Yet Another Theo-Evo Contradiction

[Vance]

I think Mo already refuted this point in his post above.

If someone was not part of Adams linage, then they are not subject to Adams sin that will be passed on throught his descendents.

Well this is a very poor argument. Do you think sin is something passed in the blood? No, this is a very simplistic view of our sinful nature. If you believe that God could impute Adam's sin onto all of us thousands of years later, regardless of our own actions, then you can equally believe that He could impute that sin onto all those humans living at the same time. Imputation is imputation.

Again, the whole concept that we will fail to believe we need redemption if we fail to believe the YEC dogmas has already been conclusively PROVEN wrong (since people seem to be clamoring for proof). The vast majority of Christians DO NOT believe in YEC dogmas and yet, much to the chagrin of YEC's, still recognize their clear need for redemption due to their sinful nature.

Once again, YEC's are simply aiding Satan in this dogma. When they glue together the idea of the need for redemption (a core Christian concept) with their own interpretation of Scripture, they are saying that if their interpretation is NOT correct, then the need for redemption is NOT correct. So, every time someone who believes this correlation, but can not accept a YEC doctrine is in danger of not believing they need redemption. I have personally seen souls lost to this problem. It is real and dangerous.

 

[Ark Guy]

Well this is a very poor argument. Do you think sin is something passed in the blood? No, this is a very simplistic view of our sinful nature. If you believe that God could impute Adam's sin onto all of us thousands of years later, regardless of our own actions, then you can equally believe that He could impute that sin onto all those humans living at the same time. Imputation is imputation.

YES, sin is passed in the blood....I thought you were a Christian vance? This is basic Christian theology.

 

[Ark Guy]

Science doesn't say that. A ressurection of a guy who has been dead for 3 days has never been observed, and could not occur naturally (DUH!). However if the earth was created 6000 years ago it was created with features that make it appear much older. That makes God a liar.

Your nuts Phoenix.....Considering that God told us what he did, then how can he be a liar?

Actually if God used Evolution, that would make God a liar. You got it backwards my evo friend

 

[Ark Guy]

Vance posted:
Once again, YEC's are simply aiding Satan in this dogma. When they glue together the idea of the need for redemption (a core Christian concept) with their own interpretation of Scripture, they are saying that if their interpretation is NOT correct, then the need for redemption is NOT correct.
-------------
Vance you are a LIAR.

 

[Vance]

"Vance you are a LIAR."

How so?

Are you not saying (or should I say Mo, since it was his post, but I believe you agree with him) that a disbelief in a literal interpretation of Genesis is a disbelief in the need for redemption?

 

[Vance]

YES, sin is passed in the blood....I thought you were a Christian vance? This is basic Christian theology.

You believe sin is some type of physical phenomenon which is actually, physically, passed through the blood stream from parent to child?

Yes, the shedding of the blood of Christ as an atonement for our sins is a basic Christian theology, but I have not heard that "sin is passed from parent to child through the bloodstream" is "basic Christian theology".

 

[Vance]

Your nuts Phoenix.....Considering that God told us what he did, then how can he be a liar?

Actually if God used Evolution, that would make God a liar. You got it backwards my evo friend

So, I am a liar and Phoenix is "nuts". Nice.

Regardless, you statements are based solely on the dogmatic presumption that your reading of Genesis one and two (what God said to us) is the correct one.

 

[ThePhoenix]

Your nuts Phoenix.....Considering that God told us what he did, then how can he be a liar?

Actually if God used Evolution, that would make God a liar. You got it backwards my evo friend

No, the evidence points towards the earth being old. If God created it 6000 years ago then he created the evidence for an old earth. That's deception.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I notice the creationist side is reduced as per usual to their normal litany of name calling, ad hominems and snideness.

It's what I've come to expect.

 

[lucaspa]

According to the Theistic Evolutionary sect the bible mentions or hints at evolution in the following verses:

Gen 1:11 And the earth brought forth...
Gen 1:24 Let the earth bring forth...
Gen 2:7 Then the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground...

It's obvious if God created man in his image by using evolution then Adam had to have had male and female "cousins" that were very similar to him.

So, if Adam had others living near, around or with him then why did God in Gen 2:18 say;
"It is not good for man to be alone, I will make him a helper suitable for him"?
Why did God in verse 21 and 22 then need to form a woman from Adams rib if there were other females around?

This seems to be quite a contradiction that the Theo-Evo sect needs to explain.

....Any takers?

1. Remember that Genesis 2-3 is an allegory. It is not literal. So we reject the premise underlying your argument. BTW, remember that in Genesis 1 God does not form woman out of a rib but simply speaks them into existence.

2. Even if we take it as semi-literal, where is the Garden of Eden? Or better yet, where were the human authors of Genesis 2-3? In Mesopotamia, right? Any apes naturally live there? So, the authors are not going to know about apes. And all the other species of Homo were long extinct.

3. As Vance noted, the theology of Genesis 2-3 is that human males and females are bonded. That is as true or even more true with God having created by evolution than by forming from a rib. Males and females are not only necessary for reproduction and protection of the young, but traditionally have each contributed essential survival tasks. In hunter-gatherer societies over 50% of calories comes from the gathering and small-game hunting of the women. And, of course, most of the clothes, cooking utensils, etc. are made by the women.

Genesis 1:11 and Genesis 1:24 must have indicated to you that the Bible does possibly indicate evolution, otherwise you wouldn't try to refute it by going to Genesis 2. Progress.

 

[lucaspa]

Your nuts Phoenix.....Considering that God told us what he did, then how can he be a liar?

"God" told us two contradictory stories about "what He did". Genesis 1 contradicts Genesis 2-3. That indicates that neither story should be read literally. The problem is not with God, but with a worship of a literal reading of the Bible.

Actually if God used Evolution, that would make God a liar.

Ark Guy, WHO CREATED? God right? No one else. Nowhere does it indicate that any other entity, including Satan, had anything to do with creation. Now, Creation exists. And it was made by God.

What Biblical literalists do is deny God in their worship of their literal reading. They actually deny that God created.

If God had created by your fallible, human interpretation of the Bible, then the universe would look like that. And it easily could. That the universe looks like it was created over billions of years by gravity, physics, chemistry, and evolution shows that this is indeed how God created. God can't lie in His Creation. But you can get a wrong interpretation of the Bible.