Creation vs. Evolution

[seehigh]

Imaginary you say? Jesus has a name which is above every name, how many times in a day do you use his name?


everready

Use the name?

Never, even in vain.

Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy are widely known also, and you don't believe in them do you?

The bible talks about so many different gods, most of which are of Canaanite origin; El, Elohim, Yahweh etc.

Of course real history and real archaeology tell us that the Israelites or just a branch of Canaanites who are indigenous to the area and did not migrate from elsewhere. They invented many stories to make their sect appear they have more legitimacy than it did. That's a common trait for many cultures.

 

[Hawkins]

Use the name?

Never, even in vain.

Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy are widely known also, and you don't believe in them do you?

Apples and oranges. There's no serious witnessing about them. They don't concern one's life either. They can thus be ignored.

The bible talks about so many different gods, most of which are of Canaanite origin; El, Elohim, Yahweh etc.

The history of Israel is a witnessing of the existence of God. False witnessing is forbidden by the religion itself.

If God has a good reason to hide behind (and He does, with a covenant of faith to save humans), the only way for Him to keep human informed of is through the witnessing of a small group of humans who encountered Him directly. There's no other way round. To put it another way, nothing better can be done even in the case that the existence of the Christianity God is a truth.

Of course real history and real archaeology tell us that the Israelites or just a branch of Canaanites who are indigenous to the area and did not migrate from elsewhere. They invented many stories to make their sect appear they have more legitimacy than it did. That's a common trait for many cultures.

You may anytime apply the same to any history of all mankind, in terms of archaeology. History written by humans long time ago can hardly be verifiable especially regarding to what had been said and done by a certain historical figure. Basically, humans have no access to history as a whole till someone is famous enough for others to write about him. Then later humans will have to rely on what is written down to get a clue on what had happened. So basically "real history" is the writings you personal give credit to. Others may anytime give credit to other documents.

 

[The Barbarian]

Everready tries a bit of false witness:

Reality of it is you've taken to worship nature rather than the creator.

Ah, you're one of those "God doesn't mind a lie if it's for a good cause" people. Kinda suspected that.

The Catholic Church holds that God is the Creator of nature. But you already knew that, didn't you?

 

[everready]

Everready tries a bit of false witness:


Ah, you're one of those "God doesn't mind a lie if it's for a good cause" people. Kinda suspected that.

The Catholic Church holds that God is the Creator of nature. But you already knew that, didn't you?

Like i said you've taken to worship nature, this is what your church teaches.

The papal astronomer further explained that he rejects the literal interpretation of Genesis and instead finds truth through “science.”

“Science is a way of getting close to creation, to really getting intimate with creation, and it’s a way of getting intimate with the Creator,” he claimed. “It’s an act of worship.”

http://christiannews.net/2014/10/27...tion-argues-god-and-evolution-are-compatible/

But you already knew that didn't you?

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.


everready

 

[noguru]

Like i said you've taken to worship nature, this is what your church teaches.

The papal astronomer further explained that he rejects the literal interpretation of Genesis and instead finds truth through “science.”

“Science is a way of getting close to creation, to really getting intimate with creation, and it’s a way of getting intimate with the Creator,” he claimed. “It’s an act of worship.”

http://christiannews.net/2014/10/27...tion-argues-god-and-evolution-are-compatible/

But you already knew that didn't you?

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.


everready

So with your strategic use of scripture this way, you are claiming that accuracy about the physical world is not important as long as one sticks to your dogmatic theological views?

 

[gcthomas]

Everready, your argument is that since one Catholic says he does something then it is, de facto, Catholic teaching. Have I got that right? Because if not your argument is empty.

 

[noguru]

Everready, got argument is that since one Catholic says he does something then it is, de facto, Catholic teaching. Have I got that right? Because if not your argument is empty.

Well there is also great hypocrisy in his claim about the one individual. Unless he is claiming that scripture (or any interpretation thereof) & the gospel is not a creation, but rather God itself.

 

[gcthomas]

Well there is also great hypocrisy in his claim about the one individual. Unless he is claiming that scripture (or any interpretation thereof) & the gospel is not a creation, but rather God itself.

Yup.

One thing the Church has got right, assuming God was responsible, that nature is God's word, pure and simple and clear.

 

[noguru]

Yup.

One thing the Church has got right, assuming God was responsible, that nature is God's word, pure and simple and clear.

But everready would like for us to exchange the clear truth of the reality around us for his distorted view of reality. His strategy is very much like the slight of hand misdirection that magicians use, except they are honest about it.

 

[everready]

So with your strategic use of scripture this way, you are claiming that accuracy about the physical world is not important as long as one sticks to your dogmatic theological views?

