|
Theistic Evolution Debate viii
|
|||
|
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?
For if Christianity is true, then it should be the least of our worries
that it does not agree with evolutionary science - however real science
confirms God. It is for God’s glory when we fearlessly and adamnantly
stand on the authority of His word and not lollygag and be undecided which
side to be on so – to be ridiculed because of one’s standing on the word
of God is very much 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.
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.
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. 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.
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?
“No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and
I will raise him up at the last day.” John 6:44
And without absolute faith in God how can we be drawn to Him?
Don't you ever read the answers?
1. None of the evolutionary processes work if God does not sustain them.
2. God can introduce mutations that He wants and it is not dectable by
science.
3. God can engage in artificial selection that is not detectable by
science.
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.
Where is this second book you keep referring to? Is the message of
salvation in this book also? Does nature lead us to Christ, for that is
the purpose of God’s word you know to lead to an understanding that man
was created in perfection but fell from glory due to His rebellion and
thus would require redeeming. And God you know saw that man redeeming and
knew that it would cost Him His own life to do so.
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.
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.
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.
“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?
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).
"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of
its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant
promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific
community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior
commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and
institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation
of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a
priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of
investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no
matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.
Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine
Foot in the door. Richard Lewontin, ‘Billions and billions of demons’, The
New York Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31."
|
|||
| 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 |
|||