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.
My problem with evolution is how is it that people believe in it without the actual observation of it taking place, something like our observation of a caterpillar changing into a butterfly.The cross was certainly a part of the plan for this universe, and evolution was one of the tools God used to make it come about.
actual observation of it taking place
Give me an animal or two and I'll go check it out.Evolution has been observed. Go read up on speciation.
I do agree that some 'creationist' rely on blind faith sometimes, especially when it comes to the age of the earth; 6 to 10 thousand years sounds to me a bit off in light of the fossil records.As for "blind faith," creationism takes far more of that than evolution. Unlike creationism, there is actually evidence for evolution.
That's what God's Word is, convenient.How very convenient!
Agreed, except one of us is probably more wrong.But we can both be wrong.
The Bible says that we are to choose life. It also states that God formed me and you in our mother's womb. If the taking of another life doesn't bother you that's between you and God.That is the point to be established. The bible does not suggest that abortion is murder or equivalent to murder. The bible prescribes the death penalty for murder, adultery, blasphemy and a number of other sins, but never for abortion. If it really was thought of as murder, there would be case law in the bible for it.
So because I believe the taking of another life is murder your response is I shouldn't take a stand on it because at some point in my past or present I've stolen. Is it any wonder why I made my original point?Again you assume what has not been established. And you also forget what James told us: if you offend in one point of the law, you have offended. You cannot take credit for not murdering if at the same time you steal. You cannot take credit for a strong stance against abortion if at the same time you vote for tax reductions instead of day care.
If you wish to split hairs as to what the Bible specifically says is or isn't murder that's up to you. I'm sure there are countless ways you can kill someone that aren't mentioned in the Bible, so according to you they must all be legal. Now who's being the literalist? Once again, this just proves my original point.Yes. Unless one holds strictly to "thou shalt not kill" no matter what the circumstances. As long as there is a distinction drawn between killing and murder, the line of distinction must be set out. This is especially so when one makes a crusade against one type of killing. It must be clear that this is indeed murder.
Consider another case. The biblical injunction on adultery prescribes capital punishment. In some parts of the world "honour killings" of women are still considered acceptable. In biblical times to kill an adulterer was not murder. But today we are shocked when the Taliban applies that standard and consider the executions of women for adultery to be judicial murder.
So, yes, it is important--if one is claiming biblical support--that the bible identify abortion as murder. And it does not.
To twist Scripture to your liking of course.Make what easier?
That's what God's Word is, convenient.
Agreed, except one of us is probably more wrong.
The Bible says that we are to choose life.
If the taking of another life doesn't bother you that's between you and God.
Now who's being the literalist?
To twist Scripture to your liking of course.
Is abortion choosing life? What do you call it when someone takes life?But it also draws a distinction between taking life and murder.
I especially choose the life of the unborn because they have no voice of their own. With regard to war I support defending yourself whether it be against an intruder in your home or in your land and that defense includes death. Sometimes such a defense might even mean a good offense. Capital punishment is something I have questions concerning, there appear to be not enough safeguards on how it is implemented. The other topics are clearly not relevant so I won't comment.So do you choose only the life of the unborn or do you choose life in all respects?
So for you unless an act is clearly defined in the Bible as murder, you believe the act should not be considered murder. Am I correct?Indeed, I am often more of a literalist than those who claim to be. As has often been noted, all of us choose what to interpret literally and what to interpret figuratively. We just choose differently.
If you can twist something as simple as Genesis then it makes it so much easier to twist the rest.Oh? It has always been easy to twist scripture to one's liking...Conservatives do it as much or more than TEs. How does accepting evolution make it easier?
Because the Bible says "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."Why not just call it an interpretation you do not support?
Is abortion choosing life? What do you call it when someone takes life?
I especially choose the life of the unborn because they have no voice of their own.
With regard to war I support defending yourself whether it be against an intruder in your home or in your land and that defense includes death. Sometimes such a defense might even mean a good offense. Capital punishment is something I have questions concerning, there appear to be not enough safeguards on how it is implemented
The other topics are clearly not relevant so I won't comment.
So for you unless an act is clearly defined in the Bible as murder, you believe the act should not be considered murder. Am I correct?
If you can twist something as simple as Genesis then it makes it so much easier to twist the rest.
