins, will argue that from a "big pile of dirt" there has indeed come "rabbits".
in fact they will argue that all life in the universe came from the "big pile of dirt" -- the "big bang".
And they will argue for self-replicating molecules that form - via the self-organizing properties inherent in a "big pile of dirt" that has access to sunlight.
By contrast -- the Bible claims God did what He said - in 7 literal days.
You show me a quote of Dawkins, or anyone else for that matter, making such a claim about piles of dirt, if you can.
That's some heck of a feisty "pile of dirt" they are describing there!until you actually talk to one of them - who like Dawkins, will argue that from a "big pile of dirt" there has indeed come "rabbits".
in fact they will argue that all life in the universe came from the "big pile of dirt" -- the "big bang".
And they will argue for self-replicating molecules that form - via the self-organizing properties inherent in a "big pile of dirt" that has access to sunlight.
By contrast -- the Bible claims God did what He said - in 7 literal days.
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?