Posted on 04/04/2009 1:47:03 AM PDT by gondramB
Ah, you mean, how things are done by the dictates of that scientific methodology in the churches of public education? After 40 + years haven't we hit the 'high' mark and the results are now paying off big time....
Not really.
I used to hold them compatible.
I just realized one day that the evidence for evolution is
OUTRAGEOUSLY inadequate. Virtually less than nothing.
Evolution is passe.
Panspermia or some such will be ushered in as the vogue anti-God pseudo-intellectualism
once the global oligarchy and their fallen angel “ET” cohorts are more overtly pontificating on the MSM about such things. The ET’s will be claiming that THEY bioengineered humans etc. etc. etc.
Evolution was quite useful for hell since Darwin. It has helped usher thousands of folks into hell.
However, times have changed. The satanic led global government has a ‘better’ . . . i.e. more sedctive and useful scenario/deception to foist on the world next.
Not at all. It would change my understanding of some scientific precepts.
I believe in evolution within the limits of a genetic code (Created and set by the Creator), not from one species to another.
If we proved that God Created human beings through another species, that would certainly turn ALL of our scientific understanding on its head, because it would be a proof we don’t currently have, rather than merely a belief.
There is NO predestinatin of salvation, you either repent and believe on Christ or die in your sins
God did NOT choose who He would save. That would mean He CHOSE who would be sent to hell for eternity, and that means people who lived better lives than predestined saints, going to hell because they weren’t chosen
You are using your doctrine to tell you what the verse says. Instead, you should let the entire document tell you what your doctrine should be.
FOr by Grace are ye saved, Through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works lest any man should boast
GRACE, not predestination
No, because one of my *deepest* "core beliefs," proved by experience over and over, is that I am capable of being wrong about just about everything. (This is also a matter of religious faith - human reason is part of fallen nature, and therefore prone to error.)
I believe in Creation - young earth, six days - based on my best understanding of Scripture and observable reality. If I'm mistaken, oh well. If I were to conclude that I'm in error about this, I would hold another position with the same understanding - that I'm as likely to be in error as not.
>>>Ah, you mean, how things are done by the dictates of that scientific methodology in the churches of public education? After 40 + years haven’t we hit the ‘high’ mark and the results are now paying off big time..
I suppose that line made some sort of sense in your mind when you typed it, but darned if I see it has any connection to my comment.
There is no more immaterial topic on FR then the endless flat earth spam. It’s not NEWS in any sense of the term, and it makes no difference who believes or disbelieves it. If Genesis is literal truth, disbelieving it won’t make it false. Conversely if it’s a myth for shepherds in the hills of Galilee then believing the myth won’t change the evolutionary juggernaut. Nature doesn’t care about opinion polls, nor does God rely on them.
It’s a pointless argument and the spam is a general nuisance. And I repeat, its not NEWS. Somebody make it go away.
1) Romans 6:22 - For the wages of sin [is] death; but the gift of God [is] eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
2) Romans 5:12 - Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
3) THEREFORE, the thousands upon thousands of deaths that had to occur if you accept that there was an age in between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, you would have to believe that Romans 6:22 and 5:12 are lies.
So, you need to decide whether the Bible is inerrant or not. If it isn’t then your beliefs are merely a matter of human choice, as you decide which parts to believe and which to disbelieve. Your beliefs would then be built on shifting sand.
It’s your choice, but as for me, I believe the Bible is inerrant.
I believe God set things in motion and always uses His laws of physics for His miracles.
I think you can believe in both, I do.
I think He created a perfect plan.
Suppose we didn't know anything about the process of painting, and one day, someone stumbled across a Picasso. This discovery began a search to determine the origin of the arrangement of colors on the canvas. Now, on one hand, you'd have a group of people who would suggest a possible explanation that the canvas must have been subjected to millions of years of exposure to various pigments of different colors that randomly attached themselves to the canvas, that this chaotic process somehow led to the well-ordered existence of the painting. This group would apply for and receive large amounts of government funding to continue their research into the origins of the painting.
On the other hand, some people would say "but look, here's a book where this guy claims that he used a brush to place dabs of paint on the canvas until he arrived at the finished product." This group of people would be in awe of the artist and his skill, and would seek to emulate him and learn to paint the way that he did.
The first group of people, who have a vested interest in seeing to it that their funding continues, would always reject the second group's argument.
