Posted on 10/10/2009 11:10:58 AM PDT by bogusname
I suppose that question might make sense to you,
but all it does for me is demonstrate your ignorance
of what Christian salvation is.
“good enough for salvation” indeed... A basic error. Noone and nothing is “good enough for salvation”.
“Most evos certainly do care about whether people believe in evolution, otherwise they wouldn’t be forcing it on the school kids in the public school system and pitching fits over it here on FR and other forums.”
No, I believe you are incorrect. Most evolutionists, when they have an opinion on education, generally object to creationism being taught in science class as science. That isn’t unreasonable.
I don’t have a problem with creationism being taught, but I do object to “creation science” being taught, as it is complete BS.
I don’t know how many evolutionists agree with me - we aren’t a lock-step group.
We’re both freepers.
Neither are creationists.
That doesn’t answer the question. Try again.
““good enough for salvation” indeed... A basic error. Noone and nothing is “good enough for salvation”.”
I do agree with you, but I was using it in the ironic sense.
“Creation Science” exists on the very premise that Genesis is not only true, but literally true, and then seeks to find (or make up) evidence based on what they claim is science to back it up.
So if you say (and I agree) that the literal interpretation of everything in the Bible is not necessary for salvation, then my ironic question was - if it is necessary for “creation science”, then why wouldn’t it be necessary for salvation.
Your logic, which I accept, will send you to hell if you believe the most fundamentalist creationists, that includes virtually all of those who believe in “creation science”.
“Neither are creationists.”
No, but the “creation science” folk that are the subject of the thread are a lock-step group. They are wrong in lock-step as well.
Do you honestly think this is a valid "if-then"? Ridiculous.
“That doesn’t answer the question. Try again.”
I don’t have the answer to that, because I don’t believe it says that. However, the “creation science” cabal does believe that, and I’m waiting for one to chime in and kindly point out how everyone who disagrees with them is going to hell, they certainly do believe that and I’ve gotten them to admit it on more than one occasion.
“Do you honestly think this is a valid “if-then”? Ridiculous.”
You finally understand what I’m trying to say. It IS ridiculous. It’s “creation science”.....ridiculous.
You made absolutely no point whatsoever, except to demonstrate your ignorance of essentials.
Now, about that Bible verse that states that your damnation is assured for believing evolution... got that looked up yet?
There is a distinction that many refuse to make and that is deliberately blurred by those who wish to render Christianity moot.
That is that people must believe that every word of the Bible be interpreted literally. They make it an either or to try to trap Christians.
Every word of the Bible is true as God is truth. That doesn't mean that every word must be interpreted literally, as there are songs, poetry, proverbs, etc.
The term *literally true* is used to equate literalism with truth and they are not the same thing.
As to why Genesis be read as factual is because it is clearly a narrative account.
The other issue is that many would change the interpretation from allegorical to *literal* part way through the book, after the Flood, for no other reason than their preconceived notions of what must be true because of *scientific* evidence. There is nothing in the style or reading of the book that would indicate that after the Flood, Genesis should be read as factual as opposed to allegorical.
That is totally inconsistent with any kind of grammatical style.
To be consistent, either the whole book be read as factual, or the whole book as allegorical.
“You made absolutely no point whatsoever, except to demonstrate your ignorance of essentials.”
You may think so.
“Now, about that Bible verse that states that your damnation is assured for believing evolution... got that looked up yet?”
There isn’t one, in my view. However, “creation science” says there is. It’s just one more thing they are wrong about.
Thank you for the assist.
Surprise, surprise......
Is there ever an evo with enough integrity to actually answer a question put to him or her?
I haven't met one yet.
Ref:
Norman Geisler, “Conviction without Compromise”, Chapter 17
What is and ISN’T, “literal interpretation”.
What “literal interpretation” does not mean, and what it does not exclude.
So, some are. But you inadvertently admitted my point, that not all are.
Oh, really? I haven't heard or read any tenet of "creation science" that declares your damnation if you don't believe Genesis.
Got that strawman beaten up yet?
“Got that strawman beaten up yet?”
It’s not a strawman. It’s what they believe. Do you actually think that the “creation science” guys would go through all the trouble they do to make stuff up if it wasn’t a matter of eternal salvation (for them)?
And yet you have yet to provide a quote or a citation to this effect.
“So, some are. But you inadvertently admitted my point, that not all are.”
There are creationists that believe in evolution. There are hard-science creationists, and there are creationists in all walks of life. I know them, they are among my friends.
“creation science” is a different animal. You HAVE to believe certain things to be amongst them, otherwise you are not one of them.
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.