Creation vs. Evolution

[Marvel]

He did not say that, he said 'Biblically-based' websites. Not any believer in God. There is a big difference.

Exactly. If a Biblical foundation publishes ANYTHING it is immediately dismissed by many folks without ever reading it. After all, what could a scholar who has devoted years to learning multiple languages actually know about word origin? Appearantly nothing if he/she is a Christian. But, if either of you bothered to even skim both the links I provided, you would see that they are saying essentially the same thing. The only difference is that one site has the word "Bible" in its url & the other has wikopedia. Again, I ask- who is closed minded?

 

[Marvel]

Well I would hardly consider Mike's posts respectful given that he has labelled the entire population of the world sinful, he has said that homosexuals should not have equality with heterosexuals, posted paranoid comments about the 'gay agenda' and rarely been straight in answering direct questions. I find his attitudes towards homosexuals and women appalling personally. I mean, he won't even agree that organised religion has been responsible for discriminating against women and homosexuals!

Btw, I think as little of Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism as I do Christianity actually. But so far, nobody of those faiths has stepped forward with their thoughts on this debate (or at least in the last 10 pages or so).

No, he has said that we were all born with the propensity to sin & eventually we all do so. He has also never stated that homosexuality is a bigger sin than adultery or fornication (sex outside of marriage). What he has said is that, unlike the adulterer who repents from their sin, homosexuals demand that we all accept & normalize their sin. How many adulterers do you know who will do that? They don't (well, maybe except for some of those Hollywood "stars" that are always in the news ). That is the difference.

FWIW, my pastor has never to my knowledge preached a sermon on the sin of homosexuality, although he has touched on it occasionally like all sins that we need to turn from- no more, no less. We have had a pastor visit who is involved in a ministry to help homosexuals who want to leave the lifestyle- a ministry he founded after he, himself, repented of his former life. It is a ministry based in love & forgiveness- not in hellfire & damnation as you seem to think all Christians preach.

Conversely, my pastor has taught on several occasions on the sin of living together & called for couples to stop living together & honor God's Word by getting married. His emphasis is always on the responsibility that the man has to respect, love & cherish the woman by honoring her & God with a covenant relationship.

Sas, while it is evident that you were treated harshly by people under the guise of religion in your childhood, I would ask you to consider the possibility that those people would have been just as harsh & condemning even without religion. I was raised by parents like that too & it left its scars. The irony? They were avowed agnostics, if not atheists....I finally found it in my heart to forgive them through knowing Jesus but I still have to struggle against the attitudes that they taught me.

I would challenge you to take a bit of time & listen to any of the 1600+ Bible studies that are archived on this site. You might just be surprised with what you hear. Lest you think that I am biased, I can, & will , provide you with other websites. The only common element is that they are all Bible teaching churches. Just PM me if you are interested.

Now, I really am done with responding to this thread. We are all having difficulty communicating with clarity &, apparently, we are all feeling as if the insults are coming from both sides. I do not see the purpose in continuing to participate under those circumstances.


Y'all have a wonderful night (or day)!

 

[Sas]

Exactly. If a Biblical foundation publishes ANYTHING it is immediately dismissed by folks such as you without ever reading it. After all, what could a scholar who has devoted years to learning multiple languages actually know about word origin? Appearantly nothing if he/she is a Christian. But, if either of you bothered to even skim both the links I provided, you would see that they are saying essentially the same thing. The only difference is that one site has the word "Bible" in its url & the other has wikopedia. Again, I ask- who is closed minded?

Well I hardly think I am closed minded given I have done biblical study for many years and was a 'born again' Christian for 15 years. I have also done a lot of reading about evolutionary theory, something the creationists here have clearly not done. So yea, I do think I am qualified to be dismissive of the Bible given I know what it actually says.

