Why do some Christian's dismiss evolution?

[rmwilliamsll]

We also have varies scientists who have lied over the years to prove evolution. And you want me to trust them?

we have how many Christian denominations?
how many religious teachers have gone to jail in just my lifetime for financial sin or lost their pulpits for sexual sins? and that isn't even looking at the problems of heresy.

Religion seems to have no corrective procedures to it's epistemology at all.
science has a remarkably good intersubjective and public means of self-correction.

i'd propose that anyone using this argument as you do here, that science lies and Genesis or the Bible or some subset of these myriad Christian denominations teach truthfully, ought to get his head examined for something is seriously wrong, being so very unobservant of how the two systems actually operate.

 

[Critias]

we have how many Christian denominations?
how many religious teachers have gone to jail in just my lifetime for financial sin or lost their pulpits for sexual sins? and that isn't even looking at the problems of heresy.

Religion seems to have no corrective procedures to it's epistemology at all.
science has a remarkably good intersubjective and public means of self-correction.

i'd propose that anyone using this argument as you do here, that science lies and Genesis or the Bible or some subset of these myriad Christian denominations teach truthfully, ought to get his head examined for something is seriously wrong, being so very unobservant of how the two systems actually operate.

I don't see where I justified sins of those who are Christians. Mind pointing that out for me?

I appreciate your concern for me needing to get my head examined, but I am doing alright.

I wasn't actually talking of a denomination, I was talking of the Holy Spirit, but if you feel I need my head examined for following the Holy Spirits teachings, fine by me.

 

[stumpjumper]

When did sin come into the world so that creation is held in bondage, even today? When did original sin happen?

Wasn't it Satan who said 'did God really say...' Same line is used by TEs today.

Let's look at what Genesis tells us. Genesis says that Adam and Eve fell from the Garden of Eden because of an action of their doing. It does not, however, say why they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The Hebrew word for “to know” is yada and it is an all encompassing verb. It means to reach for universal knowledge or create our own rules and become “like gods.” Each of us live out this sin every day when we try to determine what is good and what is evil instead of turning to God and following the good of what we know to be the proper action. It is actually evading the truth of good and evil and turning from God. This is universal to all humans and it is a result of freedom in our situation.

Sin came into the world when humanity was formed. In the Genesis story it is a free act of man that brought sin in the world. Without a literal Garden of Eden it is still the freedom of man that is the cause of our original sin. Either way God being omniscient knew that our physical existence would cause an estrangement from Him. He has reconciled that estrangement with the resurrection.

I see evolution as a contradiction to what is written in Genesis 1-3. Furthermore, it puts all of the New Testament writers into speculation because each touches on events within Genesis 1-11.[/

QUOTE]

It only puts those author’s writings into speculation if they were only referring to those passages in their literal sense instead of what those passages say about God’s relation with man. The allegorical and deeper meaning of those early passages in Genesis is what is most important and is what was being referenced. Indeed, if those passages did not have something to relay about God they would not be referenced.

Tell me how you know that Genesis 1-11 is an allegorical myth of our origin? Is because of what scientists say today, or because of Genesis itself? And if it is Genesis itself, lets talk about what specifically in Genesis makes you believe this.

I don’t necessarily accept naturalistic abiogenesis. But I view Genesis 1-11 as allegory for two reasons. 1.) Our investigation of the world and universe show us a history that tells otherwise and is very convincing. Also, archaeology and history of other cultures extends far beyond that time and contradicts many of those claims and 2.) Those passages were written in a manner to relay a story that goes far beyond the literal meaning of the passages.


For instance we see God as Creator of man in His image. It shows us to have freedom that we use to disobey God and it shows the existence of our disobedience when Cain kills Abel. We have a theodicy of what would happen if God intervened to rid the world of evil (it is no coincidence that evil existed before and after Noah’s boatride). In short, these passages are clearly telling a story about God and His relationship with the world and are setting the stage for God’s covenant with Abraham. Because of the deep allegorical meaning to these passages I find no reason to view them as anything but allegory.

