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.
So you as a Christian defend the religion of "evolution" rather than what God hath said. To be bluntly honest you sound more like an atheist than a Christian.
It actually suns up the two sides. Jesus would say....
Without going into details like I have in my previous posts, the decision of supporting the creation account or the evolution theory, is along the lines of whether people choose to believe God, that he is the author of creation and had a direct hand in it, or that he is not the author of creation at all, or that he didn't have a direct hand in it, whereby like all created things he took a back seat and watched an uncontrolled big bang run its course.
There are Christians who believe that God rolled the dice and then took a back seat, as the dice kept on rolling on its own through trillions upon trillions of repeated uncontrolled scenarios that eventually found a spec of life from an infinite galaxy. This means that God didn't intentionally create us where we are and the way we look, rather the random throw of the dice was responsible for who we are today. It seems this notion denigrates God to an adolescent who was playing with matches and burnt the house down, not knowing the consequences of his inadvertent actions.
Are some professing Christians wanting to go that route?
It would be disheartening to the loving God who said that he did it, when he did it and had his personal image as his signature to doing it intenionally, according to the Genesis. I know many will look at bits of the Genesis account and scrutinise it to find holes in it, but the facts remain that Adam is portrayed as a created being who was made deliberately by God's hands and the action of breathing into his nostrils so that he could become a living person, highlights a personal and close relation between the creator and the creature. Again those who advocate that God did not do this on a personal level, have unwittingly denied the testimony of scripture of a personal God that who is knowable and have otherwise marred the name of God who is love (definite article). A God who is impersonal and has no direct influence on his creation is the Gnostic god of the Gnostics, an adolescent at best, where Sophia his mother nature chastises him for his childish actions, like playing with matches that started the big band.
Come on people don't you see the cult like religion of evolution.
Berrean777, labeling something a "cult" simply because it does not square with your limited understanding of matters is totally inappropriate in a serious theological discussion. If you cannot be respectful with your opponents, then I am going to simply ignore your posts.
There you go again, calling the science of evolution a "religion". I just don't understand why you religious evolution deniers think that calling something a religion is an insult, since your whole objection is based on your own religion.
I defend the truth, and evolution happens to be true. That's the whole shebang.
But it isn't. It is challenging your opinion as to what Christian faith should be. But many other Christians would disagree with you. Again, you need to be more respectful of others. Maybe you have some valid points to offer, but so do others. You do not have inerrant judgment and so you should be open to hearing others who maybe don't share your views. Again, all you are doing is demonizing your opponents and that is totally inappropriate in a theology discussion group. I'm surprised the Mods haven't banned you.
I don't deny something that doesn't exist.There you go again, calling the science of evolution a "religion". I just don't understand why you religious evolution deniers think that calling something a religion is an insult, since your whole objection is based on your own religion.
I defend the truth, and evolution happens to be true. That's the whole shebang.
I don't deny something that doesn't exist.
You have no empirical evidence because nobody observed something you claim occurred millions to billions of years ago
em·pir·i·cal
based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
Again no one from the ToE ever observed something you claim happened in the past
Scientific theory - a way in which scientist or individuals seek to explain "broadly" regularities existing in objects and certain events. They are both posited and observed by the researcher. The researcher contends what he finds based upon "empirical" laws or evidence. In order to explain these events the researcher is guided by three principles, careful observation, reporting of regularities or non regularities, and finally systematic explanation (theories).
Nature is objective whether we want to believe it or not. Science is a methodology applied to nature by fallible, prejudiced humans.
Perhaps they should write their own bible....oh wait ;-)Apparently Mathematics does not apply to evolution theory, it is self evident and some say that it even promotes God rather than denigrate him. Hmmmmmm.........sometimes I wonder?
Yes, the stories probably were initially handed down orally. Also, there may have been more than one tradition handed down. Hence, Genesis yields two conflicting creation myths. @am. 21:19 says that Elhanan killed Goliath. Probably the earliest texts were written about 1000BC. During the actual time of Moses, it is unlikely anything was written down, as tribal societies generally don't bother with written accounts.
Perhaps they should write their own bible....oh wait ;-)
Berean 777, again, you are simply being disrespectful of others. It isn't a question here of God per se or the Bible per se or science per say, or anything like that. The issue here is your homespun belief system about these matters. That is what is in question. All you have done is state your opinion as a lay person. OK, fine. That's what this forum is about. However, you seem to forget that others also have the right to state theirs. They also have the right to be treated in a respectful manner. You are definitely not an educated scientist, theologian, biblical scholar, or anything of the like, and no where in the Christian tradition does it say you have the right to sit in judgment on others, including fellow Christians., and you are not an individual the Christian community chose to represent itself. You can speak only for yourself, period. So it is out of the question that you have inerrant judgment and are automatically right in any of there matters. You should listen respectfully to what your "opponents' re saying and then, if you disagree, submit a solid rational counterargument. Instead, you and some others here resort inflammatory rhetoric and attacking the character of others. That gives your posts absolutely no credibility in my book.
Or the Book of Belial.They have, but they don't call it Biblios, they call it Science, that is Evolution is Science. Maybe we should change Biblios to Bibloscientios or something along those lines. It is amazing how marketing names make a huge difference in an age of consumerism.
That isn't accurate, Cal, The DH has not been blown out of the water by anything. I don't know hat sources you re using here, but I suspect they are of questionable scholarship. For example, creation-science people started a rumor that the DH is out of vogue, but they are not the most reliable source. You know, it's interesting. I was just discussing this matter with one of my colleagues, Richard Friedman, who is a professor of Jewish studies an the University of Georgia and major authority on the DH. He emailed a list of about 150 major biblical scholars that hold with the DH, plus ten major academic journals. So the DH is till up and running. If you want, I could provide the names of several experts, form the list I have, and you could maybe email them as ask about the DH.
I agree the cult of "evolution' is in fact anti-Christian. The cult of "evolution" is in fact a pseudo science based on great assumptions and much conjecture and has as of yet never, ever been observed.
That isn't accurate, Cal, The DH has not been blown out of the water by anything. I don't know hat sources you re using here, but I suspect they are of questionable scholarship. For example, creation-science people started a rumor that the DH is out of vogue, but they are not the most reliable source. You know, it's interesting. I was just discussing this matter with one of my colleagues, Richard Friedman, who is a professor of Jewish studies an the University of Georgia and major authority on the DH. He emailed a list of about 150 major biblical scholars that hold with the DH, plus ten major academic journals. So the DH is till up and running. If you want, I could provide the names of several experts, form the list I have, and you could maybe email them as ask about the DH.
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?