Replies

the other option is “I accept the Bible as it is. I’m not going to try to fit evolution into the Bible but I’m not going to pretend I have all the scientific answers. I have faith that one day we will and everything will make sense.”

For many years the accepted science was that there could not have been a beginning at all, that the universe always existed. Someone who wanted to fit that belief into the Bible wouldn’t make it past the first 3 words. Now most scientists believe there was a beginning, just billions of years ago. Scientific understanding changes, especially when we’re talking about a time when nobody else was around to observe and measure.

[[but Christians who have fallen for the ‘god of the gaps’ theory which is usually associated withthe liberal / left.]]

One has to wonder just who these self-professed ‘Christians’ worship- it certainly isn’t hte Creator that they worship, and infact, many who beleive in theistic evolution deny the very God-ness of Christ because it conflicts with their hypothesis of Macroevolution and hte need for a redeemer. I’ve seen many theistic evolutionists deny clai mthat Christ was nothign more than a ‘good teacher’ and claim that most portions of God’s word were nothign more than popular myths (some even goign so far as to claim the Holy spirit inspired writers of the bible weren’t infact holy Spirit inspired, but rather were plagarists who ‘stole myths’ from other religions’)

In order to reconcile Macroevolution with God’s word, one MUST call God out as a liar, deny whole portions of God’s word, Question the very Holy Spirit inspired writers of God’s word, Quesiton whether the bible is infact the Direct word of God to us, and not some simple man-inspired ‘good teachings of hte day’.

By their fruit shall ye know them- Theistic evolutionists play a good game, but their fruit is rotton to hte core, and hteir contempt for true Christians who hold that God’s word is infallible, is only thinly disguised by religious sounding rhettoric.. My God created man from the dust of hte ground, breathed life directly into his nostrils, created a mate for him- breathed life directly into her nostrils, and there was no sin or spirit death BEFORE the fall, which rules out macroevolution, and hwich therefore means the bible and evolution do infact contradict each other- any attemptto reconcile the two is nothign more than an attempt to discredit God’s word altogether by claiming we ‘need to broaden our interpretations’. The Evil One comes as an angel of light- quotign Scriptures (but out of context), and tryign to convince hte masses that there’s ‘more than one itnerpretation’ of hte bible, and tryign to convince the masses that the bible is open to all manner of error because the ‘writers were human, and the translators were confused’.

[[That is not to accuse our brother of being liberal/left]]

He accuses hismelf- it’s open for anyone to see and judge- He certainly accuses you and I I suppose, of being too ‘narrow minded’ (and htus by implication, apparently we’re ‘scientifically ignorant’ Christians who hold to the infallibility of God’s word, in his mind)

Thanks...I am surprised though, not that there are atheists on FR who only have the option of evolution, but Christians who have fallen for the ‘god of the gaps’ theory which is usually associated withthe liberal / left. That is not to accuse our brother of being liberal/left but only to recognise the influences in that mindset.

I notice more and more FReepers rightly pointing out the obvious angle of liberalism. It’s common sense...what other scientific theory leans on the courts? What other theory so obviously can not tolerate dissent?

Above all what would lead anyone to believe liberals don’t hijack science like they hijack any and everything else they touch?

And trust me, many recognize it all right. They know that connection or “mindset” exactly, it’s just that liberals have no shame! SOME may be unwitting but too many are openly liberal and could care less!