I don't accept that God wants us to be apart from Him. I believe the work on the Cross was to draw us to Him as well as the countless acts throughout history that He has done to waken His people to turn to Him. I just cannot accept that God doesn't want us part of Him. I believe the Bible says be holy as God is Holy. We are to strive and be like Christ, not be different than Christ.

That’s not really what I meant when I said that the freedom of the creative process allowed us to become an “other.” Love is best expressed toward someone else. We needed the freedom of creation to become someone “other” than God so that we could share in a loving relationship with Him and each other. Christ showed us how to best accept God’s love and love each other at the same time. I agree we should all strive to be Christ-like although at times it seems like an impossible task.

 

[Smidlee]

I don't see where I justified sins of those who are Christians. Mind pointing that out for me?

I appreciate your concern for me needing to get my head examined, but I am doing alright.

I wasn't actually talking of a denomination, I was talking of the Holy Spirit, but if you feel I need my head examined for following the Holy Spirits teachings, fine by me.

As long as you don't let an evolutionists examine your head you should be ok. I find it wise to have an objective mind when it comes to all scientific claims. Most of the scientific papers are probably wrong.

 

[Critias]

Let's look at what Genesis tells us. Genesis says that Adam and Eve fell from the Garden of Eden because of an action of their doing. It does not, however, say why they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The Hebrew word for “to know” is yada and it is an all encompassing verb. It means to reach for universal knowledge or create our own rules and become “like gods.” Each of us live out this sin every day when we try to determine what is good and what is evil instead of turning to God and following the good of what we know to be the proper action. It is actually evading the truth of good and evil and turning from God. This is universal to all humans and it is a result of freedom in our situation.

Sin came into the world when humanity was formed. In the Genesis story it is a free act of man that brought sin in the world. Without a literal Garden of Eden it is still the freedom of man that is the cause of our original sin. Either way God being omniscient knew that our physical existence would cause an estrangement from Him. He has reconciled that estrangement with the resurrection.

And what was God's purpose to speak in myths instead of history? The Israelites understood what history was in their time. So what is your perspective on why God inspired Moses to speak of myths instead of the history in which God works?

So when did sin enter the world and who commited it if you don't believe there is an Adam and Eve? And why, if it is the foundation for the reason for Jesus Christ coming to earth to die and be resurrected, do you think God left out the history of it out of the Bible?

It only puts those author’s writings into speculation if they were only referring to those passages in their literal sense instead of what those passages say about God’s relation with man. The allegorical and deeper meaning of those early passages in Genesis is what is most important and is what was being referenced. Indeed, if those passages did not have something to relay about God they would not be referenced.

And what about the pupils of the Apostles who fought against the Greeks teachings of the earth being very old? What about their teachings that God made one man whom all mankind came from to refute the Greeks naturalistic view point on life?

Is it your perspective that the pupils of the Apostles are just plain wrong? It seems to me, that because of these writing we have of the Early Church Fathers, we can conclude that the Apostles themselves were speaking of a literal history when they refered to the Genesis accounts.

Do you share the same perspective as Gluadys that the Apostles are just ignorant of what really happened during creation and the flood?

I don’t necessarily accept naturalistic abiogenesis. But I view Genesis 1-11 as allegory for two reasons. 1.) Our investigation of the world and universe show us a history that tells otherwise and is very convincing. Also, archaeology and history of other cultures extends far beyond that time and contradicts many of those claims and 2.) Those passages were written in a manner to relay a story that goes far beyond the literal meaning of the passages.

So, you do admit that you allow science to be the main focal point of basing your interpretation of Genesis?

#2, are you stating that the passages are still literal, but the meaning, of who God is, is beyond the literal?

For instance we see God as Creator of man in His image. It shows us to have freedom that we use to disobey God and it shows the existence of our disobedience when Cain kills Abel. We have a theodicy of what would happen if God intervened to rid the world of evil (it is no coincidence that evil existed before and after Noah’s boatride). In short, these passages are clearly telling a story about God and His relationship with the world and are setting the stage for God’s covenant with Abraham. Because of the deep allegorical meaning to these passages I find no reason to view them as anything but allegory.

