Replies

Its interesting that your “rebuttals” do not disagree with the essence of Genesis. However you seem enraged that someone may accept its essence but not its literality. Well if you are truly a tolerant person, you should recognize that people have the God given ability to think and ponder everything. You should also be humble enough to consider that you may be wrong in your approach and your intransience leads good people away from God.

Its interesting that your “rebuttals” do not disagree with the essence of Genesis. However you seem enraged that someone may accept its essence but not its literality. Well if you are truly a tolerant person, you should recognize that people have the God given ability to think and ponder everything. You should also be humble enough to consider that you may be wrong in your approach and your intransience[sic] leads good people away from God.

I'm not seeing any signs of CofA being "enraged", "intolerant" or "intransigent (that is what you meant, right?)". Nor is there a lack of "humility". Just someone arguing her point using both logic as well as Biblical examples to back it up. What do your rebuttals offer other than a denial of a literal meaning to an important issue Christians should be clear on? Are YOU humble enough to admit you could be wrong in both your approach as well as your opinion? I would think "good" people, who are sincerely looking into the topic might appreciate a strongly supported basis for an argument. So far, I haven't been convinced you have one.

Its interesting that your “rebuttals” do not disagree with the essence of Genesis. However you seem enraged that someone may accept its essence but not its literality. Well if you are truly a tolerant person, you should recognize that people have the God given ability to think and ponder everything. You should also be humble enough to consider that you may be wrong in your approach and your intransience leads good people away from God.

Now THAT is a not-so-subtle arrogant response.

As one who seems to be in agreement with CofA on many points, I perceive your lackadaiscal approach to believing the accounts in Genesis as written can be carried over to Jesus Christ Himself.

Many posters on FR RF forum threads over time have demoted Our Only Savior Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God, to just a good teacher and all 'round nice guy. Are you one of those FReepers who has imagined Jesus less authoritative than He is? I hope not and suggest you strive "to err" on the side of a "literal" Word of God.

"Its interesting that your “rebuttals” do not disagree with the essence of Genesis. "

Yet yours disagree with the written Word.

BTW, "essence" is a synonym in this context for "heart of the message"; it's another way of saying you don't believe the Scripture.

"However you seem enraged that someone may accept its essence but not its literality."

Enraged...seriously? Allendale, I challenge you to provide one example of rage on my part. Please. I think you might be engaging in a bit of projection here, but I ask you to copy and paste anything and everything I might have posted to you which proves your accusation.

I have a feeling I'll be waiting indefinitely, just as I am for you to address one of my specific points to you, for you to explain where you picked up the secular idea that the fruit of the Tree was an apple, and whether you think Jesus was being deceptive or whether He was mistaken.

But I invite you to address all of those. Will you?

" Well if you are truly a tolerant person, "

Where did I give you that impression? I only hear that word thrown about by liberals and non-believers. I have zero tolerance when I hear implications that the Lord of creation didn't know what He was talking about.

"you should recognize that people have the God given ability to think and ponder everything."

Which means what? We can ponder all day and be wrong. This is why Proverbs 3 tells us to trust in the Lord and lean not on our own understanding.

" You should also be humble enough to consider that you may be wrong in your approach and your intransience leads good people away from God."

Sorry, that makes no sense. You're telling me that trusting in the Scriptures leads people away from God while doubting them brings people TO Him.

I suspect you might also mean that one has to be "tolerant", respectful of all viewpoints, etc., or people will be turned off. Am I wrong?

The reason I know my convictions in this case are right is because they agree with Scripture---with the Lord Himself. That has nothing to do with me; it's simply the way we are supposed to measure everything.

Again, Jesus twice confirmed that God made the first man and the first woman in the beginning.

Paul was in agreement.

I think this is the fourth time I've asked you, but maybe you'll answer this time. Why should I doubt the words of Jesus Christ, and those of Spirit-filled Paul, and believe you instead?