|
Theistic Evolution Debate v |
|||
|
2. Whatever the reason you think you do
this for, the effect of your actions is to destroy Christianity. How can
that be for God's glory? That's denial. But not explanation or justification of denial. The idea of "sustainer of all creation" is not a concept of biological evolution. It's a Christain concept.
Evolutionary “science” no, as it is a tacitly atheistic endeavor requiring no God. Real science which is nothing more than the study of His creation screams of His existence.
Exactly, so why do you believe in what they do?
It's nice of you to support my arguments so fully, but it's a shame that you don't realize what you are doing. Atheists believe that evolution does not require God. But that's not part of the theory. However, if you want mention of God starting the process, try Darwin:
It is not I who support you lucas, if it
seems that I agree with you it is that you – and there is still hope yet –
that you may have found the truth. It is bits and pieces of God’s truth
that you are running into.
I see, that Darwin remains the great
evangelist you trust more than any other to proclaim the gospel, or was it
simply his intention to remove any and all aspects of the supernatural in
biological science – and doing it in such a manner without being rejected
by believers of that time. What else could he do but include God, even if
he had to insert God somewhere (like the very beginning and no where
else).
The key word is God, not secondary processes – for God was directly responsible for all His creation.
In Darwin’s mind yes, - a mind liken that of
every rebellious mortal whose goal is to remove God from His creation.
And here again where is God in this process?
I suspect this person has also problems accepting scripture simply on
faith. And what might the evolutionary thinking of people be? That since we now understand to an extent how God could have created, therefore we can definitely conclude that God did not create as He has revealed to us? What are their conclusions when bombarded by the falsehood of evolution and have little faith in God to begin with?
Are you now quoting scripture as literal or as allegory? You must get very frustrated redrawing the line between what is allegory and which is literal don’t you?
It is the heavens that declare God’s
handiwork because it was He who formed and fashioned them. Creation simply
reflect the capabilities of its creator – it is what the verse tells us
and says nothing about worshipping the creation or of how it was created.
Who does the heaven belong to? And the
earth? God, because it was He who made them. What claim if any does one
have to something that was not the direct result of one’s own creative
genius. Say amen to God.
And where does salvation lay? How does the
heavens vanishing like smoke or the earth wearing out refer to
evolutionary nonsense? I would think it attests to the power behind the
creation and that without Him we will do the same – wither into nothing.
For we are you should know nothing without God.
No it is scripture that you quote – the word of God. I see no difference - for if God is God then His truth (or theology if you deem fit) should not conflict with reality, for if it does then it is not scripture that is wrong but our interpretation of reality – for there are no other bible that I am aware of which proclaim Christ as the only way to God. For if we believe God to be who
He is, then should not His truth be sufficient to convict us? It becomes schizophrenic when we cannot justify scripture with evolution and therefore must now say it is literal in certain parts and not others when one part is dependant on the other?
There is a big difference between theistic and atheistic (what you call natural) evolution. The difference is that theistic evolutionists agree with Butler and atheistic evolutionists disagree. In the material processes, no, there is no disagreement. However, is God a necessary part of the material processes? Theistic evolutionists say "yes" and atheistic evolutionists say "no". You agree with the atheists. Why? Why do you say that anything "natural" is without God?
The “big” difference you refer to is simply
a delusion of your own making for evolution is a blind process requiring
no guidance nor purpose at all and God shouts everything that is of
purpose. There is really no difference at all between the two that I can
see, for no where is God found in neither process whatsoever - other than
your insistent pontification that there is. You obviously seem to be under the impression that you know more about how God created than God Himself by disregarding what He has revealed in plain language. If you absolutely believe thus then maybe you should enlighten the rest of the scientific community on the evidence of God in evolution.
Crusadar, go to Barnes and Nobles and look at all the books there giving commentaries on Genesis. There were 10 when I was there. All of them agreed that there were 2 separate creation accounts: Genesis 1:1 -2:4a and Genesis 2:4b thru the end of Genesis 3.
Perhaps that may be the problem lucas – you are so busy defending the false assumptions of others that you have grossly neglected your own spiritual well being. One cannot walk in the faith and expect no opposition for Christ warned us of the many falsehoods that will arise – to which evolution is a prime candidate. This is nothing new, if all men agreed with what scripture tells them than it wouldn’t be true would it? For men do love darkness rather than light and many are those who are called but few there be that are chosen.
