[_ Old Earth _] Evolution

[lordkalvan]

Well, the so called "Christians" I am talking about are the "Bible believing" true Christians, not who call themselves as Christians and yet reject Christ as their Creator.

This rather looks like a 'No troo Scotsman' fallacy to me.

 

[felix]

This rather looks like a 'No troo Scotsman' fallacy to me.

There is no Christian or a "true" Christian for you to even think of 'No troo Scotsman' fallacy. There is only "Christian" who follows Christs. People who call themselves as Christians and yet do not follow Christ and accept Him as a Savior and Creator are not Christians according to Bible.

 

[Arch Angle]

you mean according to Paul.

The gospels tell another story. That the way to salvation is threw"me". But Jesus understood what the "me" is. It is not theflesh. he spoke very clearly about people that follow earthily things like theflesh.

Love, compassion, and understanding. That what he was. He is a verb,not a thing.

 

[lordkalvan]

There is no Christian or a "true" Christian for you to even think of 'No troo Scotsman' fallacy. There is only "Christian" who follows Christs. People who call themselves as Christians and yet do not follow Christ and accept Him as a Savior and Creator are not Christians according to Bible.

Um, the moment you take upon yourself to judge who is and isn't a Christian simply because they fail to match your definition of how one properly 'follows Christ', you engage in the 'No troo Scotsman' fallacy.

 

[Barbarian]

I am not too sure what your message is. I am not a YE creationist. The first 7 days of creation are literal expect the fact that 1st 4 days are not 24 hrs (as there was no sun). It is only for the next 3 days, the sun began to rule so, each rotation is a day (i.e, ~24 hrs).
The right term to describe my view is "Young Life Creationists".

So, if you're willing to accept that God used figurative language for that, why is it so hard to accept that He did it for other things in Genesis as well?

Why not accept all of it as it is?

 

[Barbarian]

There is no Christian or a "true" Christian for you to even think of 'No troo Scotsman' fallacy. There is only "Christian" who follows Christs. People who call themselves as Christians and yet do not follow Christ and accept Him as a Savior and Creator are not Christians according to Bible.

You are not Christ. You're questioning the faith of Christians who don't follow your particular re-interpretation of His word.

 

[felix]

Um, the moment you take upon yourself to judge who is and isn't a Christian simply because they fail to match your definition of how one properly 'follows Christ', you engage in the 'No troo Scotsman' fallacy.

Why do you think that "I judge" when I clearly mentioned "according to Bible" in the earlier post ?

(Luke 14:27) And whoever does not bear his cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple.
(Luke 14:33) So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple.
(Acts 11:26) And when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. So it was that for a whole year they assembled with the church and taught a great many people. And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.

You cannot call someone who do not follow Christ as Christian. Even you want to call, well fine, but that does not change any truth.

 

[felix]

You are not Christ. You're questioning the faith of Christians who don't follow your particular re-interpretation of His word.

FYI, Those are not "interpretations". Neither Christ spoke in a a strange language or parable to interpret. He spoke to a 1st century fishermen plainly what it means to follow Him and be His disciple. If you require interpretation of what Jesus plainly spoke, then you had to be much illiterate than Peter.

As I just posted earlier:

(Luke 14:27) And whoever does not bear his cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple.
(Luke 14:33) So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple.
(Acts 11:26) And when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. So it was that for a whole year they assembled with the church and taught a great many people. And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.

Sorry, it is not I who is questioning anyone's faith but Christ and giving specific rules to people who desire to follow Him.

 

[lordkalvan]

Why do you think that "I judge" when I clearly mentioned "according to Bible" in the earlier post ?

(Luke 14:27) And whoever does not bear his cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple.
(Luke 14:33) So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple.
(Acts 11:26) And when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. So it was that for a whole year they assembled with the church and taught a great many people. And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.

You cannot call someone who do not follow Christ as Christian. Even you want to call, well fine, but that does not change any truth.

You judge according to your interpretation of the Bible and how that interpretation supports your idea of what 'following' Christ amounts to.

 

[felix]

So, if you're willing to accept that God used figurative language for that, why is it so hard to accept that He did it for other things in Genesis as well?

Why not accept all of it as it is?

Because, you want Genesis to be a figurative language, you not only deny God to be the Creator, but also deny Him altogether as a figurative figure.

Bible is clear when it mentions it as figurative language, parable or vision.

If Genesis is figurative, then the law of Sabbath is figurative.
(Exodus 20:11) For [in] six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that [is] in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

If the law of Sabbath is figurative, then the 10 commandments are figurative. If 10 commandments are figurative, Moses story and exodus had to be figurative. If law is figurative, Jesus had to be figurative because He came to fulfill a figurative law. If Jesus is figurative, Christianity is nothing but a lie.

Can't you see,

(Galatians 5:9) A little leaven leavens the whole lump.

One twist in Scripture will make entire Scripture a lie. Accept the truth as it is, just like a little child. Trying to twist the Truth to fit the world will only make you a liar before God.

EDIT: I never said anywhere that Genesis used figurative language. What makes you think so?

 

[felix]

You judge according to your interpretation of the Bible and how that interpretation supports your idea of what 'following' Christ amounts to.

Those are not my interpretations. Those are actual quotes by Christ.

(Matthew 16:24) Then Jesus said to His disciples, "If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.

 

[cupid dave]

If Jesus was a "genetic mutation" from chromosomes of earthly parents, then He is neither God nor Son of God, nor His crucifixion have any reason.

Of course Jesus was only the son-of-man.