As only man has free will, could other evolving life forms also attain this distinction of freewill? And if so, will their Christ have to die for them also or will the sacrifice of Jesus be enough?
Not saying that man is any more superior to other creatures other than being able to comprehend right and wrong, and to then always choose to sin and fall short of the glory of God, it comes to what makes man unique in accepting his sinful nature, which animals do not, and to accept the need for salvation.
Turning to science, all systems in the universe seek to return to an equilibrium state, not rise to a more complex one. A complex system will always revert to a more stable or less complex system, rather than rising to a more complex state or system. This is also based on the fact that energy or heat must be added to become something else, and where did that energy come from? And if the energy was removed from said system, it would revert back to its simpler form.
Taking the evolution point of view for a second, then God was a respecter of species when he instilled in man the essence that made him a living-soul with eternal life, and capable of sin. This statement would then mean that if God was a respecter of species, then He could be a respecter of persons and that would mean that He created some worthy of salvation and some unworthy. But it is written that He died once for ALL men, the just and the unjust. Does that mean that the Christ also died for the sins of animals and plants?
If God did create all creation for His pleasure, irrespective of time, whether over 7x10(to the 17,000,000 power) years, or in seven seconds or less does not matter, then His ultimate goal was to create a system that would allow man and God to commune together forever; at least until man chose to sin and break covenant with Him.
But where does science allow for man's redemption in evolving to a state where he no longer sins, needs salvation, or eventually becomes god himself. Christ is said to have been slain BEFORE the foundations of the earth, for what purpose, except to allow the eventually to be created man to fall and to then have an already established way back to God.
Taking evolution further, if the entire universe has the capability of reproducing life in very similar circumstances as happened here on earth, then that life is evolving into ever-increasing complex life forms until they too must reach the state of man here on earth that can choose to sin against God. That will mean that they will choose sin because all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Then these life forms must require that the Christ must be born on that planet in order to eventually climb up on another cross and to die eternally over and over again for eternity for an endlessly increasing number of developing lifeforms. But, we are told that Christ died once and that His work was finished.
The laws of thermodynamics mitigate against evolution ever taking hold, rather than breaking down into simpler less complex systems, or to at least a less complex system that is homogeneous rather than as diverse as life here on earth.
Even in mathematics there is an explanation where science and faith can never meet in evolution, and that is X=1/Y, an exponential curve where "X" and "Y" can never meet. If "X" is the evolution of man and "Y" is time, then man would devolve over time rather than evolve. This is so because the inverse cannot be true of "Y" cannot equal the inverse of "X" of: Y=1/X, which is a linear line of 45 degrees.
The above equation of X=1/Y would allow for the diversification of the various species being unique among themselves and other species along the Y=1/X scale, with each species having different positions on the latter scale, and to also allow for an infinite diversity within species, but never allowing for two distinct species having similar qualities; like a rose having scales or feathers, or a man or woman having offspring by splitting in two without procreation.
Simply put, science can never explain faith, and faith needs no science but it does not disallow it. And, I needed salvation through Christ's shed blood as I was the chief of sinners in my own life.
Old Patriot
This is how I look at it. I believe that God created evolution, and steered every single step along the way.
God is much bigger and more all-encompassing than a static God who can only handle one moment of creation. What a poor God that would be! God can steer every flap of every butterfly’s wings. He can steer evolution.
What does grace literally mean? And why would only 'some' be given the gift of faith? What is faith? And who are the examples we are given as demonstrating said faith? Are these listed NOT saved? Do they not come under 'grace'?
Are we not foretold of the 'wife' and also of the bride yet to be? When did this 'wife' event occur and who are those already 'married'? (set aside, election, saints, predestined, chosen, justified)
Paul says that God did in fact choose some before the foundation of this age some because of their faith and what stand they took.
Some like to change the meaning of what Christ literally told Nicodemus about being born from 'above' to a different word 'again' and different meaning. But Christ tells Nicodemus, John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but HE That came down from heaven, even the Son of man Which is in heaven. And all are required to be born from above, meaning that soul/spirit born into flesh, to have opportunity to SEE the kingdom of God, did not say all that saw the kingdom would enter it, but it was first requirement to SEE.
Christ used Himself as example that He was born from above, and came through the 'water' natural flesh birth as being the same as Paul further expounds upon in Hebrews 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are *partakers* (now how does one partake of something if they did not exist already) of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same; THAT through death HE might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
Lucifer was made most beautiful and wise, but he decided that he would be 'god' and he rebelled and when he did a third of the 'children' (not in flesh bodies) followed him. A third of the 'children' stood against and they are the 'election', NOT better than, but those already justified. But they too were required to come through this flesh age.