Bible commentaries by the way come go, and the book which they all comment on remains – to no surprise. My advice, maybe you should read more of scripture on your own knees and less from simply taking what others say about it.
However, since you say you have felt the presence of God, then why did you say the only evidence of God is revelation in scripture. Doesn't your personal experience count for you?
Not quite brother, the experience only came after I had stopped questioning God as to His method of creation. I instead accepted what was read in a plain understanding in total faith. It was only then that God moved in my life revealing that the process an infinitely powerful loving God would choose to create was not through evolution but through a special creation where an intimate bonding can only occur. Such an intimate bonding in fact that He would chose to send His one and only Son to redeem His fallen creation.
Also, why is revelation in scripture or thru personal experience insufficient evidence? Why do you require science to verify the existence of God for you?
Science is not needed to verify God, for it already testifies to His existence. And again I say that I require not science to verify God, it is those who believe that God created using evolution which obviously tells us that they know how God created when they have nothing to support their stand but an inconsistent allegorical interpretation of scripture.
Of course there is only one God. But that
wasn't the issue, was it? The question was where we learn about creation.
The answer is that we learn about creation thru two sources, both from
God. We learn about the who and why of creation thru scripture. We learn
about the how of creation thru God's Creation. However, you just denied
God by saying there is only one source -- "His word". Why are you denying
God as Creator by denying His Creation?
Tell me what God would you pray to? The gods
that the Greeks worshipped? A god who holds no power over death for it is
the very thing He uses? And what of the promises of deliverance from death
that we are offered – is that also allegory? What of the promise that He
will wipe away our tears and that death shall be no more?
I want a God who is beyond all imagination,
and capable of delivering me from the body of my death. A God who
surpasses all human understanding to the infinite degree. And yet I have
chosen to believe God as He has revealed Himself to me through scripture
not what my own interpretations of scripture does not say. So who really
requires nothing of science to testify on His behalf. True Science already
declares His existence – evolutionary science however does not even come
close.
What I believe is what the Word of God says.
I am not sure what you believe, for you have revealed nothing of your
faith – other than your insistence on what scripture does not plainly say.
There really is no thinking involved, only faith – for we are fallen
beings remember and so how can we trust our fallen minds to reveal to us
the truth if we have not the truth of God to compare with? For it is only
God’s word that makes us understand His creation, and not the other way
around.
What is your point? That since scripture
does not say anything about it therefore what man says or adds then takes
precedence over what God says? Doubting again lucas the authority of God’s
word? It figures. Once you have found a loop hole in scripture why not say
there are many more just to be consistent.
And yet it is evolution that atheists cling
on to justify not believing in God. What logic is there in a creator who
wishes for His creation to know and come to Him to use a process of
creation that can also be used to deny Him?
And yet what is the basic reasoning behind
the atheist from a believer’s perspective? That they are showing nothing
more than intellectual dishonesty in denying what they do not know, and
conclude that there is no God, for nothing points to God as they have
already ruled out that He was their creator as evolution tells them.
You have misunderstood my point simply because I have placed the authority of scripture in the forefront. I require not science to show me the existence of God, for scripture already testifies that it was created by God – why is it so difficult to believe in what God tells you?
Interesting lucas, you simply are not able
to catch on are you? Your attempt to bridge evolution and God are very
much unconvincing to say the least. It is nothing about simply arguing
nothing, for you obviously still walk in the flesh and deny the work of
Satan in this matter. But alas you deny Satan’s presence for whatever
reason I can only suspect. Where here again total surrender to God is
warranted if you should ever want to see the lie of evolution exposed. It
is only when Christ has total control of one’s life that one will see the
truth.
Yes, I know it is “the consensus of man on
the acceptance of the assumed truth of evolution that cannot be abandoned,
because it is what the majority believes therefore it must be true. So
there really is no interpretation at all but a reading that can be no
further than what one understands.
2. Darwin didn't start out with a
postulate of atheism. Science doesn't start out with a postulate of
atheism. Science is agnostic, not atheistic.
Of course he didn’t, God is often left out
of many a part of man’s life, simply due to his sinful rebellious nature.
Since when has science ever mentioned God, the implications are obvious
for it is very tacitly atheistic in nature for science now replaces the
many things that was once was believed to be caused by God – not knowing
that God created such. How agnostic is it when it becomes a replacement
for God?
And without absolute faith in God how can we
be drawn to Him?
Don't you ever read the answers?
