Total Posts:121|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Evolution and christianity can coexist?

izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2011 2:16:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
A lot of people will say that you can be a christian and it does not mean you cann't believe in evolution. I think as a christian you would have to throw out Luke in order to make the 2 compatible. Let me post the reason why:

Luke 3:23-38

New International Version (NIV)

23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,

the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat,

the son of Levi, the son of Melki,

the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,

25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos,

the son of Nahum, the son of Esli,

the son of Naggai, 26 the son of Maath,

the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein,

the son of Josek, the son of Joda,

27 the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa,

the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel,

the son of Neri, 28 the son of Melki,

the son of Addi, the son of Cosam,

the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,

29 the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer,

the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat,

the son of Levi, 30 the son of Simeon,

the son of Judah, the son of Joseph,

the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,

31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna,

the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan,

the son of David, 32 the son of Jesse,

the son of Obed, the son of Boaz,

the son of Salmon,[a] the son of Nahshon,

33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram,[b]

the son of Hezron, the son of Perez,

the son of Judah, 34 the son of Jacob,

the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham,

the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,

35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu,

the son of Peleg, the son of Eber,

the son of Shelah, 36 the son of Cainan,

the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem,

the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,

37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch,

the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel,

the son of Kenan, 38 the son of Enosh,

the son of Seth, the son of Adam,

the son of God.

This is to show that Jesus was a descendent of David, so if that is meant to be literal when does it become a metaphorical statement. Or was Luke just making this up? What is the story here?
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2011 2:17:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I believe the story of Adam and Eve was a humans creation and not really the message, since the Bible was after all, written by people. In that respect, Evolution and Christianity coexist.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2011 2:19:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/20/2011 2:17:53 PM, 000ike wrote:
I believe the story of Adam and Eve was a humans creation and not really the message, since the Bible was after all, written by people. In that respect, Evolution and Christianity coexist.

That is irrelevant, and missing the point, the point is that Luke made his story up believing it is true. Do you throw out luke.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2011 2:34:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/20/2011 2:17:53 PM, 000ike wrote:
I believe the story of Adam and Eve was a humans creation and not really the message, since the Bible was after all, written by people. In that respect, Evolution and Christianity coexist.

So the bible could very well be wrong that jesus did not raise from the dead as well. HUH??????????????????????? Maybe it is wrong about him being born virgin, being the son of god and so on. Yeah, when you make that statement the rest of the religion keeps crumbling down.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2011 2:40:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/20/2011 2:34:13 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/20/2011 2:17:53 PM, 000ike wrote:
I believe the story of Adam and Eve was a humans creation and not really the message, since the Bible was after all, written by people. In that respect, Evolution and Christianity coexist.

So the bible could very well be wrong that jesus did not raise from the dead as well. HUH??????????????????????? Maybe it is wrong about him being born virgin, being the son of god and so on. Yeah, when you make that statement the rest of the religion keeps crumbling down.

Bare assertion. actually, I think about it, and no...it really actually does not make the religion crumble. I will believe that Churches have taught and people have purported some false things, but that does not equate to the nonexistence of the lord.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2011 2:47:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
This is to show that Jesus was a descendent of David, so if that is meant to be literal when does it become a metaphorical statement. Or was Luke just making this up? What is the story here?:

If you'll notice in Matthew's gospel, there is a completely different geneaology. What some Christians allege is that one was through Mary (his birthmother) and one was through Joseph (his adopted father), but it certainly doesn't describe that in the gospels, it's just an inference to remain cogent. Both the lineages apparently lead back to David, which leads back to Noah, to Adam.

They do this in order to fulfill prophecy, as a criteria to be messiah is coming from the line of David. Whether any of that is true is completely unverifiable.

"nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith." -- 1st Timothy 1:4

Whoops!
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2011 2:50:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/20/2011 2:40:49 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/20/2011 2:34:13 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/20/2011 2:17:53 PM, 000ike wrote:
I believe the story of Adam and Eve was a humans creation and not really the message, since the Bible was after all, written by people. In that respect, Evolution and Christianity coexist.

So the bible could very well be wrong that jesus did not raise from the dead as well. HUH??????????????????????? Maybe it is wrong about him being born virgin, being the son of god and so on. Yeah, when you make that statement the rest of the religion keeps crumbling down.


Bare assertion. actually, I think about it, and no...it really actually does not make the religion crumble. I will believe that Churches have taught and people have purported some false things, but that does not equate to the nonexistence of the lord.

See I am saying if you start question how true the bible is, then the credibility crumbles and do uncredible sources actually make you think someone rose from the dead.

Now just a little word about the genealogies, both state they go through Joseph, which creates a major problem, jesus was suppose to be born a virgin. So why create a genealogy showing jesus going through Joseph and then claim him a virgin. The irony is the same gospels that do the virgin birth claim, do he genealogies. Which makes no sense.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2011 7:37:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/20/2011 2:16:23 PM, izbo10 wrote:
A lot of people will say that you can be a christian and it does not mean you cann't believe in evolution.

Most Christians believe in evolution, and most people who believe in evolution (in the US, at least) are Christians. So, clearly, one can be a Christian and believe in evolution. It is the standard way.

I think as a christian you would have to throw out Luke in order to make the 2 compatible.

Ah, well, if you want to make Christians harmonize their incompatible beliefs, you have a job ahead of you. You can't square Luke with John, can you? Or the first creation story in Genesis with the second? Or the various accounts of the resurrection? Or the issue of whether people can look directly at Jehovah?