Jesus was transfigured into the son-of-god when the spirit of God came down from heaven and alighted upon him, around age 30, after he was baptized by John.
And that spirit left him in another metamorphosis just before the Passover Seder and his crucifixion thereafter.
Jesus was born the son-of-man, and he died as the son-of-man, and he was resurrected as the son-of-man.


But Christ was with us as the son-of-God for 3.5 years.

 

[cupid dave]

the summary demonstrates how the ideas within the fields of science and religion can be complementary

Exactly the point of Theistic Evolutionists.

What is also important in Genesis is the validation of some divine source of infromation which made the factual truth known to the bible writers.
In 1362BC the writers had no way of guessing that the Universe had not always been there.

Genesis plainly reports that the earth was void of a spherical shaped and was an accretion disk of hot matter spinning like a 33 1/3 record around the Sun, darkness laying across the flat ring of watery-like roacks rotating.

We read correctly that visible light was not present at first, but had to await until the stars formed 400 million years after the BB.

The earliest molten state of the Lithosphere cooled as a firmament of atmosphere accumulated above, and the seas formed below.

Then the biggie, in Gen 1:9, where Genesis explicitly reports on Pangaea, that "all the waters under heaven were collected together into one place."

Factually, the initial Spontaneous Generation developed into the Plant kingdom, first, follow later by the Animal kingdom.
All factually true.

Then, in an Act-of-God, two of the 24 surrogate mother Ape chromosomes fused together in a mutation that formed mankind thereafter with 23 chromosomes, all from the dust of chemistry inside the ovuum of the first man.

It is really an amazing factually correct statement when properly read.

 

[Arch Angle]

I think it is power driven priest fighting peer strokedscientist that have the real problem.
Remember, science doesn't say a thing. It is a process of data collection andprediction. rRligion doesn't do anything but offer everyone a connection to their higher power.
For the average guy, science and religion go together like peanutbutter and jelly on fresh white bread. It may not be a perfect meal ... but it's the real deal.

 

[lordkalvan]

Those are not my interpretations. Those are actual quotes by Christ.

(Matthew 16:24) Then Jesus said to His disciples, "If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.

And none of this second- or third-hand hearsay reporting of what Christ may or may not have said supports what you assert is required to be a 'true' follower of Christ.

 

[felix]

And none of this second- or third-hand hearsay reporting of what Christ may or may not have said supports what you assert is required to be a 'true' follower of Christ.

How is that a person who does not even know Christ nor believe in Him defining what it means to truly follow Christ? If you don't want to experience "first hand" yourself (as I mentioned earlier to speak to Him and ask Him which is what He expects), then don't comment on what it means to hearsay reporting of second- or third-hand.

 

[Barbarian]

How is that a person who does not even know Christ nor believe in Him defining what it means to truly follow Christ? If you don't want to experience "first hand" yourself (as I mentioned earlier to speak to Him and ask Him which is what He expects), then don't comment on what it means to hearsay reporting of second- or third-hand.

The fact remains; most Bible-believing Christians don't believe your new doctrine of creationism.

 

[felix]

Of course Jesus was only the son-of-man.

Jesus was transfigured into the son-of-god when the spirit of God came down from heaven and alighted upon him, around age 30, after he was baptized by John.
And that spirit left him in another metamorphosis just before the Passover Seder and his crucifixion thereafter.
Jesus was born the son-of-man, and he died as the son-of-man, and he was resurrected as the son-of-man.


But Christ was with us as the son-of-God for 3.5 years.

Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said to her, "[The] Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.

Jesus was not Son of God only for a little time of 3.5 yrs. He was called as Son of God even before He was born. He was the Word with God who is God Himself before He became flesh. He was fully God and fully man. "Son-of-man" does not mean He is genetically mutated but simply means He is a normal human. I advise you not to mix half baked garbage and Bible.

 

[felix]

Then, in an Act-of-God, two of the 24 surrogate mother Ape chromosomes fused together in a mutation that formed mankind thereafter with 23 chromosomes, all from the dust of chemistry inside the ovuum of the first man.

So where did Eve came from? Another ape mutation? Do you know that Bible says a different story that Eve was created by God from Adam's rib?

If mutation requires "Act-of-God", then why not the entire creation is His act by His Word and not evolution? Don't try to "fit" evolution into Bible.

 

[felix]

The fact remains; most Bible-believing Christians don't believe your new doctrine of creationism.

My "doctrine of creationism" ? Anyway, if you wish to call so, it is plainly written in the book of Genesis. How can you call people who don't believe in the creation account of Genesis and yet call themselves Bible believing? Don't "add" anything to what scripture says.

Exod 20:11 For [in] six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that [is] in them, and rested the seventh day....

Above is a part of 10 commandments spoken by God Himself. How can anyone "reject" and/or "don't believe" the word of the Father, and yet call themselves "Christians"?

Gen 1:26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

God did not say: Let us make apes become humans and blah blah ..

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

God did not take an "Ape" nor any animal, but "dust of the ground" to make him a human.

Gen 3:19 ... For dust you [are,] And to dust you shall return."

Should God had to say: Ape you are, ape shall you return?

Gen 3:16 To the woman He said: "I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; In pain you shall bring forth children; Your desire [shall be] for your husband, And he shall rule over you."

Coming to Birth pain, do you know that only humans have the "worst" birth pain and all animals including ape have very little pain?

As I said, people who call themselves "Bible believing" are not truly Bible believing. They had to "believe" the Bible to be called "Bible believing".