Why evolution should not be a religious issue

[Subduction Zone]

I am not sure what you mean by that but I am happy to know that you are not saying that Jesus was wrong.

He never said that Jesus was wrong. Jesus never said that the stories of Genesis were true. Jesus used various teaching tools, I have not seen anything quoted by any literalist that indicated that Jesus believed in the stories from Genesis.

And even if he had one needs to remember that the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses.

 

[Radrook]

He never said that Jesus was wrong. Jesus never said that the stories of Genesis were true. Jesus used various teaching tools, I have not seen anything quoted by any literalist that indicated that Jesus believed in the stories from Genesis.

And even if he had one needs to remember that the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses.

Jesus treated and viewed them as factual as all other Jews who read and respected the OT as recorded history did. So I guess we disagree on that opinion.

BTW
The way that you use the term "literalist "demonstrates that you are biblically illiterate since anyone even vaguely familiar with the Bible knows that it contains both literal and symbolic language and that both are very easily distinguishable from the other.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Jesus treated and viewed them as factual as all other Jews who read and respected the OT as recorded history did. So I guess we disagree on that opinion.

He may have acted as if they were real. Even if the Jesus story was true his goal was not to correct the scientific errors of the Bible.


But he never confirmed them. You can't find a verse where he did. Just referring to ancient revered, but not real, characters is not confirming there existence. It is a lot like saying that someone is "as old as the hills". It is not lying since the meaning is understood and there was no attempt to convince someone that when the hills were formed that the person was already in existence.

 

[Radrook]

He may have acted as if they were real. Even if the Jesus story was true his goal was not to correct the scientific errors of the Bible.


But he never confirmed them. You can't find a verse where he did. Just referring to ancient revered, but not real, characters is not confirming there existence. It is a lot like saying that someone is "as old as the hills". It is not lying since the meaning is understood and there was no attempt to convince someone that when the hills were formed that the person was already in existence.

Jesus was not the double-minded personage that you are describing him or perhaps are perceiving him to be. At least not from the Christian viewpoint he isn't. From the atheist viewpoint? Well, I guess anything that comes to mind and seems to denigrate him in some way becomes a convenient fair game from that particular Godless vantage point.

 

[Speedwell]

Jesus was not the double-minded personage that you are describing him or perhaps are perceiving him to be. At least not from the Christian viewpoint he isn't. From the atheist viewpoint? Well, I guess anything that comes to mind and seems to denigrate him in some way becomes a convenient fair game from that particular Godless vantage point.

Denigrate? All SZ is doing is reminding you that your "calling Christ a liar" argument is bootless.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Jesus was not the double-minded personage that you are describing him or perhaps are perceiving him to be. At least not from the Christian viewpoint he isn't. From the atheist viewpoint? Well, I guess anything that comes to mind and seems to denigrate him in some way becomes a convenient fair game from that particular Godless vantage point.

You keep mistaking your viewpoint as the viewpoint of all Christians. We know that life is the product of evolution. We know that there never was a worldwide flood. It would appear that if anyone is trying to make Jesus out as being "double-minded" it would be you. I am merely trying to explain how other Christians, and probably most Christians, deal with those facts.

 

[Radrook]

You keep mistaking your viewpoint as the viewpoint of all Christians. We know that life is the product of evolution. We know that there never was a worldwide flood. It would appear that if anyone is trying to make Jesus out as being "double-minded" it would be you. I am merely trying to explain how other Christians, and probably most Christians, deal with those facts.

Evolution has Not been proven a fact and neither has abiogenesis. That Worldwide Flood occurred is very debatable. That Jesus was an unbeliever in the OT historical account he constantly made reference to is merely YOUR atheist personal opinion.

Why Christians Should Believe in a Global Flood
Why Christians Should Believe in a Global Flood | The Institute for Creation Research

9 Scientific Facts Prove the "Theory of Evolution" is False
9 Scientific Facts Prove the "Theory of Evolution" is False | Humans Are Free

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolution has Not been proven a fact and neither has abiogenesis. That Worldwide Flood occurred is very debatable. That Jesus was an unbeliever in the OT historical account he constantly made reference to is merely YOUR atheist personal opinion.