As I agree with much of what you are stating above, I believe there is also more to the story than just that. In Genesis, we see the beginning of mankind and God actually working within history, within mankind's lives - their real lives - to that speaks of who God is. Why is it that you cannot accept that Genesis 1-11 could be speaking of real events that took place?
The literal meaning of the flood to me, is that God will carry out judgement within this very real world. He will not resort to just presenting myths to say He will judge, but will actually carry out His judgement. Just as I believe when Jesus Christ comes, He really will come and judge the world. It is not a future myth, but a real historical event that will transpire. Now, we can talk about the deeper meaning of who God is within these passages. He presents Himself as one who extends mercy for quite some time and when man does not respond, He will judge mankind, thus we know He is a Righteous Judge, Merciful and extends Grace to mankind.

Is God only these things in myths, or is He these things in our very real existence?

That’s not really what I meant when I said that the freedom of the creative process allowed us to become an “other.” Love is best expressed toward someone else. We needed the freedom of creation to become someone “other” than God so that we could share in a loving relationship with Him and each other. Christ showed us how to best accept God’s love and love each other at the same time. I agree we should all strive to be Christ-like although at times it seems like an impossible task.

Then if one needs to be separate from God to experience God's love, how do you approach the Trinity where the Father does love the Son and the Son does love the Father? Do you take Origens side on this and deny the existence of the Trinity?

 

[Critias]

As long as you don't let an evolutionists examine your head you should be ok. I find it wise to have an objective mind when it comes to all scientific claims. Most of the scientific papers are probably wrong.

Most published scientific research papers are wrong, according to a new analysis. Assuming that the new paper is itself correct, problems with experimental and statistical methods mean that there is less than a 50% chance that the results of any randomly chosen scientific paper are true.

John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at the University of Ioannina School of Medicine in Greece, says that small sample sizes, poor study design, researcher bias, and selective reporting and other problems combine to make most research findings false.

 

[gluadys]

Most published scientific research papers are wrong, according to a new analysis. Assuming that the new paper is itself correct, problems with experimental and statistical methods mean that there is less than a 50% chance that the results of any randomly chosen scientific paper are true.

John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at the University of Ioannina School of Medicine in Greece, says that small sample sizes, poor study design, researcher bias, and selective reporting and other problems combine to make most research findings false.

And that is why most research findings never make their way into textbooks.

Publishing a paper is only an early step in developing new scientific information. Publishing a paper puts it out to be critiqued. Many, perhaps most, scientific papers do not withstand criticism well. It is the few that withstand critique, whose results hold up to new tests, more observations, new information, etc. that become part of the body of scientific knowledge.

 

[artybloke]

And what was God's purpose to speak in myths instead of history? The Israelites understood what history was in their time.

I'm not an expert on God's purposes but then neither are you. But the second statement does not accord with reality. They had an idea of history - and, like every other nation around them, including the Babylonians, Greeks, Moabites, Egyptians, etc. that idea included mythology and legend. The history of Rome included the story of it being founded by two people who were raised by wolves. The history of Babylon includes the Epic of Gilgamesh, and the history of Sumeria includes its myths and legends. For the ancients, history and mythology/legend were one and the same thing.

Apart from anything else, they had no way of recovering past histories; there were no archives of documents (if they were, they'd be the first to go when the next invasion came), they had no notion of what archeology or historical evidence was, the only way they recorded things was by carving them on steles. All history was written from the point of view of the victors, and was therefore inevitably distorted and biased. They had no basis for a truely scientific view of history, and probably felt no need for it.

So what is your perspective on why God inspired Moses to speak of myths instead of the history in which God works?

I don't see what Moses (a legendary figure for whose existence there is no corroborating evidence; but let's suppose for argument's sake he did) has to with the writing of Genesis; but let's look at from the point of view of the writers. They have an experience of God that they wish to pass on; and they wish to establish a justification for the society that they are setting up. What better way than to take ancient myths that were common to that area and rewrite them according to Hebrew principles? Everyone lived in a mythological framework; the scientific paradigm was not to appear above the horizon for over a thousand years: so they told stories, midrashes, allegories because that is what people in those days heard (most of whom would have little or no education, and couldn't read: and that very often included royalty. It's was only usually scribes and priests who could read and write.)