Because the Bible says "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."
sounds like you are believing whatever you wish about TE's rather than actually letting them tell you what they believe.You really make it more complicated than it is. Simply put, I believe TEs and non-believers (I will limit my comments to TEs) support evolution because it gives them the ability to believe whatever it is they wish instead of being held accountable to God and His Word.
oh do tellFor the TE, here's how it plays out.
there is no such thing as a "plain meaning."If I am able to take the plain meaning of Scripture in something as simple as the creation story and twist it to say something entirely different
Jesus is God's Word, The creation stories are in our scripture. To confuse the two is idolatry.then the door has been thrown open to take other truths of God's Word and manipulate them as well,
reallY? And while you are believing whatever it is you want to believe about TE's, you are also judging motive incorrectly, assigning subterfuge where none exists. Sometimes the "plain reading" of a TE is the bestall in an effort to cover our personal sins.
probably more than you think and this is not limited to those who believe in evolution.Remember, sin is something many of us wish to sweep away and pretend didn't exist
perhaps, but it doesn't take belief in evolution to go there!because if held accountable we would then be held responsible for changing our behavior
as a long standing TE in this fora, you are right on the money!and we all know how popular change is, especially any change that requires an effort that could be painful.
but no one is twisting anything. You keep assuming improper motive where none exists. They are interpreting it differently than your interpretation.Why change when you can simply justify your sin by twisting Scripture to accommodate it?
does that mean you think TE's can fly, walk through fire, stop bullets with their minds?--all because you think they know how to twist scripture?When we can appease our guilty conscience by twisting Scripture to state that which is sin to be good, well then we can do just about anything.
and do you suggest that you DON'T cherry pick which parts of the Bible you "believe in?"I can't speak for you or anyone specifically, all I can do is give you my observations. I know that almost 100% of the time when I speak to someone who claims to be a Christian and they believe in things like abortion, gay marriage, etc. they are evolutionists. You may see this as fictitious but it's in my face all the time. So yes, there are TEs who believe in the fall, in the incarnation, etc. but I would submit they cherry pick the doctrines they support and believe. It's my belief they do this so they won't have to confront their own sins. BTW, this clearly explains why TEs are all over the theological map of doctrinal beliefs.
hello old friend, long time no seeAs are creationists; there are creationists who are Catholic and Lutheran, evangelical, and even cults or other religions. So why does it surprise you that TEs are doctrinally all over the map?
You have to determine which set is larger. Certainly, many of those who are proponents of abortion and gay marriage also accept evolution. It does NOT logically follow that the converse is true. I, for example, am extremely conservative, and yet I accept TE.
This explains a lot, murdering a helpless child could be considered justifiable homicide. Right now I couldn't be happier that I'm not an evolutionist.Depends on the situation. I think in some cases abortion is murder and in others it may be justifiable homicide.
Anyone who stands up for those who can't stand for themselves should never be discouraged regardless of who else they choose to stand for. The fact that you find this a problem I find very disturbing.I don't begrudge you speaking for the unborn. It is focusing on them while neglecting or even opposing the needs of others.
Neither do I or any other people I know....but I don't set the life of the unborn above or against the life of everyone else.
The premeditated killing of an innocent life is always murder.So you too make a distinction between killing and murder. Taking life is not always murder. Choosing life does not always mean choosing not to kill.
They're not relevant to my points or this discussion. All it would do is deflect attention from something else.Do you really think killing at a distance or indirectly makes it irrelevant?
How convenient.No. There are actions the bible does not call murder which I would call murder. The genocide of the population of conquered cities for example.
Sure there are plenty of people who twist scripture to their benefit and yes some of them are Creationists. However, just because they're a Creationist doesn't give them a free pass, at least not from me. However without a doubt those who accept evolution are far more prone to do it.But it is already easy. I see a great deal of twisting of scripture by those who accept the same interpretation of Genesis as you do. It doesn't seem to matter whether one accepts evolution or not when it comes to misusing scripture.
Martin Luther once said:Which tells us absolutely nothing about interpreting scripture! You and I can both believe in the inspiration and usefulness of scripture and still come to different conclusions about what it means. Why do you have to call an interpretation you disagree with "twisting"? Why not just "an interpretation I do not support"?