I'm not claiming anything that isn't in Gods word

II Corinthians 4:18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.


everready

 

[everready]

Yup.

One thing the Church has got right, assuming God was responsible, that nature is God's word, pure and simple and clear.

Plain and simple, Jesus is the word of God not nature.

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.


everready

 

[gcthomas]

Plain and simple, Jesus is the word of God not nature.

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.


everready

That surely rules out the Bible as the word of God then...

 

[noguru]

I'm not claiming anything that isn't in Gods word

II Corinthians 4:18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.


everready

God's word is a creation. The "word" as is used to refer to the incarnation is not applicable to your poorly thought out interpretation of the Bible. You keep conflating your views with an accurate view of reality. While every post you make demonstrates that they are at odds with each other.

Are you claiming that the Bible (your interpretation of it) and Jesus are the same thing?

(Waits for next misuse of scripture as justification for his wiggle)

 

[everready]

God's word is a creation. The "word" as is used to refer to the incarnation is not applicable to your poorly thought out interpretation of the Bible. You keep conflating your views with an accurate view of reality. While every post you make demonstrates that they are at odds with each other.

Are you claiming that the Bible (your interpretation of it) and Jesus are the same thing?

(Waits for next misuse of scripture as justification for his wiggle)

Gods word is not a creation.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.


Who do you say Jesus is?


everready

 

[everready]

That surely rules out the Bible as the word of God then...

I Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.


everready

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian notes everready's dishonesty:
Ah, you're one of those "God doesn't mind a lie if it's for a good cause" people. Kinda suspected that.

The Catholic Church holds that God is the Creator of nature. But you already knew that, didn't you?

Eveready doubles down on the lie:

Like i said you've taken to worship nature,

Yep. Another guy who thinks lying serves God.

this is what your church teaches.

You've been reminded before, but just so you can't say we didn't tell you...

ARTICLE I
"I BELIEVE IN GOD THE FATHER ALMIGHTY, CREATOR OF HEAVEN AND EARTH"
Paragraph 4. The Creator
279 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."116 Holy Scripture begins with these solemn words. The profession of faith takes them up when it confesses that God the Father almighty is "Creator of heaven and earth" (Apostles' Creed), "of all that is, seen and unseen" (Nicene Creed). We shall speak first of the Creator, then of creation and finally of the fall into sin from which Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came to raise us up again.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

The papal astronomer further explained that he rejects the literal interpretation of Genesis and instead finds truth through “science.”

Did you think this time, you'd get away with it? Let's look at the statment:

“Science is a way of getting close to creation, to really getting intimate with creation, and it’s a way of getting intimate with the Creator,” he claimed. “It’s an act of worship.”

Hmm... I get that. One of the ways that we can know about God, is His creation, as He tells us:

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

Such a statement in no way means one worships nature. But you already knew that didn't you? Professing to be wise, you have demonstrated the foolishness of dishonesty.

Learn from it.

 

[noguru]

I Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.


everready

So in your opinion that entire chapter in proper context is an instruction to you to ignore the physical reality around you, and for everyone else to do the same and replace that with your view of the world?

 

[6days]

The papal astronomer further explained that he rejects the literal interpretation of Genesis and instead finds truth through “science.”

That explains why the papal astronomer does not understand the gospel.

Hmm... I get that. One of the ways that we can know about God, is His creation, as He tells us:

Romans 1:20*For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.*

Yes.... people can know His power and divinity. They can't truly know our Savior and the plan of salvation though, if no one tells them.*

The papal astronomer flunks out on theology since he rejects the basis of all Christian doctrine found in Genesis. *

Such a statement in no way means one worships nature.

Pethaps... but it really seems 'theistic' evolutionists are more interested in defending natural processes than they are in defending the Gospel.*

The statement about the papal astronomer points to him worshipping nature rather than the Creator God of the Bible. He takes a secular interpretation of science then tries to shoehorn God's Word into man's opinions.

 

[noguru]

Pethaps... but it really seems 'theistic' evolutionists are more interested in defending natural processes than they are in defending the Gospel.*

If the Gospel is not about truth and accuracy then what is it about? Theistic evolutionists are simply honestly reporting the evidence and what that indicates as accurately as humanly possible. Because they believe that accuracy as a methodology is a higher priority than a goal of delusion others might claim as "truth".

 

[noguru]

Gods word is not a creation.

Again you misrepresent what I posted. One has to wonder why it is you keep doing this. Is it because you lack the intestinal fortitude to actually address my words squarely?

I did not claim God was a creation. I was referring to your interpretation of Genesis, which is a creation. And you want us to worship your ideas as God.

Who do you say Jesus is?


everready

Jesus is not your interpretation of Genesis.