The only answers are found in scripture. It
is fallible human conventions that you appeal to, not the truth of God.
And sure He can do anything – He is God, and that is why He chose to
create as He has told us in scripture.
You don't have "the absolute authority of
God's word". You have your authority of what you say God's word is. Since
you aren't God, you don't have much authority. Also, since God wrote two
books, the Bible does not have priority over the other one. Read the first
quote in my signature.
Ah, a misunderstanding. I do have the
authority of God’s word, for I believe and trust in all it says – that is
where the authority comes from.
Then you have no authority. Because what you believe and trust is what you says the Bible says.
And so it becomes futile to continue on with someone who rejects God’s truth as they think they know more than God in how He created.
You however have a book which isn’t to be taken literally so obviously you should doubt if any of it is true.
Perhaps I should doubt. But my doubts can be answered so that I trust the book in what it was intended to say. Crusadar, no literalist takes every part of the Bible literally. Remember Luke 2:1. You don't take that literally. So let me ask you: don't you doubt if any of it is true?
And yet true faith only comes from zero doubt. Trust the book in what, that God did not create as He tells us, the flood was a local one – and Christ was born of a virgin – has any virgin given birth lately – it seems you would need to distrust everything else as you are telling me. How do you know I don’t take it literally, for I do believe scripture is the inerrant word of God, and if there seems a contradiction than it is not the Spirit of God that is guiding me but my doubt in Him.
I know however what you are attempting to do – an attempt to discredit someone erroneously and not addressing the issue – which was my standing on the truth of God in its entirety.
I am attempting to show you that we are not dealing with "God's word" but a very fallible, man-made interpretation. An attempt to get through to you what a dangerous spiritual position you are in.
If it is as fallible as you say then we are all in trouble. For the faith that is within all of us stem from what we believe scripture to say (whether it be some or all). Although many have compromised much of their faith in hopes to gain more believers, it is not the will of God, for it is not numbers God wants but true faithful followers, for true faith comes not from seeing but from putting total trust in what God has said.
You are mistaking your interpretation as not only God's word, but as making yourself arbiter of what "God's word" is, you are setting yourself up as God or above God. I am trying to keep you from jumping off the theological cliff and committing spiritual suicide. That you haven't heard me and are headed for suicide is in your next sentence:
That cannot be any further from the truth. We would be bearing false witness if we were to consider ourselves anything more than the wretched sinners that we are. I have set myself to be no more than the filth I was born as and because I have acknowledged this and accepted the gift of salvation it requires nothing more of me but to proclaim it to all those I come in contact with. It does not require the blind rituals that some of us have been following all our lives without knowing what it is that we follow. When we return to the wholesomeness of God’s word without the fallacy of man’s theories to contaminate it or explain it we will see His truth.
However, I do believe in His word whole heartedly and am simply doing what I am instructed by Christ to do as scripture tells me.
2. Whatever the reason you think you do this for, the effect of your actions is to destroy Christianity. How can that be for God's glory?
The reason is very clear to me, and it is to instill genuine faith in God. If we believe not what He says, can there be genuine faith?
How are you so sure that what you say "He says" is really what He says? Don't you see the trap? The fact that there are two contradictory creation stories in Genesis 1-3 shows right away that neither of them was supposed to be read literally. This focus on what you want Genesis 1-3 to say keeps you from hearing what Genesis 1-3 really says. You are so focused on telling us what you want God to say that you aren't listening to God.
I am certain for it is in plain text. The trap is when we attempt to twist scripture into what it does not say, it is then that we fall into it ourselves. Genesis 1-3 really tells me that we as human beings are created above all creatures – with the capability to reason and love God, and yet we have reduced ourselves to less than the animals – for we were created in the image of God. For you see we have been given a tongue to worship and praise God and yet we do not, we have been offered life and yet we choose instead death.
It makes much more sense that you are the one not listening to God, for you insist that man’s interpretation of reality through evolution (with an axiom of atheism) was how God created when obviously Scripture does not say at all. You wish to give us merely your interpretation of what you see and have agreed to simply because it is what scientists believe, for they are you know only seeking the truth and are very much agnostic.
Realizing however that you have forgotten that they are mortals also and very much rebellious sinners like the rest of us. We must look at ourselves first as sinners that need redeeming, and everything else later. No one is immune to Satan’s treachery or their own pride unless Christ is truly within them. Your insistence upon man’s theories taking precedence over God’s words shows nothing more than an act of rebellion against God – for how can we truly say we believe God if we do not listen to what His word plainly says?
