firehill Posted May 10, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 11 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,980 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 2 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/17/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted May 10, 2007 If someone gives merit to what science has to say when it comes to evolution are they lost? What could prove to be the case for every single one? If not, why would Christians choose to fight about this issue when the issue of salvation through Christ is our main goal? Cannot christians have other interests too? Why take the risk of losing your chance to help someone find the path to salvation? How do you know such would be the case? Do some Christians choose to protect the wrong message? I bet some maybe even many do. Are there majors and minors when it comes to the Christian message? I'd say so. It seems the main question Jesus asked was, "Who do you say I am ?" That may have been the main question he asked but was it his main message? My old boss had saying "Kill 'em all but six and use them for pallbearers". Is that the approach we are taking at times? Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers." I bet it is. For the record, anyone who has been here long enough knows my position on evolution. What is your position? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaritateDei Posted May 10, 2007 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 6 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 400 Content Per Day: 0.06 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/02/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted May 10, 2007 We do not have to take Genesis 1 and 2 literally. How dare you!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apothanein kerdos Posted May 10, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 331 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 8,713 Content Per Day: 1.21 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted May 10, 2007 I suppose it's possible to be a Christian and believe and evolution, but any Christian who also believes that God worked through evolution is calling Him a liar. Was Galileo wrong? He didn't believe in evolution, but he did challenge the interpretation of the Psalms. He said the world rotated around the sun, rather than the sun rotating around the earth. This, of course, contradicted almost 1,600 years of interpretation of that passage. Did he call God a liar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
undone Posted May 10, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 45 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 819 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/01/2006 Status: Offline Author Share Posted May 10, 2007 Depends on what you mean by evolution. If you mean the earth (geology) evolved over time through entropy and other factors, that species are millions of years old and the dinosaurs did exist before man, and that some species have evolved into other species for adaptability to the environment, then no, there's nothing wrong with that. If by evolution you mean natural selection coupled with "random chance" formed the universe...or that naturalism rules the day and is a proper guide within the evolutionary camp, then no, a person cannot claim that and be a Christian. He must, at some point, give up one or the other. AK, Why do you say the first is okay? It obviously contradicts the Genesis account. I assume it may have to do with some of the scientifically "testable" aspects of establishing the age of the universe and our planet. NOTE: As I type this, I am currently watching the Discovery Channel's, "Before We Ruled the Earth: Hunt or Be Hunted". These people throw around some of the wildest speculation of what man did before and after he discovered fire as though it were fact. They've painted a picture they like with a few of the actual puzzle peices and pass it off as science. It's insulting. They may as well make a sitcom of it because it's that laughable. The first part contradicts one interpretation of Genesis, but not Genesis itself. It fits within some more legitimate interpretations of Genesis. We do not have to take Genesis 1 and 2 literally. Are you referring to the Dembski Theodicy here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apothanein kerdos Posted May 10, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 331 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 8,713 Content Per Day: 1.21 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted May 10, 2007 Depends on what you mean by evolution. If you mean the earth (geology) evolved over time through entropy and other factors, that species are millions of years old and the dinosaurs did exist before man, and that some species have evolved into other species for adaptability to the environment, then no, there's nothing wrong with that. If by evolution you mean natural selection coupled with "random chance" formed the universe...or that naturalism rules the day and is a proper guide within the evolutionary camp, then no, a person cannot claim that and be a Christian. He must, at some point, give up one or the other. AK, Why do you say the first is okay? It obviously contradicts the Genesis account. I assume it may have to do with some of the scientifically "testable" aspects of establishing the age of the universe and our planet. NOTE: As I type this, I am currently watching the Discovery Channel's, "Before We Ruled the Earth: Hunt or Be Hunted". These people throw around some of the wildest speculation of what man did before and after he discovered fire as though it were fact. They've painted a picture they like with a few of the actual puzzle peices and pass it off as science. It's insulting. They may as well make a sitcom of it because it's that laughable. The first part contradicts one interpretation of Genesis, but not Genesis itself. It fits within some more legitimate interpretations of Genesis. We do not have to take Genesis 1 and 2 literally. Are you referring to the Dembski Theodicy here? More to the non-literal/poetic interpretations of Genesis 1 and 2...however Dembski's Theodicy does play heavily into that interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
