literal or not

Yes, that makes sense to me. I respect Charles Darwin, however and I do not like the way evangelicals demonize him, especially people who take pride that they have never read him.

Originally posted by catstorm
Yes, that makes sense to me. I respect Charles Darwin, however and I do not like the way evangelicals demonize him, especially people who take pride that they have never read him.

On reading the Bible you should exercise your praying organ to take the word of God "by means of all prayer ..."

The whole Bible is really a prayer book. Say "Amen" to everything you read with a prayerful spirit in your inner man.

We ingest spiritual sustenance in this way. And with Jeremiah the prophet we can say that we found the word of God and ATE it.

Jeremiah 15:16 -

"New American Standard Bible
Your words were found and I ate them, And Your words became for me a joy and the delight of my heart; For I have been called by Your name, O LORD God of hosts.

Eating the word and feeding your innermost being will teach you what you should believe too. When men tell you this and that, the word of God which fed something deep in your being will be a guide to what should be taken in and what should not.

I agree that this is how religion works, but not biology. The scientific method must be allowed to lead where it leads. Religionists must not be allowed to dictate to scientists what their conclusions will be. Are we on the same page?

Originally posted by catstorm
I agree that this is how religion works, but not biology. The scientific method must be allowed to lead where it leads. Religionists must not be allowed to dictate to scientists what their conclusions will be. Are we on the same page?

Sure people of faith cannot dictate to biologist anything. Even if they have some expertise with the issues, who can dictate to another what he will believe?

People will usually believe what they want to believe.

I think Charles Darwin, had he been alive to view the advances in Microbiology and Cell structure and function, would have re-thought some of his ideas.

But we won't know that because he's not coming back.

I wonder though, what Darwin would have thought of this little talk by ID Stephen Myer.

YouTube&spfreload=1

Darwin may have rethought some of his ideas given today's knowledge. But he did valuable scientific work and honest Christians should give him credit for it. I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with my opinions, only when they slander a good, though imperfect man. Einstein said"...the miracles of the Bible could not possibly have happenef.". Christians still give Einstein credit for the things he was right about.

Originally posted by catstorm
Darwin may have rethought some of his ideas given today's knowledge. But he did valuable scientific work and honest Christians should give him credit for it. I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with my opinions, only when they slander a good, though imperfect man. Einstein said"...the miracles of the Bible could not possibly have happenef.". Christians still give Einstein credit for the things he was right about.

Darwin probably would not have been such a target. But you see atheists have used Darwin to beat Christians over the head ever since Scopes in the US.

He was made an icon.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Figuratively, it means give to the poor and rely on God for your needs.

No, no, it means give to the government and have the government sell it, take the majority of the profits, and then redistribute the crumbs to the poor.

You must be reading the New International version according to Rush Limbaugh. 😞

Darwin is not responsible for what atheists do in his name. Christians have blamed Darwin for Naziism, racism and every other evil. Darwin worked against slavery most of his life and you will never hear about that in a Pentecostal church.

Originally posted by catstorm
Darwin is not responsible for what atheists do in his name. Christians have blamed Darwin for Naziism, racism and every other evil. Darwin worked against slavery most of his life and you will never hear about that in a Pentecostal church.

The Nazis take some blame for adopting certain distortions of Darwinism. But I'll not defend this stance since any argument that mentions Nazis is an automatic fail.🙂

Originally posted by catstorm
Darwin is not responsible for what atheists do in his name. Christians have blamed Darwin for Naziism, racism and every other evil. Darwin worked against slavery most of his life and you will never hear about that in a Pentecostal church.

I know what you mean. I was reading a book on John Calvin. And the first chapter said that Calvin and "Calvinism" has been blamed for so many diverse ills of society that its ridiculous. It was funny.

Originally posted by sonship
I know what you mean. I was reading a book on John Calvin. And the first chapter said that Calvin and "Calvinism" has been blamed for so many diverse ills of society that its ridiculous. It was funny.

I was reading a book on John Calvin. Its a crime thriller murder mystery then.

Rather interestingly I am reading a book on the life of Protestant reformer Thomas Cromwell, famous for the dissolution of many of Englands monasteries.

The most amazing argument against evolution is the cruelty of "survival of the fittest". The lion kills the slowest zebra, not because of Darwin's book, but because the slow zebra is easy to catch. Is this a good system? The lion thinks so. This happened long before any naturalist described it . Blaming Darwin is like blaming Isaac Newton when someone falls off the roof.

Originally posted by catstorm
The most amazing argument against evolution is the cruelty of "survival of the fittest". The lion kills the slowest zebra, not because of Darwin's book, but because the slow zebra is easy to catch. Is this a good system? The lion thinks so. This happened long before any naturalist described it . Blaming Darwin is like blaming Isaac Newton when someone falls off the roof.

I don't think anyone blames Darwin for carnivorous animals.

We are unhappy with Darwin for blurring the line between the special creature Human Being who was made in the image of God and the animals.

Man is indeed connected to all other living things. But I believe there is nothing else on the earth like a human being. And when I say this I do not mean it in the same way that there is nothing else on the earth quite like a zebra or a cheetah.

All animals have a kind of uniqueness. But it is humanity alone created by God, as another living thing, yet alone in the image of God and according to God's likeness.

Darwin's ideas lowered the dignity of humanity to link us too much with lower creatures.

I think a chimpanzee or a gorilla does look something like a human being. But I do not believe this means a relationship of descent. Rather it is a purposeful design intended that man could appreciate his uniqueness. We are connected with other animals, yet we have a self consciousness built in and ordained by our Creator, that we are unique.

If there were something ELSE on the earth that could compete with the human being in expressing this HIGHER consciousness and spirituality then my argument would be weakened.


And no, I do not think termites or ants or bees or dolphins or whales or chimpanzees, as fascinating as they may be, can compare with human beings. They form a frame of reference by which we can appreciate that we are indeed made in the image and likeness of God. (Genesis 1:26,27)

I have heard some atheists say that they just don't believe in one more god than Christians, who were accused of being athiests for so many other gods.

I like to say that I, as a theist, believe in one more higher life than they do. (At least one, skipping for a moment the angels).

Creationists do blame Darwin for survival of the fittest. I volunteer with disabled children and Christians are amazed that I believe in evolution. "How can someone like you believe in survival of the fittest?", they ask. I also believe in cholera and hurricanes, it does not mean that I like them. Creation Science accepts the fact that evolution occurs and produces new species, though they believe it happens only within 'kinds', which are not defined. If you accept that evolution happens, whether on a large scale or a small scale, you are really not arguing against evolution.
When Darwin held that humans are shaped by our environment and subject to the same influences as the other animals, he was merely speaking the truth. When some people read this as being a denying of
God's Creation, they are only adding their own philosophy to what is an
extremely well reasoned book.
I have argued Darwin for 40 years with people who have never read Darwin, and have no intention of ever reading Darwin. If they believe that evolution means, "monkeys turned into people and that proves there's no God", it is because they get their science from comic strips instead of education.
I am a born-again, baptized believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore I accept that man has a special place in Creation. However, the well-intentioned illiterates who taught me as a child that ice did not melt until Adam sinned because the Second Law of Thermodynamics was not invented yet, should also be in a special place.