Stories, legends and myths were how both truth and lies were spread in those days. There was no other way of doing it.

 

[Critias]

I'm not an expert on God's purposes but then neither are you. But the second statement does not accord with reality. They had an idea of history - and, like every other nation around them, including the Babylonians, Greeks, Moabites, Egyptians, etc. that idea included mythology and legend. The history of Rome included the story of it being founded by two people who were raised by wolves. The history of Babylon includes the Epic of Gilgamesh, and the history of Sumeria includes its myths and legends. For the ancients, history and mythology/legend were one and the same thing.

Well, we have writings from this time recording actual events that took place, that in and of itself is history. I believe the Israelites understood that what happened yesterday, if recorded, would be recorded history. I don't view them as stupid, ignorant fools who could not think for themselves. I believe they had intelligence.

I think what you are showing is what most TEs subscribe to, that myths were meant as real history and those who wrote them didn't understand any differently. Instead, it is tossed aside as if no bid deal, or to cover the truth, that the kings commissioned the writers to write myths to exalt the king.

Apart from anything else, they had no way of recovering past histories; there were no archives of documents (if they were, they'd be the first to go when the next invasion came), they had no notion of what archeology or historical evidence was, the only way they recorded things was by carving them on steles. All history was written from the point of view of the victors, and was therefore inevitably distorted and biased. They had no basis for a truely scientific view of history, and probably felt no need for it.

I suppose you deny the archaeological finds of a school library in Ur that contained history books? They were not written as myths either, for there was literature, science, religion, mathematics, medical, history, etc.

You are aware that all recorded history is biased, are you not? The outcomes of the events and what transpire mostly remain the same, but who did what to start what is not always the same in every culture. If you think I am wrong, then look at how America views terrorism and how terrorists view it. The outcome remains the same, but the motivation for each side is completely different because of biases.

Even a new story talks about research papers by scientists being biased because of their view points and small sample sizes. It is said that one would have a hard time finding anything written by scientists that was not biased in some fashion or another. It is the human way, the human perception, you cannot escape having some bias in your view points.

And if you think that what we do today, is the only real science, then you will be laughed at in 100 years. For in 100 years they say we didn't know what science was. It is human nature to think that when we are alive, we are the greatest generation to ever live; the smartest, most talented, with the most knowledge of our surroundings, etc. It is purely self-exaltation to say that the people in the past just aren't as smart as we are today.

I don't see what Moses (a legendary figure for whose existence there is no corroborating evidence; but let's suppose for argument's sake he did) has to with the writing of Genesis; but let's look at from the point of view of the writers. They have an experience of God that they wish to pass on; and they wish to establish a justification for the society that they are setting up. What better way than to take ancient myths that were common to that area and rewrite them according to Hebrew principles? Everyone lived in a mythological framework; the scientific paradigm was not to appear above the horizon for over a thousand years: so they told stories, midrashes, allegories because that is what people in those days heard (most of whom would have little or no education, and couldn't read: and that very often included royalty. It's was only usually scribes and priests who could read and write.)

Then I suppose you think that when Jesus Christ was transfigured on the Mount that was not Moses there? Who was it with Elijah and Jesus then? Or is that just a myth too? So then Peter is a liar when he states he did not make up that story...

Stories, legends and myths were how both truth and lies were spread in those days. There was no other way of doing it.

You must really think they are quite dumb to not be able to understand that what transpires in time, actual events can be recorded. And yet, we have archaeological finds that proves your statements to be false. I suppose you rather follow your bias, than reality.

 

[gluadys]

Then I suppose you think that when Jesus Christ was transfigured on the Mount that was not Moses there? Who was it with Elijah and Jesus then? Or is that just a myth too? So then Peter is a liar when he states he did not make up that story...