undone Posted May 10, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 45 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 819 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/01/2006 Status: Offline Author Share Posted May 10, 2007 Depends on what you mean by evolution. If you mean the earth (geology) evolved over time through entropy and other factors, that species are millions of years old and the dinosaurs did exist before man, and that some species have evolved into other species for adaptability to the environment, then no, there's nothing wrong with that. If by evolution you mean natural selection coupled with "random chance" formed the universe...or that naturalism rules the day and is a proper guide within the evolutionary camp, then no, a person cannot claim that and be a Christian. He must, at some point, give up one or the other. AK, Why do you say the first is okay? It obviously contradicts the Genesis account. I assume it may have to do with some of the scientifically "testable" aspects of establishing the age of the universe and our planet. NOTE: As I type this, I am currently watching the Discovery Channel's, "Before We Ruled the Earth: Hunt or Be Hunted". These people throw around some of the wildest speculation of what man did before and after he discovered fire as though it were fact. They've painted a picture they like with a few of the actual puzzle peices and pass it off as science. It's insulting. They may as well make a sitcom of it because it's that laughable. The first part contradicts one interpretation of Genesis, but not Genesis itself. It fits within some more legitimate interpretations of Genesis. We do not have to take Genesis 1 and 2 literally. Are you referring to the Dembski Theodicy here? More to the non-literal/poetic interpretations of Genesis 1 and 2...however Dembski's Theodicy does play heavily into that interpretation. Okay, go on..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apothanein kerdos Posted May 10, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 331 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 8,713 Content Per Day: 1.21 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted May 10, 2007 There are some interpretations that say Genesis 1 and 2 are unique in that they aren't written like other historical passages (in Hebrew). It's more poetic and theological in its description. In other words, it was written to prove a point and not necessarily to describe how something happened. It's hard to explain and I have no problem admitting that it's over my head. I have not studied interpretation enough to know the complete justification behind it. What I do know is of the authors I have read defending such a position, all believe the Bible is the Word of God and are very conservative in their interpretation. Ultimately, it is not a salvation issue but simply an issue of interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
systemstrike_7 Posted May 10, 2007 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 1 Topic Count: 12 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 540 Content Per Day: 0.08 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/04/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/07/1987 Share Posted May 10, 2007 Boy am I glad that burning people at the stake has been made illegal. As AK said ealier, this very thing has happened before. Galileo was a Christian, yet he challenged what so many Christians thought to be set in stone. This very thing is happening now. Evolution is not the enemy here; people unwilling to change their perspective is the enemy. Evolution does not challenge the Bible. Genesis 1 and 2 do not have to be taken literally and the fact that some people still do is amazing to me. I was raised in the church, yet I never thought the world to be 8000 years old... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apothanein kerdos Posted May 10, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 331 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 8,713 Content Per Day: 1.21 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted May 10, 2007 Depends on what you mean by evolution. If you mean the earth (geology) evolved over time through entropy and other factors, that species are millions of years old and the dinosaurs did exist before man, and that some species have evolved into other species for adaptability to the environment, then no, there's nothing wrong with that. Are you suggesting you have empirical evidence that proves dinosaurs morphed into birds and that reptiles developed breasts? Just so you know, I've refused to debate you. G'day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
undone Posted May 10, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 45 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 819 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/01/2006 Status: Offline Author Share Posted May 10, 2007 There are some interpretations that say Genesis 1 and 2 are unique in that they aren't written like other historical passages (in Hebrew). It's more poetic and theological in its description. In other words, it was written to prove a point and not necessarily to describe how something happened. It's hard to explain and I have no problem admitting that it's over my head. I have not studied interpretation enough to know the complete justification behind it. What I do know is of the authors I have read defending such a position, all believe the Bible is the Word of God and are very conservative in their interpretation. Ultimately, it is not a salvation issue but simply an issue of interpretation. If not Hebrew, what were Genesis 1 and 2 originally written in? You've caught my interest... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts