1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75OK for whom? As I pointed out, not everyone who calls themselves a Christian thinks that the Bible is the perfect word of God. Not everyone who calls themselves a Christian thinks evolution contradicts the Bible. These are not 'part time' Christians.
But the point here is it ok to be a part time Christian when it comes to letting other ideals, theories , beliefs and concepts such as evolution which does contradict with the Bible, into their everyday lifes is an ok thing to do?
And to even slightly favor a theory such as evolution and decide that certian parts of the Bible are just stories and not real would disqualify one as a Christian.
No, it would disqualify them from associating themselves with you and your denomination. They have as much right to call themselves Christian as you do.
Being "luke warm" in ones devotion is something detestable to God.
It has nothing to do with 'part time' or 'luke warm', it has to do with what people believe. Believing every word in the Bible right down to spelling errors does not make you more devout than someone who thinks that some books of the Bible are the ramblings of a mad man. You may think that such people are detestable to God, but they may in turn think you are. What I find detestable is when you think you own the word 'Christian' and can dictate to everyone else who can or cannot use it. I find it equally detestable when people think they have the trademark on the word "marriage".
- Joined
- 02 Feb 06
- Moves
- 123634
2 edits
Originally posted by galveston75Wait a second! You think Germany was on the whole atheist? Seriously? Have you ever been there? The state of Bavaria, for instance, is the birthplace of the Nazi party. They are perhaps the most Christian region in the world that I've ever visited. You cannot pass through a village in Bavaria without having an imposing cross practically in your face.
I remember a whole nation of very well educated people that were pretty much as a whole atheist and that prospered very well for a time period a few decades ago. Let's see..who were they? Oh yeah, Germany and their leader Hitler! Really educated weren't they.
Trying to assign Nazi Germany to atheism is really stretching it.
Originally posted by galveston75Unless of course God used evolution as part of his creation!!! This is what I mean by think outside the box G-75. I'm not saying God did or did not use evolution but you have to consider the argument at least. Understand why people believe and think what they do. There are Christians who do believe in an evolutionary model and still believe in God.
Point blank.... if someone accepts any form of evolution, they are not a TRUE Christian. It can't happen! The Bible clearly says God CREATED all life according to it's kind. Not some pot luck mixed up pond scum that wiggled into all the like we see on earth.
Manny
1 edit
Originally posted by menace71But Manny how could that possibly be? Either the Bible is wrong in the statement it makes in Gen 1: 21, 24 & 25 or God is playing a trick on us.
Unless of course God used evolution as part of his creation!!! This is what I mean by think outside the box G-75. I'm not saying God did or did not use evolution but you have to consider the argument at least. Understand why people believe and think what they do. There are Christians who do believe in an evolutionary model and still believe in God.
Manny
This explination clearly uses the word "Kind" and were no doubt put there for a reason and that would be to make it clear to us how God did this.
And to this very day that law of creation still exist. Every single species of all life forms still reproduce in it's "own kind."
If God had just created life to go where ever it may and turn out to be what ever it may, one could only imagine what all life would look like today,if it had survived at all, and the incredible mess and the unlikely hood of any thing being able to reproduce, ever.
Cows mate with cows and it works perfectly just as God designed it. If that rule were broken then nothing could ever reproduce.
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75Actual my friend Bulls mate with Cows you of all people should know this your originally from Texas 😉
But Manny how could that possibly be? Either the Bible is wrong in the statement it makes in Gen 1: 21, 24 & 25 or God is playing a trick on us.
This explination clearly uses the word "Kind" and were no doubt put there for a reason and that would be to make it clear to us how God did this.
And to this very day that law of creation still exist. Eve fectly just as God designed it. If that rule were broken then nothing could ever reproduce.
Actually I agree with you but someone can still be a Christian and Hold different beliefs on certain issues. I used to believe in classic evolution yet believed God created it all. I abandoned that belief based off what we observe in the real world but it's just like the Star Light issues if you believe in a young or younger earth and universe. There has to be an answer however if new facts come to life we have to honestly take a look at the facts. Examples of this would be Galileo and showing the solar system to be heliocentric and not vise versa. The Church of that day had him basically recant or be called a heretic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
Manny
1 edit
Controversy over heliocentrism
Main article: Galileo affair
Biblical references Psalm 93:1, 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30 include text stating that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." In the same manner, Psalm 104:5 says, "the Lord set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Further, Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place" etc.[46]
Galileo defended heliocentrism, and claimed it was not contrary to those Scripture passages. He took Augustine's position on Scripture: not to take every passage literally, particularly when the scripture in question is a book of poetry and songs, not a book of instructions or history. He believed that the writers of the Scripture merely wrote from the perspective of the terrestrial world, from that vantage point that the sun does rise and set. Another way to put this is that the writers would have been writing from a phenomenological point of view, or style.
From wiki above
Manny
Originally posted by galveston75The kind is cattle and an adult male is called a bull.
But Manny how could that possibly be? Either the Bible is wrong in the statement it makes in Gen 1: 21, 24 & 25 or God is playing a trick on us.
This explination clearly uses the word "Kind" and were no doubt put there for a reason and that would be to make it clear to us how God did this.
And to this very day that law of creation still exist. Eve ...[text shortened]... fectly just as God designed it. If that rule were broken then nothing could ever reproduce.
An adult female that has had a calf is a cow.
A young female before she has had a calf is called a heifer.
I agree that evolution is contrary to the Holy Bible.
But some think that adaptations and mutations are
evolution and they believe their can be small evolutionary
changes within kinds due to these mutations and
adaptations. They call it microevolution. I am like you,
I reject the idea of evolution all together and believe
adaptation and mutations are not evolution at all.
Originally posted by RJHindsThanks for the clarification
The kind is cattle and an adult male is called a bull.
An adult female that has had a calf is a cow.
A young female before she has had a calf is called a heifer.
I agree that evolution is contrary to the Holy Bible.
But some think that adaptations and mutations are
evolution and they believe their can be small evolutionary
changes within kinds due ...[text shortened]... e idea of evolution all together and believe
adaptation and mutations are not evolution at all.
Manny
Originally posted by menace71Well we lived about 70 miles from San Francisco a couple yers ago and cows do mate with cows in that area....Lol.
Actual my friend Bulls mate with Cows you of all people should know this your originally from Texas 😉
Actually I agree with you but someone can still be a Christian and Hold different beliefs on certain issues. I used to believe in classic evolution yet believed God created it all. I abandoned that belief based off what we observe in the real world but ...[text shortened]... y recant or be called a heretic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
Manny
Originally posted by RJHindsYes I agree that within it's "kinds" there can be variations or adaptations. God made all life that way so we can survive under most conditions and adapt if they change. The perfect example is the Galapagos iguanas that evolutionist love so much to supposedly prove evolution, somehow.
The kind is cattle and an adult male is called a bull.
An adult female that has had a calf is a cow.
A young female before she has had a calf is called a heifer.
I agree that evolution is contrary to the Holy Bible.
But some think that adaptations and mutations are
evolution and they believe their can be small evolutionary
changes within kinds due ...[text shortened]... e idea of evolution all together and believe
adaptation and mutations are not evolution at all.
I guess they forget a simple fact...it's still and iguana. Nothing more, nothing less.
Originally posted by galveston75That is not a 'simple fact'. What is an 'iguana'? What makes something an 'iguana'? You cannot answer those questions because you don't understand even the most basic concepts with regards to scientific classification.
I guess they forget a simple fact...it's still and iguana. Nothing more, nothing less.
Originally posted by twhiteheadFor what we call the buffalo or bison, the male is called a bull
So if a cow mates with a buffalo, would that make the Bible wrong?
and the female is called a cow. So the bull mates with the cow.
If this happens and a calf is produced it is in accordance with
Genesis 1:24-25. Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth
living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and
beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was so. And God
made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle
after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after
its kind; and God saw that it was good.
Originally posted by RJHindsIt seems you misunderstood the question. I am asking, if a cow of kind 'cattle' mates with a bull of kind 'buffalo', and they have a calf of mixed kind, would that indicate that the Bible is wrong?
For what we call the buffalo or bison, the male is called a bull
and the female is called a cow. So the bull mates with the cow.