I do read many articles and papers written by Christians in support of creationism and ID and have never ever found one that is logical or well-researched or even anything resembling science. It is just the ones on creationism I dismiss these days without even bothering as I feel it is a waste of my time given that the same arguments are repeated over and over without the creationists ever addressing the scientific responses to what they have written (much like here actually). If you post one though, I will read it and have done so for other arguments posted by creationists here though as it is only fair when you are debating the topic. Why will none of the creationists here address the links that people supporting evolution have posted?

As far as the origin of the world 'God', that has hardly been the focus of this discussion and quite frankly I don't care about the origin so have not read your links. Why would you focus on that and not the responses to the poor science posted by some of the Young Earth creationists here? It is a distraction from the main issue, nothing more.

 

[Sas]

No, he has said that we were all born with the propensity to sin & eventually we all do so. He has also never stated that homosexuality is a bigger sin than adultery or fornication (sex outside of marriage). What he has said is that, unlike the adulterer who repents from their sin, homosexuals demand that we all accept & normalize their sin. How many adulterers do you know who will do that? They don't (well, maybe except for some of those Hollywood "stars" that are always in the news ). That is the difference.

The difference is adulterers and fornicators have control over their actions. Homosexuals have no control over who they find attractive. But we have covered that a lot already and don't feel it would be useful to start up the argument again.

FWIW, my pastor has never to my knowledge preached a sermon on the sin of homosexuality, although he has touched on it occasionally like all sins that we need to turn from- no more, no less. We have had a pastor visit who is involved in a ministry to help homosexuals who want to leave the lifestyle- a ministry he founded after he, himself, repented of his former life. It is a ministry based in love & forgiveness- not in hellfire & damnation as you seem to think all Christians preach.

I don't think that all Christians preach hellfire and damnation, far from it. My mother, for example, is now a very liberal Christian (long story behind her change that I won't go into) and was counselling homosexual couples as part of her job until she left recently (at a Christian charity - she was the only one who would see homosexual couples actually), she doesn't care if I am not married to my partner who I live with, supports the theory of evolution, and so on and so on. So of course, some Christians are very accepting and it has been interesting watching the transformation in my parents from what it was like for me as a child. If you'd asked me ten years ago if I thought my parents would disown me for being a bisexual atheist who reads about evolution in her spare time whilst living with her defacto partner I would have said 'most definitely'. Luckily that is not the case now.

Conversely, my pastor has taught on several occasions on the sin of living together & called for couples to stop living together & honor God's Word by getting married. His emphasis is always on the responsibility that the man has to respect, love & cherish the woman by honoring her & God with a covenant relationship.

If that is what you want to do and feel the need to be married, cool good for you. All I ask is that you don't try to impose it on others as I will never get married to my partner. (The $300 for the marriage license, I could spend on diving you know!)

Sas, while it is evident that you were treated harshly by people under the guise of religion in your childhood, I would ask you to consider the possibility that those people would have been just as harsh & condemning even without religion. I was raised by parents like that too & it left its scars. The irony? They were avowed agnostics, if not atheists....I finally found it in my heart to forgive them through knowing Jesus but I still have to struggle against the attitudes that they taught me.

I think some of those people were harsh and condemning because they were religious. On the other hand I think people can be come much less condemning when they are religious. Same with atheists or any other religion. I have no issue (as mentioned) with people believing in God, the only thing I have an issue with is when people try to make others follow their beliefs against their will.

I would challenge you to take a bit of time & listen to any of the 1600+ Bible studies that are archived on this site. You might just be surprised with what you hear. Lest you think that I am biased, I can, & will , provide you with other websites. The only common element is that they are all Bible teaching churches. Just PM me if you are interested.

Sure will check it out in the interests of being fair in this discussion, any in particular? Perhaps you could read 'The Blind Watchmaker' in the interests of giving the other side a fair hearing.

 

[Warthaug]

Ah, but doublespeak like pro-choice is acceptable? What's wrong with pro-abortion?