Look at Paul, his will was to destroy Christianity, he was NOT looking for Christ, and his example tells us that it was Christ that got his attention, which is why Paul is credible to tell us about predestination. There is NO other possible explanation as to why given what Paul's will was that he would be elected to write the majority of the New Testament.
Paul even goes into a deeper explanation when he tells us about Jacob and Esau. Romans 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, NOT of works, but of Him That calleth;)
12 It was said unto her, "The elder shall serve the younger."
Now what does this mean to US this day? You think it does not still apply? Guess one need know who in 'modern' times Jacob represents and who Esau represents.
13 As it is written, "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."
I also might note that Paul nor anyone else records that Esau was condemned to eternal death. We do NOT know IF Esau accepted Christ when as Peter tells us in IPeter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the *JUST* (interesting choice of words) for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh,
but quickened by the Spirit.
19 By which also HE went and preached unto the spirits in prison, 20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God WAITED in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight *SOULS* were SAVED by water.
Keep reading Peter then in 4:6 For for this cause was the *GOSPEL* preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.
Grace was offered to those all the way back to the beginning of this earth age, and we have NO clue who or how many accepted Christ before He reappeared to His disciples.
And this has to be a more coherent comment than my equation of the results of 40 + years of the indoctrination of that 'scientific methodology. s/
That was the conclusion I came to as well.
Even if God used animals from which to evolve humans, there's still the problem with Gen 2:7 in that it says that man became a living being. Animals are already alive, so that comment would be totally unnecessary. Adding that comment very strongly implies that the man created from the dust of the earth was not alive before that moment.
“I’d like to understand.”
As would I! But since you asked, I will share with you my beliefs. Ok, if I am honest with you and God, I struggle with the “young earth” creation account in Genesis. If I am truthful, it does seem to contradict what science tells us. Science also tells me that parthenogenesis is exceedingly rare in higher life forms, unheard of in humans. (Although it happens in turkeys and chickens, and has been manipulated to occur in some mammals.) And yet, I am compelled to believe that Jesus Christ was born of Mary, a virgin. Why? I believe the answer lies in faith. Faith is a mystery - I have so many questions that remain unanswered, like the account in Genesis. And what of the bodily Resurrection of Christ, my beloved Savior? Does science not tell us this is quite impossible? And yet I believe.
My wife is much more educated than I, and yet she is a “young earth” creationist. It was through her absolute faith in Almighty God, and her unshakable belief in the Holy Bible that I reached the conclusion I should just accept the Genesis account as accurate. Not that I understand or don’t have questions - just acceptance, in other words faith.
As a Christian, God doesn’t promise us an easy road. In fact, we are told to expect the opposite. But, if we hold on to the faith, Christ is most assuredly preparing a wonderful place for us. And that friend, is truly the Good News that we should spread!
I hope I didn’t offend you, I just thought I would share with you where I am. God Bless You in your Journey in Faith—JM
Please cite one. And Gigantopithecus does not count.
1. ...God created the heavens and the earth...
...and the earth was without form and void...
-WHY would God create a world without form and void? Search the book and we find the verses explaining Lucifers fall to earth.
This is not speculation, it is Biblical fact. Was God incompetant when he created the earth? No. It got that way somehow.
2. “This is how I look at it. I believe that God created evolution, and steered every single step along the way.
God is much bigger and more all-encompassing than a static God who can only handle one moment of creation. What a poor God that would be! God can steer every flap of every butterfly’s wings. He can steer evolution.”
-Again, you CANNOT have evolution as a means of Biblical creation for the reason that the book says that DEATH ENTERED THE WORLD THROUGH ADAM’S SIN.
How does evolution work? Things die. Over MANY many many generations as they ‘change’.
One CANNOT intelligently believe that God used ‘evolution’ to create us. That would make him a liar. My God is not a liar. Or a doofuss.
“The arrogant are easily offended”
Precisely, at the end of the day — for me, I need only remind myself of two very distinct and very important facts;
a) There is a God!
b) I’m not it!
As far as I’m concerned, the rest is simply an exercise in
mental masturbation — Who has that kind of time these days. I do not. K.I.S.S = Keep it simple son.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.