How can we truly be Christ’s followers if we
do not believe His word? How can you be Christ's follower if you don't really believe Luke 2:1?
And yet you have misunderstood again for you are simply being consistent with your disbelief in the word of God. The world obviously as referred to in this verse was the Roman empire, since Rome ruled much of the known world at the time – so it was the Roman world as the verse tells us just as we refer to democratic countries as the free world – when obviously not all countries are democratic or free.
Another erroneous error – those who doubt God will find but contradictions and doubt in all where there should not be – it only means that Satan is quite real and never at rest.
If you think that Christianity is being destroyed because of my actions you are sadly mistaken, for it has increased my faith in leaps and bounds.
Your faith and Christianity are not the same thing. I am so saddened that you think they are.
Maybe it is not Christianity that I believe but Jesus Christ, there is a difference you know. For I have often said, Christian is simply a word, and some who claim to be Christian do give shame to the name. I prefer a bond servant of Christ. Christianity has become nothing more than a routine to many and a blind faith to others.
For if Christianity is true, then it should be the least of our worries that it does not agree with evolutionary science.
But it does. Christians long ago realized that evolution not only was compatible with Christianity, but that it saved Christianity from special creation.
It does, when men have abandoned their
belief in God and started to believe in themselves and their capacity for
hatred and destructiveness – it was God who passed His judgment once on
their wickedness, and it is He who will again do so – so chose which side
to be on – there is no middle ground. It is for God’s glory when we fearlessly and adamantly stand on the authority of His word.
But you are standing on the false authority of your man-made, fallible interpretation of Genesis 1-3 and not listening to what God tells you in His Creation. I cannot worship the false idol of Biblical literalism. I am commanded against it.
And you the falseness of evolution – which
is nothing but a man made concoction to discredit God. Yes I am listening
to God, and He tells me that in the beginning He created the heavens and
the earth and it is His handiwork that I see and am awed by His infinite
creative capability. Nature however has had the curse of God placed on it,
which is death. You have reduced God to terms that you can fit in your
bottle to be opened only when required.
"If sound science appears to contradict
the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that
is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437"
“Sound science”, not evolutionary nonsense,
there is a difference you know. And 1832, talk about ancient! Hmmm. When was Genesis written? Or how about Jesus' preaching? A lot longer ago than 1832, yet you think they are still valid. Crusadar, you are so interested in scoring debating points that you really don't consider the consequences of your arguments for God and Christ. Are you sure you really care about God? Or do you just care whether Crusadar scores debating pointsd against lucaspa?
More doubts in the word of God showing through, well at least you are consistent. However, there is a difference between Scripture and your reference you know – for no one memorizes your quote nor care for it. And they should still be valid or why else would you be here? Or are you simply here to spiritually argue pointlessly on behalf of all brothers who have been led astray – simply because you have been led astray much longer and further?
I could careless if brownie points are
earned in meager debates such as this. For true faith in God cannot be
shown to others in a forum as this. Biological evolution has been tested more than any other scientific theory. That you don't regard it as sound says nothing about evolution but a lot about your bias.
And why do you think it is? Because it is within the nature of man to rebel against His creator. If God can be discredited as to being creator – can you imagine the implications? In much of their research evolutionary scientists put forth more wishful thinking and speculations than in any other legitimate field of science! Their might have been’s, probable’s, could have been’s, possible’s, could be’s and etc. are very much unsupported from true observations and tests of what actually occurs to this day in the real world.
And mind you that they have had over a
century to prove their case – and yet they have nothing more than empty
theories and outlandish conclusions drawn primarily from unwarranted
speculations – which are discarded as soon as they are theorized (hence so
many).
IOW - Because if we were to acknowledge that
God exists (as His creation clearly shows that He does) then that would
mean that we would be subject to His absolute laws and authority and will
be held accountable for everything that we do (since that is what makes
Him God) because He is our Creator. But that is just unacceptable because
we don’t want to be held accountable to anyone - least of all our Creator!
Therefore if we ignore that He exists or can prove to ourselves His
nonexistence then maybe He won't notice us, or will have pity on our
ignorance!
|
|||
| BACK | |||
|
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]
Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. Revelations 4:11 KJV
about site | artworks | e-books | feedback | homepage | links | site map | writings |
|||