But there is a fundamental difference, as one can be pro-choice without being pro-abortion. Personally speaking, I find abortion to be repellent. If asked by a friend for advice on the matter its would be the last option I'd "recommend". But I also believe that it is not my place to dictate what others do with their bodies, nor do I believe that I have some sort of special insight which would make my opposition to abortion "superior" to those who support abortion.

Therefore, I am pro-choice, in that I believe people should have the choice to have an abortion, but I'm pro-abortion as I dislike the concept.

Bryan

 

[Warthaug]

The difference is adulterers and fornicators have control over their actions. Homosexuals have no control over who they find attractive. But we have covered that a lot already and don't feel it would be useful to start up the argument again.

I wrote a lot of that material, but I would actually disagree a little with what you say here. All scientific evidence to date suggests that homosexuals are genetically "programmed" to be attracted to members of the same sex. However, the comparison to hetero's cheating isn't "fair"; essentially its a comparison of apples and oranges. After all, homosexuals are as promiscuous, if not more, than hetero's. Meaning that they "cheat" at least as much as the rest of us.

And, like us hetero's, they cheat with people whom they find attractive. It just happens that those people are of the same sex.

From a biblical point of view (ignoring the homosexuality part for a bit), it is still adultery and/or fornication, depending on the circumstances...

Anyway's, its midnight, I've had quite a few beers, and we start up again at 7:30...
​

Bryan

 

[Sas]

I wrote a lot of that material, but I would actually disagree a little with what you say here. All scientific evidence to date suggests that homosexuals are genetically "programmed" to be attracted to members of the same sex. However, the comparison to hetero's cheating isn't "fair"; essentially its a comparison of apples and oranges. After all, homosexuals are as promiscuous, if not more, than hetero's. Meaning that they "cheat" at least as much as the rest of us.

I think you have misunderstood my intent? I was basically just trying to point out how cruel it is to make something one has no control over, a sin. I don't really understand what you are getting at with your comment though. I wasn't making any statement as to the promiscuity of homosexuals... and was not comparing homosexuality with cheating at all. Substitute cheating and any other sin you can control (such as working on the Sabbath in some religions or eating beef, etc etc) and my point would remain the same.

 

[Thalassamania]

Ah, but doublespeak like pro-choice is acceptable? What's wrong with pro-abortion? Seems to me that it is a pretty way of hiding the fact that a human life is being taken. Sorry, Thal- that type of insulting argument cuts both ways.

Sorry ... I have no problem with pro-abortion ... I hate calling a spade an entrenching tool.

I'm definitely pro-abortion and a woman's right to choose. In the UK the laws are based on viability of the embryo. It's not taking life if a life can't survive on it's own. If you could remove embryos from an unwilling womb and they can survive themselves, then abortion becomes virtually unnecessary. Who is anyone to dictate that a woman MUST supply her womb even if she dosn't want to?

I agree, you've said it better than I did.

Just remember, "Every cop's a criminal and all the sinners' Saints." Rolling Stones.

 

[sheck33]

He did not say that, he said 'Biblically-based' websites. Not any believer in God. There is a big difference.

Thank you.

 

[sheck33]

Exactly. If a Biblical foundation publishes ANYTHING it is immediately dismissed by many folks without ever reading it. After all, what could a scholar who has devoted years to learning multiple languages actually know about word origin? Appearantly nothing if he/she is a Christian. But, if either of you bothered to even skim both the links I provided, you would see that they are saying essentially the same thing. The only difference is that one site has the word "Bible" in its url & the other has wikopedia. Again, I ask- who is closed minded?

Maybe you should learn to read posts a little better. I said that biblically based sites as a rule have little merit regarding the subjects of science and history, if Wikipedia claimed that creation 'scientists' found this or that I wouldn't take that seriously either. A lot of stuff on Wikipedia is not correct.

If biblical sites publish something that 'proves' creation or 'proves' the earth is 6000 years old or 'proves' the great flood or 'disproves' the fact that people and apes have a common ancestor then people rightfully dismiss that as balony.