What does evolution have to do with it? My YEC pastor always taught that abortion is justifiable if the life of the child-bearing mother is in jeopardy. Better to save one life than to lose two.This explains a lot, murdering a helpless child could be considered justifiable homicide. Right now I couldn't be happier that I'm not an evolutionist.
I always hear this justification for abortion, this one is a favorite. Instead of focusing on the justifications for over 99% of abortions they hone in on this obscure one in order to find some way of supporting their view of how 'humane' they are by allowing abortion. Sounds really good, doesn't it, save one life rather than lose two? Let's see, of the 52 million abortions performed in the US since Roe I'll bet there probably were, at best, a couple thousand that fall into this category. Yet this is the one people continually use. So let's murder 51.9 million so that we can save 2,000.What does evolution have to do with it? My YEC pastor always taught that abortion is justifiable if the life of the child-bearing mother is in jeopardy. Better to save one life than to lose two.
What do you think about that?
Not quite sure you get the argument. The argument is that only in those cases where the mother and child are both in danger is abortion permissible. I'm certainly not arguing that all abortion is permissible. I'm not advocating the death of thousands to save one unborn child.I always hear this justification for abortion, this one is a favorite. Instead of focusing on the justifications for over 99% of abortions they hone in on this obscure one in order to find some way of supporting their view of how 'humane' they are by allowing abortion. Sounds really good, doesn't it, save one life rather than lose two? Let's see, of the 52 million abortions performed in the US since Roe I'll bet there probably were, at best, a couple thousand that fall into this category. Yet this is the one people continually use. So let's murder 51.9 million so that we can save 2,000.
Sometimes it's not that straightforward. Particularly with preemies.To answer your question, no I still wouldn't support it. I'd rather save the child than the mother and in my mind so would any real mother.
Like I said, that's a wonderful sounding argument but in reality it is truly worthless because no one who argues that view argues strongly to eliminate all other abortions.Not quite sure you get the argument. The argument is that only in those cases where the mother and child are both in danger is abortion permissible. I'm certainly not arguing that all abortion is permissible. I'm not advocating the death of thousands to save one unborn child.
Do you know of anyone who ever fit that description?Sometimes it's not that straightforward. Particularly with preemies.
I don't blame abortion on evolution, I blame evolution for allowing the 'twisting of scripture' to permit the support of abortion.Still don't know why you blame abortion on evolution...
If the argument is that abortion is only permissible in such circumstances, then obviously abortion under other circumstances in impermissible. It's true by definition.Like I said, that's a wonderful sounding argument but in reality it is truly worthless because no one who argues that view argues strongly to eliminate all other abortions.
Yes. Believe it or not, miscarriages are not uncommon and are often quite dangerous to the expectant mother.Do you know of anyone who ever fit that description?
Like I said, my YEC pastor advocated abortion under certain circumstances. Maybe it's YECism that twists Scripture instead...I don't blame abortion on evolution, I blame evolution for allowing the 'twisting of scripture' to permit the support of abortion.
This explains a lot, murdering a helpless child could be considered justifiable homicide.
The premeditated killing of an innocent life is always murder.
They're not relevant to my points or this discussion. All it would do is deflect attention from something else.
Sure there are plenty of people who twist scripture to their benefit and yes some of them are Creationists. However, just because they're a Creationist doesn't give them a free pass, at least not from me. However without a doubt those who accept evolution are far more prone to do it.
Martin Luther once said:
"If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the Word of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Him. Where the battle rages there the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battle front besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point."This corresponds to my own belief that I must defend Scripture as best I can and should never shy away from stating my beliefs. I try to do that and will only change my opinion when shown, primarily via Scripture, that my view is incorrect.
Wasn't one of the major battles raging in Luther's day geocentrism? And literalist Luther was actually on the wrong side, calling Copernicus a fool for contradicting the plain meaning of scripture. Did the church change its opinion about the geocentric interpretation because they were 'shown primarily via Scripture, that their view was incorrect' or did they learn this from science and simply go back to scripture to find a better way to interpret these passages because science had shown them the traditional literal interpretation was wrong?Martin Luther once said:"If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the Word of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Him. Where the battle rages there the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battle front besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point."This corresponds to my own belief that I must defend Scripture as best I can and should never shy away from stating my beliefs. I try to do that and will only change my opinion when shown, primarily via Scripture, that my view is incorrect.
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?