Do you have any understanding of what corroboration means? Peter had an experience on the mountain in which he saw, or at least thought he saw, Moses and Elijah speaking to Jesus.

How do we know this?

Because Peter told us.

With all due respect to Peter, for we have no reason to doubt his testimony, this is not corroboration.

It could be a false claim. Not saying I think it is, but it is a possibility.

It could be a misinterpretation of his experience. Again, not saying it is, but it is a possibility.

It could be an actual event. We tend to treat it as such because we trust Peter's testimony.

But trusting Peter's testimony is not corroboration.

So trusting Peter's testimony is an act of faith in Peter's trustworthiness and truthfulness.

It does not establish that the Transfiguration happened or that it happened as Peter described it.

Why do creationists have such a hard time admitting that their beliefs are beliefs, not corroborated fact? Isn't faith supposed to be the essential characteristic of religion? Isn't that the reason we create creeds and statements of faith? To say: this is what we believe? We have no evidence that these things happened, but we believe the testimony of those who have told us of them.

With corroboration from other sources, we would not need to believe.

 

[Critias]

How many sources do you demand, for there was John and James as well who saw what happened?

I guess, my faith in what is written has no doubts that it is the truth and I treat it as such. Sorry...

 

[stumpjumper]

And what was God's purpose to speak in myths instead of history? The Israelites understood what history was in their time. So what is your perspective on why God inspired Moses to speak of myths instead of the history in which God works?

Because that is the way that stories were told in those times. It is a mythical story about God's creative acts in our world. It is a way to put the incomprehensible into a form in which people could understand. We still don't understand. Man moves ever into mystery without abandoning the world.

So when did sin enter the world and who commited it if you don't believe there is an Adam and Eve? And why, if it is the foundation for the reason for Jesus Christ coming to earth to die and be resurrected, do you think God left out the history of it out of the Bible?

Original sin is different from actual sin even if you follow a literal account of Genesis. The sin is turning away from God and seeking our own path. Faith and doubt are each one side of a coin. It is our unbelief that makes faith possible yet it is this unbelief that is universal among all people at some times. Can you honestly say that you do not hold doubts?

This has been with the created world from the beginning. It is our fault because if we did not exist we would not have this separateness. Only God could reconcile this relationship and He did so on the Cross were our unbelief was crucified.

And what about the pupils of the Apostles who fought against the Greeks teachings of the earth being very old? What about their teachings that God made one man whom all mankind came from to refute the Greeks naturalistic view point on life?

Is it your perspective that the pupils of the Apostles are just plain wrong? It seems to me, that because of these writing we have of the Early Church Fathers, we can conclude that the Apostles themselves were speaking of a literal history when they refered to the Genesis accounts.

Origen, whom I do not believe that you have a very high opinion of, was considered the first Christian philosopher. He is considered this becuase he make a connection between Greek philosophy and Christian teachings. To the Greeks the universe was eternal not just very old. Through his philosphical writings Origen showed it to have a beginning. He believed in a young earth but that was well before any modern scientific investigation.

So, you do admit that you allow science to be the main focal point of basing your interpretation of Genesis?

I look at it from many sides. I believe that the natural world is part of God's revelation as do all theologians. Look at the formal arguments for God's existence the Kalam Cosmological Argument, the Teleological Argument, Anthropic principle etc. These are all based upon our study of the natural world. If you want to use those arguments than you need to let our natural world influence your view of the Bible as well.

The earth and universe may be younger than 13.5 byo and 4.5 byo for earth, but scientific inquiry has dealt a literal reading of Genesis a TKO. There really is no way around that unless you follow that satan buried all those fossils and extinct hominids.

Is God only these things in myths, or is He these things in our very real existence?

I believe that God worked in real history but the myths tell us what we need to know about the nature of God.

Then if one needs to be separate from God to experience God's love, how do you approach the Trinity where the Father does love the Son and the Son does love the Father? Do you take Origens side on this and deny the existence of the Trinity?

