Controversial Christian topics with practical differences based on belief

[Michael37]

3 hours ago, popsthebuilder said:

When I said harmonize, I didn't mean that man evolved from single celled organisms or anything. But life does change over time. Things do evolve to some extent at very least. This is undeniable to me.

By evolutionism is meant the mutation of one kind to another rather than adaptation within species.

The problem for a Christian that wants to add evolutionism to the Biblical account of Creation is that if they don't believe what is written as it is written by inspiration of God then how can they believe the words of Christ.

Joh 5:46-47  For had you believed Moses, you would have believed me: for he wrote of me.  (47)  But if you believe not his writings, how shall you believe my words?

That's why I maintain those who stick with Theistic Evolution are not Bible-believers.
 

[teddyv]

1 hour ago, Michael37 said:

By evolutionism is meant the mutation of one kind to another rather than adaptation within species.
 

No. You don't get to define things how you like them. Adaptation is very much part of evolution. If you don't like that, too bad. You accept evolution.

And as for evidence, well, the internet affords you plenty of scholarly articles on various strands of evidence for evolution. As I even alluded too earlier, the leading creationist organizations are embracing it, even speciation. Dr. Todd Wood, an accredited Ph.D. biologist and creationist, openly acknowledges that evolution works and is a viable theory and productive framework and it is predictive. He does not believe it is the right theory and is working on an alternative (at least last time I checked).

Quote

That's why I maintain those who stick with Theistic Evolution are not Bible-believers.

Well, if I'm not a Bible-believer in your eyes, then so be it. I'll keep doing life and hopefully will it bear much fruit. 

[Michael37]

34 minutes ago, teddyv said:

No. You don't get to define things how you like them. Adaptation is very much part of evolution. If you don't like that, too bad. You accept evolution.

And as for evidence, well, the internet affords you plenty of scholarly articles on various strands of evidence for evolution. As I even alluded too earlier, the leading creationist organizations are embracing it, even speciation. Dr. Todd Wood, an accredited Ph.D. biologist and creationist, openly acknowledges that evolution works and is a viable theory and productive framework and it is predictive. He does not believe it is the right theory and is working on an alternative (at least last time I checked).

Well, if I'm not a Bible-believer in your eyes, then so be it. I'll keep doing life and hopefully will it bear much fruit. 

Natural Selection is not evidence of Evolution. Those who think it is are being sucked in by non-science. I'll leave it there. This topic has been done, done, and done on this site.

[JohnR7]

15 hours ago, keet said:

In that case, either my understanding of justice is faulty, or that interpretation of Hell is faulty. 

It is not really an interpretation. Our concept of hell for the most part comes from Dante Trilogy Inferno.  This is literature not Bible. My son took a literature class somewhere along the way. I remember because the textbook had been updated 22 times and I really wondered how do you upgrade a literature book.  Maybe there are 22 different translations of the Bible, so it could all be the same. 

 

[JohnR7]

3 hours ago, Michael37 said:

This topic has been done, done, and done on this site.

That is good because they are forced to work on the Biology books to get them as accurate as possible sense they are not going to get away with anything without intense discussion. I told my son when he was taking the classes to avoid the debates. Students need to do their homework and get as good of grades as they can. It is up to the parents & school boards to make sure their books are as accurate as possible. We were busy at the time trying to get the socialist liberals off of the school board so we could replace them with conservatives. 

[popsthebuilder]

8 hours ago, Michael37 said:

By evolutionism is meant the mutation of one kind to another rather than adaptation within species.

The problem for a Christian that wants to add evolutionism to the Biblical account of Creation is that if they don't believe what is written as it is written by inspiration of God then how can they believe the words of Christ.

Joh 5:46-47  For had you believed Moses, you would have believed me: for he wrote of me.  (47)  But if you believe not his writings, how shall you believe my words?

That's why I maintain those who stick with Theistic Evolution are not Bible-believers.
 

Well it's a good thing that I wasn't talking about whatever evolutionism is supposed to be, but adaptation. Also a good thing that one can belief  gen. yet not look at things in a literal or material mindset. You think Musa wrote Genesis? 

Edited November 18, 2020 by popsthebuilder

[keet]

16 hours ago, popsthebuilder said:

Hmmm. So creationism versus evolution it is then?

That wasn't my intention, but that's what happened.   Apparently people don't really want to discuss the original topic.

There MUST already be a creationism/evolution thread Somewhere on these forums.

Though I can't deny that one's beliefs on the matter of origin definitely affect how one acts.  It's just not primarily an intraChristian/Biblical debate (which is what I had in mind), more of a scientific one.

Edited November 18, 2020 by keet

[popsthebuilder]

27 minutes ago, keet said:

That wasn't my intention, but that's what happened.   Apparently people don't really want to discuss the original topic.

There MUST already be a creationism/evolution thread Somewhere on these forums.

Though I can't deny that one's beliefs on the matter of origin definitely affect how one acts.  It's just not primarily an intraChristian/Biblical debate (which is what I had in mind), more of a scientific one.

I personally don't think it's salvific myself. 

I heard a guy try to support reincarnation using verses speaking of how blessed John the Baptizer was blessed Elias. That was pretty interesting. I guess I can see it like things over time repeat in a way, but I don't too much believe in reincarnation. Of course neither of those things are salvific either.

[teddyv]

Sorry about my detail earlier.

[Alive]

2 hours ago, popsthebuilder said:

I personally don't think it's salvific myself. 

I heard a guy try to support reincarnation using verses speaking of how blessed John the Baptizer was blessed Elias. That was pretty interesting. I guess I can see it like things over time repeat in a way, but I don't too much believe in reincarnation. Of course neither of those things are salvific either.

Heb. 9:27 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment,