Extraneous
Well-Known Member
ITs actually closer to 50/50, but whatever, like i care. It you who are counting, not me.
Upvote
0
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.
It's actually about 1.27 Billion Catholics. Even so, we are most Christians, unless you lump everyone else together. So then, Catholics vs youse guys maybe you're right, but we're still 50%. That's what half is, after all.
You're the one who can't substantiate the claim that "most Christians believe"... I'm just saying you can't say what "most Christians" believe. Even among Catholics, who do NOT walk in lock-step on very much, you can't say. We can say what the Church teaches, but what most Christians believe is a whole other matter.ITs actually closer to 50/50, but whatever, like i care. It you who are counting, not me.
The Bible is not a book of science. My faith comes from the Bible. My understanding of science comes from other sources.I'm asking for you to present Scriptural support for your position.
I can readily point to the many references to Adam being formed from the dust of the earth.
Can you mention as many that say he evolved from simpler life forms over millions of years? If those verses exist, I've never seen them. Perhaps you have.
No that is not what the plain language of chapter 2 says.Not true.
Remember, chapter two starts with the statement that the creation was complete.
It was intended for Eve to be Adam's helper from the beginning. The animals were brought to Adam to name, but none of them were suitable. So God fashioned Eve from Adam's rib and created for him the helper that He had intended from the beginning. Chapter two references many of the events which were described in chapter one, such as that the animals had been formed already but that Eve had not. There is no mention of how much time elapsed between the creation of Adam and the creation of Eve.
You're the one who can't substantiate the claim that "most Christians believe"... I'm just saying you can't say what "most Christians" believe. Even among Catholics, who do NOT walk in lock-step on very much, you can't say. We can say what the Church teaches, but what most Christians believe is a whole other matter.
I do know what Sin is thanks.If you reject the Creation story found in Genesis, then you have no basis for understanding of sin, and it is highly probable you are simply not a Christian, because you are rejecting the very word of God.
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?
Gravity is also a theory.Because it is only a theory. That means was just somebody's idea. God said He did it.
God knows.
True."Its because it undermines the creation story and that people will become irreligious?"
Evolution attempts, but does not truly undermine anything, since there is not one single shred of observable, testable, repeatable evidence of Evolution.
I think thatś too harsh.And if someone's faith can be derailed by lies, then I propose that that person's faith was not in the truth of God.
It's just a shame that evidence and proof for the Bible's accuracy (as a literal history book) doesn't have the same media-platform as the darn Pyramids...How something is wrongly interpreted does not change the truth of the original document. There are no allegories in the Bible.
Jesus came to make dead people live. He did not come to enhance your life. As a matter of fact, if you are following Christ, you may very well have an incredibly hard life, including persecution, even martyrdom through most horrific means (look at what ISIS is doing to Christians).
Don't be silly, it's a fact of reality, the laws of physics.Gravity is also only a theory.
I don't think that has anything to do with literalism.literalist are forced to see God in a very wicked and erroneous manner. this had lead humans to commit all kinds of different forms of evils.
Actually no. The law of gravity describes the attraction between two objects. The theory of gravity describes why the objects attract each other.Don't be silly, it's a fact of reality, the laws of physics.
some people can be extremely stubborn. like the flat earthers. they literally have to believe that every single photo of the spherical earth is photoshopped. it is completely irrational.
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?
On the other hand, in trying to speak some common sense as to why a flat earth is wrong, they do all sorts of hand-waving to dismiss it and claim it's all some sort of conspiracy by NASA.
But the Bible isn't literal on that point, referring to the Earth, as it does in one passage, as a sphere.
...and what you're saying is the reason most Christians have come to believe in (theistic) evolution.
The theory of evolution was originally seen as rejecting the possibility of God creating by an act of His will, but if we see Him as having created the laws of the universe and setting them into operation, which in turn resulted in the creation of all that exists in the physical universe...
then evolution is credible and not opposed to Genesis.
You do know that the whole moon landing was filmed at a studio in Hollywood.
Evolution is something that I just haven't been convinced as being valid. I 100% agree with micro evolution but not macro evolution. As for what the bible says; the Bible is not a science book, it never tells us how God created and made things, just that He did do it. However, I do believe the Bible gives us hints at a sort of timeline, all-be-it in a very general way. I have rejected the traditional 6,000 year creation story that most christians have been taught and believed for centuries. I believe in the "gap theory" of Genesis 1.
As do I. I can remember being in school and watching it on television.That's what the conspiracy theorists say. I personally believe that we did, in fact, go to the moon.
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?