You are bordering upon the Arian heresy by separating the Father from the Son. God the Father and God the Son are one. We are something "other" than God so that God's love could be expressed. There are so many different formulations of the trinity but this is my favorite: "Man knows God the Father when he knows God as infinitely distant, man knows God the Son when he knows God as infinitely close, and man knows God the Holy Spirit when he experiences God penetrating existence and history." The late great Karl Rahner.

 

[Critias]

Because that is the way that stories were told in those times. It is a mythical story about God's creative acts in our world. It is a way to put the incomprehensible into a form in which people could understand. We still don't understand. Man moves ever into mystery without abandoning the world.

Yes, stories were told like this, and yet they also told of their history as well; events that actually took place where God intervened.

I often hear it being said, 'look to the Greeks and the Romans how they told stories,' yet those who make such statements forget that this is the same time in which Jesus Christ walked the earth. I believe man has been quite capable of telling about his history. Even cave paintings point to this.

Original sin is different from actual sin even if you follow a literal account of Genesis. The sin is turning away from God and seeking our own path. Faith and doubt are each one side of a coin. It is our unbelief that makes faith possible yet it is this unbelief that is universal among all people at some times. Can you honestly say that you do not hold doubts?

I don't hold doubts on God's existence or that Jesus Christ is the True Son of God, God Himself, or that God moved holy men to write what He wanted to be said to mankind. I don't doubt that God has preserved the Scriptures to this day.

Original sin is not unbelief, it is pure rebellion against God. God said, do not eat of the Tree of Knowledge. It was a command, not a suggestion. It was Satan who came along and said to Eve, 'Did God really say not to eat of any tree in the garden?' Adam and Eve's eating of the tree was rebellion against God; man deciding he will do what he wants to do regardless of what God says. This is the original sin that brought sin into the world, that opened the eyes of Adam and Eve to evil. Evil made its way into a world where it did not exist. That evil is still here today, causing creation to be in bondage. We are born sinful, we aren't born sinless. We are corrupted because evil resides in the world. The original sin of rebellion still exists within mankind, within his/her heart. We are wicked people whose flesh wars against God. That is our natural tendancy, to rebel against God. It is not the unbelief of God, but defying God that is mans nature.

With evolution, when did the knowledge of evil come into the world?

This has been with the created world from the beginning. It is our fault because if we did not exist we would not have this separateness. Only God could reconcile this relationship and He did so on the Cross were our unbelief was crucified.

So do you take the position that God created us to know evil and it wasn't Adam and Eve's choice to know evil?

Origen, whom I do not believe that you have a very high opinion of, was considered the first Christian philosopher. He is considered this becuase he make a connection between Greek philosophy and Christian teachings. To the Greeks the universe was eternal not just very old. Through his philosphical writings Origen showed it to have a beginning. He believed in a young earth but that was well before any modern scientific investigation.

Actually, I have a lot of respect for Origen. I don't agree with him that everyone is going to be saved regardless if they believe in Jesus Christ or not. I believe this position of his says there is no reason for evangelism because everyone will be saved. And let us not forget that it puts Jesus as a liar when He says He is the Only Way and no one gets to the Father but through Him.

I look at it from many sides. I believe that the natural world is part of God's revelation as do all theologians. Look at the formal arguments for God's existence the Kalam Cosmological Argument, the Teleological Argument, Anthropic principle etc. These are all based upon our study of the natural world. If you want to use those arguments than you need to let our natural world influence your view of the Bible as well.

The earth and universe may be younger than 13.5 byo and 4.5 byo for earth, but scientific inquiry has dealt a literal reading of Genesis a TKO. There really is no way around that unless you follow that satan buried all those fossils and extinct hominids.

I also believe the natural world is part of God's revelation. But I don't think that scientists are the holy men of today speaking God's divine word for all men to believe when concerning creation.