Of course it has been shown to be factually true. And no one mentioned abiogenesis except for you.

And it has been known for well over 200 years that there never was a wroldwide flood. I can refute the claim of a worldwide flood with just one picture. People have to keep themselves ignorant of all science to believe in such a flood. In fact it is more than obvious that if one claims there was a worldwide flood that that person is saying that God is a liar. I did not believe in a lying God when I was a Christian so I did not believe the worldwide flood story.

 

[Radrook]

Of course it has been shown to be factually true. And no one mentioned abiogenesis except for you.

And it has been known for well over 200 years that there never was a wroldwide flood. I can refute the claim of a worldwide flood with just one picture. People have to keep themselves ignorant of all science to believe in such a flood. In fact it is more than obvious that if one claims there was a worldwide flood that that person is saying that God is a liar. I did not believe in a lying God when I was a Christian so I did not believe the worldwide flood story.

Well I guess we disagree:

Why Evolution is False

 

[Speedwell]

That Jesus was an unbeliever in the OT historical account he constantly made reference to is merely YOUR atheist personal opinion.

Of course Jesus was not an "unbeliever" in the Genesis stories. He referred to them and used them in His preaching exactly as any literate person makes use of such stories.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well I guess we disagree:

But that source is worthless. It is merely the writings of a science denier. If you want to discuss why we know that you are wrong in your belief we can do so.
I am a tad busy now, but shortly I will post a picture that refutes your worldwide flood claim.

 

[Renee Tahass]

I already did and you choose to call it bogus.

Do you honestly call that evidence?

The question I asked is in clear English and needs no repetition.

Please ask it again or is that too much to ask?

 

[Radrook]

But that source is worthless. It is merely the writings of a science denier. If you want to discuss why we know that you are wrong in your belief we can do so.
I am a tad busy now, but shortly I will post a picture that refutes your worldwide flood claim.

I once debated those points in detail but after five months of fruitless discussion and finally being told that the reason for the vehement arguments was a deep irrational hatred of religion in general I decided not to waste my time in such detailed debates again,.

 

[Radrook]

But that source is worthless. It is merely the writings of a science denier. If you want to discuss why we know that you are wrong in your belief we can do so.
I am a tad busy now, but shortly I will post a picture that refutes your worldwide flood claim.

Any source provided will be unceremoniously tagged as worthless so one source is as good as another.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I once debated those points in detail but after five months of fruitless discussion and finally being told that the reason for the vehement arguments was a deep irrational hatred of religion in general I decided not to waste my time in such detailed debates again,.

That sounds strange. Why do you hate religion?

 

[Kenny'sID]

I have no agenda.

Of course not.

And I suppose your post #253 is a figment of my imagination as well?

If that's the best you can do in answering my comment on your claim...oh well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Any source provided will be unceremoniously tagged as worthless so one source is as good as another.

If a source cannot back up their claims with peer reviewed science it is pretty much worthless. Peer review does not guarantee that an article is correct. It only means that it does not have any obvious self contradictions. Creationist tripe cannot even pass the relatively low bar of peer review. An idea that can't even get past the relatively low bar of peer review is almost certainly wrong.

 

[Speedwell]

I once debated those points in detail but after five months of fruitless discussion and finally being told that the reason for the vehement arguments was a deep irrational hatred of religion in general I decided not to waste my time in such detailed debates again,.

The problem with those particular sources is not that they are religious, but that they are propaganda, attempting to create an implausible, easily refuted "straw man" version of the theory of evolution. They also suffer from the same fault as you sometimes do, assuming that anyone who differs in any particular with their theology is an atheist who wants to attack religion.

 

[Radrook]

That sounds strange. Why do you hate religion?

Oh! Ok! No problem!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course not.

Kenny, you made a false claim about me. You are the one that has to substantiate it.