Posted on 06/11/2007 2:09:09 PM PDT by Alter Kaker
Woah, woah, woah. Find me one evolutionary biologist who says that we came from monkeys. Just one will suffice.
Both microevolution and macroevolution have been observed in nature and in the lab. It’s impossible to refute the existence of either.
The Bible is not a scientific text. Christians that insist that it is are what prevents me from accepting Jesus as my personal savior.
So it’s the Christians that prevent you? If Christians were less flawed according to your views than you would be accepting Christ as your savior? I take it that you are perfectly holy without sin and therefore in no need of a personal savior. Scripture teaches us otherwise. If you don’t understand your sin and God’s Holiness than the necessity of Christ’s crucifixion for salvation will not hold any meaning for you regardless of how perfect the messenger is, even if someone rises from the dead. Luke 16:31. It was true then and it is true now, but don’t take my word for it find out for yourself. You may be amazed at what you find inside, if given the courage to face it. I pray that you are given that courage. You can Freep mail me anytime.
Cheers
It was one "Christian" in particular on FR that provoked me into thinking about why I would take some parts of the Bible literally, and not other parts. Doing that made sense at the time, because some things in Genesis such as a 4000 year old earth and the flood are obviously not fact. But when contrasted with verses in the Bible that insist on literalness, it made me realize that I had to reject the Bible in it's entirety. Note the sentence fragment in my original post "Christians that insist". Those specific people were the ones who forced me to face my faith and reject it, not all Christians.
If Christians were less flawed according to your views than you would be accepting Christ as your savior?
I've come to see Christians as some of the most flawed on earth. Only now to I put two and two together and recognize that it was bible thumping Christians that rationalized the possible rape of my children in court documents because the perp, the guy who married my ex, was another Christian. Only now to I recognize that the man who ripped off a company I had shares in to the tune of six figures was also a serious bible thumper. These are some of the people who screwed me the most, and was it just coincidence that they were the most religious? Or was it just that being forgiven by God, they had no conscience about what they did?
I take it that you are perfectly holy without sin and therefore in no need of a personal savior.
I am a sinner, and I truly wish there was a savior. I don't want to die forever any more than you do, but I guarantee we both will.
If you don’t understand your sin...
Been there, walked down that isle, discovered it was all in my head.
If you don’t understand your sin...
Been there, walked down that isle, discovered it was all in my head. .
I am a sinner, and I truly wish there was a savior ….(RE: sin?) it was all in my head. Perhaps its this medium of communication that does not allow for subtleties of inflection or you managed two totally contradictory statements with only two sentences between. Contradiction implies some struggling on your part, a spiritual tweaking of sorts. Your not even close to being as jaded about Christians as others I have know that have been brought to faith. In fact the apostle Paul had even worse views of Christians and acted on those views. But don’t take my word for it, you can see it for yourself. Saul = Paul (Act 7:58, Act 8:1, Act 8:3, Act 9:1, Act 9:22….Hmm, now that Act 9:22 is some contradiction, something must of happened between Act 9:1 and Act 9:22) Perhaps your being dragged down the road of faith, it can be painful for the hard headed. It was for me, I was dragged to the faith kicking and screaming the whole way. narby, you are in my prayers.
Cheers
When all else fails, read the instructions (CCEL > Bibles and Commentaries)
"Knowing" that evolution takes place is an all together different kind of knowledge than revealed truth.
The physical and observational evidence for the modern evolutionary synthesis is overwhelming. Is it possible (however unlikely) that a scientific theory might someday better be able to explain the observational data than the theory we are currently working with? Absolutely. That's the nature of scientific theory, in which we adapt to respond to new insights and discoveries.
I don't see any contradictions, unless you want to get into legalistic parsing where sin can't exist unless there is a God/savior, or some other misinterpretation. The bottom line, you get my point. God only exists in your head, and when you die, you're dead.
I was dragged to the faith kicking and screaming the whole way.
I was dragged kicking and screaming away from mine. I found I could no longer lie to myself. The truth is the truth.
In the light of scripture this doesn’t surprise me.
The truth is the truth.
Yep..The truth is the truth, and the bottom line is that it is unreasonable( dare I say unscientific) to believe that all that there is of this world is what our 5 senses provide. The truth is it is unreasonable to deny that something extraordinary happened almost 2000 years ago in that Roman backwater called Jerusalem, so extraordinary that Western Civilization reset their Calendar around one man and that you and I are still talking about him on a very dead thread.
Philosophy may have instigated the science movement, but science left philosophy behind centuries ago. Belief in "something" that can't be measured or detected in some way, or it's actions predicted to an extent to demonstrate it's existence is ... unscientific.
The truth is it is unreasonable to deny that something extraordinary happened almost 2000 years ago in that Roman backwater called Jerusalem, so extraordinary that Western Civilization reset their Calendar around one man
Julius Ceasar and the Julian calendar? Maybe you mean Mohamed, because you do know that more people in the world believe in him than Jesus (oh, wait, I guess Mohamed doesn't have a calender). Or perhaps there was a Chinese guy they named the Chinese calendar after, because It would not surprise me that more civilized people for more centuries used that calendar than the one that was started a few centuries after Jesus died. The fact that Jesus was a remarkable man, that he inspired a plurality of people to believe in his diety is not unique in the human experience.
The truth is the truth. No faith has scientific evidence to back it up. Yes, there is some evidence that Jesus existed, but Mohamed did too. So what. Wasn't Buddha a real guy? No faith has any more evidence to back it up than any other. That's why they call it "faith".
I don't understand it either, but there's plenty of people here that are more than willing to remind you.
Do you feel the same way about paleontology and geology?
“Do you feel the same way about paleontology and geology?”
Pure paleontology and geology, not usually. But its frequently mixed up with evolution.
What about finding life on Europa? Would this conflict with the teachings of Genesis?
“What about finding life on Europa? Would this conflict with the teachings of Genesis?”
When they find life on Europa outside of a novel or movie I’ll worry about it.
In general though it wouldn’t. Genesis says God created the universe. Last time I checked Europa was in the universe. Thats assuming you mean the Europa thats Jupiters moon and not the Europa thats the official website for the European Union.
Why would the finding of life outside of Earth worry you?
Although you said it wouldn't generally bother you, your tone seems to indicate that there is at least the possibility that finding non-Earth life would challenge your faith.
And yes, I mean the moon of Jupiter. There's more chance of finding intelligent life there than in the EU's bureaucracy.
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.