I follow what Paul teaches when he says test everything against Scripture. Evolution says gradually process of the development of man. The Bible says man was created in one day. The only way around that is to say Genesis is a myth, but then you must provide your proof of the assertion. You must explain why the verbs with Genesis do not support the myth assertion and why the New Testament authors supported a literal Genesis including Jesus Christ. After all, Jesus is God and He should know; through Him all things were created. The Jews at this time believed the creation and flood account were literal. The pupils of the Apostles argued against the Greeks who didn't believe they were literal. The Apostles themselves affirm it is literal.

I believe that God worked in real history but the myths tell us what we need to know about the nature of God.

Do you think the real literal historical accounts of Jesus Christ tell us of the nature of God?

You are bordering upon the Arian heresy by separating the Father from the Son. God the Father and God the Son are one. We are something "other" than God so that God's love could be expressed. There are so many different formulations of the trinity but this is my favorite: "Man knows God the Father when he knows God as infinitely distant, man knows God the Son when he knows God as infinitely close, and man knows God the Holy Spirit when he experiences God penetrating existence and history." The late great Karl Rahner.

Very nice turn around to make it look as if I was the one claiming that in order for God to love another, the other must be separated from Him. You stated that in order for God to love another, the other must be separted from Him. So, the logical question to ask, SINCE THE FATHER, SON AND HOLY SPIRIT ARE ONE, (i want to make sure this clear) how does the Father love the Son and the Son loves the Father when you state that God must be separate from what He loves?

This is your statement:

We needed the freedom of creation to become someone “other” than God so that we could share in a loving relationship with Him

 

[stumpjumper]

With evolution, when did the knowledge of evil come into the world?

So do you take the position that God created us to know evil and it wasn't Adam and Eve's choice to know evil?

Unbelief is rebelling from God but that doesn't really matter.

Do you believe that evil "exists" as an entity with ontological status or is it a perversion of good. IOW, I believe "evil" occurs when we turn from God and do not follow our moral good sense which we know about because of God.

Very nice turn around to make it look as if I was the one claiming that in order for God to love another, the other must be separated from Him. You stated that in order for God to love another, the other must be separted from Him. So, the logical question to ask, SINCE THE FATHER, SON AND HOLY SPIRIT ARE ONE, (i want to make sure this clear) how does the Father love the Son and the Son loves the Father when you state that God must be separate from what He loves?

God is one and the trinity is simply a way to explain the different manifestations of God. We are created separate so that God could express His love outwardly toward others. We can love ourself but we are taught "love your neighbor as you love yourself." If one only loved oneself that would lead to spiritual emptyness.

What does this passage mean to you?: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Many evolutionists here have said on numerous occasions that God gave us a brain so that we would use it. Nothing wrong with that, as long as how we use it is aligned with the Word of God. Well, based on the one thing I can claim to possess or be gifted with, common sense, combined with all that God so graciously gave me to understand the world that I live in; is more than enough from which to make an informed Godly decision. No two year minimum studies in biology or theology are required for me to form a basis for this observation. Just the Bible and the Holy Spirit’s indwelling are necessary.
[]
As I’ve stated here many times before, it’s God’s Word that determines my beliefs and forms my opinions, not man’s reasoning and deductions about what happened supposedly billions of years ago. Once we introduce fallible man and his knowledge as being superior to God’s, well, I think you get the point.

So you follow the Bible in believing the Sun goes around the Earth?
Do you go to the Bible for your medical knowledge as well?

 

[vossler]

So you follow the Bible in believing the Sun goes around the Earth?
Do you go to the Bible for your medical knowledge as well?

If the Bible told me that the Sun goes around the earth then it would be so. I'd certainly believe it before I would believe some scientist. Since it doesn't tell me that, I'll go with what science says.

So you follow a scientist that says your origins are from an ape or maybe an amoeba? O.K.

Since the Bible doesn't tell me much about medicine it would be rather difficult to go there for medical information. However, it does tell me everything that is essential to my life.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

If the Bible told me that the Sun goes around the earth then it would be so. I'd certainly believe it before I would believe some scientist. Since it doesn't tell me that, I'll go with what science says.

So you follow a scientist that says your origins are from an ape or maybe an amoeba? O.K.

Since the Bible doesn't tell me much about medicine it would be rather difficult to go there for medical information. However, it does tell me everything that is essential to my life.

does your Bible contain it's own Table of Contents?
that is where in Scripture is the list of books that comprise it written?
i would assume that the table of contents is essential.

to be more specific in what book is it written that the book of tobith is not Scripture and the book of Jude is?

 

[Critias]

does your Bible contain it's own Table of Contents?
that is where in Scripture is the list of books that comprise it written?
i would assume that the table of contents is essential.

to be more specific in what book is it written that the book of tobith is not Scripture and the book of Jude is?

I don't see the table of contents being all that important. I can find the books quite easily without it.

I believe what is in the Bible is Scripture because I have faith that God has preserved His word as He said He would.

 

[Critias]

Unbelief is rebelling from God but that doesn't really matter.

And I can rebel against God while believing in Him. I know I do everyday, even when I try not to.

It is not the unbelief in Him or His message, it is the fact that we do know and believe, yet still sin.

When you sin, is it because for that moment you lost belief that there is a God, or that you lost belief of His message?

Do you believe that evil "exists" as an entity with ontological status or is it a perversion of good. IOW, I believe "evil" occurs when we turn from God and do not follow our moral good sense which we know about because of God.

Simply put, evil is the absense of good. Since in the beginning everything was Very Good, evil was absent. Because Eve and Adam chose to not follow God's command, they chose to bring evil into the world.

I disagree that we can rely on our moral good sense to keep from evil. I believe that our very being is corrupt because of the knowledge of evil that is within the world. I also believe it is God, not our moral good sense that can keep us holy.

Evil is not a "person" that we can touch, smell, and see. Evil is rebellion against God.

God is one and the trinity is simply a way to explain the different manifestations of God. We are created separate so that God could express His love outwardly toward others. We can love ourself but we are taught "love your neighbor as you love yourself." If one only loved oneself that would lead to spiritual emptyness.

You specifically said that in order for God to express His love, He must create something "other" than Himself. Yet, God the Father expresses His love of God the Son. Likewise, the Son expresses His love of the Father. Either, you didn't mean what you said, or there are problems with what you stated.

Do you think the Father is spiritually empty because He expresses love to the Son?

What does this passage mean to you?: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)

Simply put, it means Jesus Christ is the only way to the Father. He is the road to salvation. We each are stained with sin and God cannot look upon us, nor can He withhold His Judgement from us. He is a Righteous God. It is when we believe Jesus' claims to who He is and when we pick up our own crosses and follow Him, that we may be saved. This is because Jesus paid the price for our sins. On the cross He died, His blood was shed for our sins. His blood washes over our stains and makes then clean so that God can look upon us and accept us into His Kingdom. God remains Holy and Righteous, for His Judgement that was meant for you and me, came down on Jesus Christ. If we choose to not believe in Jesus and follow Him, then His blood does not cover our stains and God will judge us for what we have done.

Jesus' yoke is easy, we believe in Him, follow Him and He pays the price for us. He did all the work for us.

That is what I believe it means when Jesus says He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. He is the only way to the Father, no other but Jesus can save you; He is Truth that passes all understanding; and He is the Life because He died for us. There is salvation in none other.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

If the Bible told me that the Sun goes around the earth then it would be so. I'd certainly believe it before I would believe some scientist. Since it doesn't tell me that, I'll go with what science says.

So you follow a scientist that says your origins are from an ape or maybe an amoeba? O.K.

Since the Bible doesn't tell me much about medicine it would be rather difficult to go there for medical information. However, it does tell me everything that is essential to my life.

does your Bible contain it's own Table of Contents?
that is where in Scripture is the list of books that comprise it written?
i would assume that the table of contents is essential.

to be more specific in what book is it written that the book of tobith is not Scripture and the book of Jude is?

I don't see the table of contents being all that important. I can find the books quite easily without it.

I believe what is in the Bible is Scripture because I have faith that God has preserved His word as He said He would.

i should not be surprised that so little real communication happens here.
but i continue to be.
you missed the whole point, by a wide margin.
hint: canon

...