No, can't be done. Christians typically hold incompatible beliefs, perhaps because the bible is shot thru with contradictions. So it doesn't make sense to pick out one particular belief and claim that it is incompatible with Christianity.
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2011 8:28:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm not sure about it being a contradiction necessarily. One could always say that the "so it was thought" could be referring not only to the fact that Jesus wasn't Joseph's soon by blood, but also to the fact that the people of the time thought Adam was real. You'll notice that the only other genealogy starts at Abraham. Of course, I'm not sure whether or no the original grammar would work out for that or not. Is that a plausible interpretation? I don't know.
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2011 8:29:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/20/2011 8:28:59 PM, Rusty wrote:
I'm not sure about it being a contradiction necessarily. One could always say that the "so it was thought" could be referring not only to the fact that Jesus wasn't Joseph's soon by blood, but also to the fact that the people of the time thought Adam was real. You'll notice that the only other genealogy starts at Abraham. Of course, I'm not sure whether or not the original grammar would work out for that or not. Is that a plausible interpretation? I don't know.
BennyW
Posts: 698
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2011 12:29:43 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/20/2011 2:16:23 PM, izbo10 wrote:
A lot of people will say that you can be a christian and it does not mean you cann't believe in evolution. I think as a christian you would have to throw out Luke in order to make the 2 compatible. Let me post the reason why:

Luke 3:23-38

New International Version (NIV)

23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,

the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat,

the son of Levi, the son of Melki,

the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,

25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos,

the son of Nahum, the son of Esli,

the son of Naggai, 26 the son of Maath,

the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein,

the son of Josek, the son of Joda,

27 the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa,

the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel,

the son of Neri, 28 the son of Melki,

the son of Addi, the son of Cosam,

the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,

29 the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer,

the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat,

the son of Levi, 30 the son of Simeon,

the son of Judah, the son of Joseph,

the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,

31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna,

the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan,

the son of David, 32 the son of Jesse,

the son of Obed, the son of Boaz,

the son of Salmon,[a] the son of Nahshon,

33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram,[b]

the son of Hezron, the son of Perez,

the son of Judah, 34 the son of Jacob,

the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham,

the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,

35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu,

the son of Peleg, the son of Eber,

the son of Shelah, 36 the son of Cainan,

the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem,

the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,

37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch,

the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel,

the son of Kenan, 38 the son of Enosh,

the son of Seth, the son of Adam,

the son of God.

This is to show that Jesus was a descendent of David, so if that is meant to be literal when does it become a metaphorical statement. Or was Luke just making this up? What is the story here?

For once I agree with izbo10.
You didn't build that-Obama
It's pretty lazy to quote things you disagree with, call it stupid and move on, rather than arguing with the person. -000ike
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2011 12:43:22 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
So what your saying is that you have to accept a literal biblical creation story of adam and eve to be a christian ?

But you seem to forget something Izbo, every time it has been proven that one of the holy texts is literally wrong about some aspect of the physical world the believers after they can no longer deny merely say.........well its symbolic.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2011 4:16:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/21/2011 12:43:22 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
So what your saying is that you have to accept a literal biblical creation story of adam and eve to be a christian ?

But you seem to forget something Izbo, every time it has been proven that one of the holy texts is literally wrong about some aspect of the physical world the believers after they can no longer deny merely say.........well its symbolic.

See that is revisionist history and very disrespectful to the ideas of luke. It says we don't care what the author.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 6:30:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/20/2011 2:16:23 PM, izbo10 wrote:
A lot of people will say that you can be a christian and it does not mean you cann't believe in evolution. I think as a christian you would have to throw out Luke in order to make the 2 compatible. Let me post the reason why:

Luke 3:23-38

New International Version (NIV)

23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,

the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat,

the son of Levi, the son of Melki,

the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,

25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos,

the son of Nahum, the son of Esli,

the son of Naggai, 26 the son of Maath,

the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein,

the son of Josek, the son of Joda,

27 the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa,

the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel,

the son of Neri, 28 the son of Melki,

the son of Addi, the son of Cosam,

the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,

29 the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer,

the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat,

the son of Levi, 30 the son of Simeon,

the son of Judah, the son of Joseph,

the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,

31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna,

the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan,

the son of David, 32 the son of Jesse,

the son of Obed, the son of Boaz,

the son of Salmon,[a] the son of Nahshon,

33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram,[b]

the son of Hezron, the son of Perez,

the son of Judah, 34 the son of Jacob,

the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham,

the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,

35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu,

the son of Peleg, the son of Eber,

the son of Shelah, 36 the son of Cainan,

the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem,

the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,

37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch,

the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel,

the son of Kenan, 38 the son of Enosh,

the son of Seth, the son of Adam,

the son of God.

This is to show that Jesus was a descendent of David, so if that is meant to be literal when does it become a metaphorical statement. Or was Luke just making this up? What is the story here?

It was a virgin Birth and an immaculate CONCEPTION: God simply took Josephs seed and put it into Mary; Hence He is the Son of Man, the Son of David, phsically and the Son of God spiritually because It was not of mans doing but of Gods.

Although what this has to do Evolution is quite beyond me.
The Cross.. the Cross.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 6:34:35 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 6:30:47 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:

It was a virgin Birth and an immaculate CONCEPTION: God simply took Josephs seed and put it into Mary; Hence He is the Son of Man, the Son of David, phsically and the Son of God spiritually because It was not of mans doing but of Gods.


What? But why? How therefore is.... what?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 6:36:26 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 6:34:35 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/22/2011 6:30:47 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:

It was a virgin Birth and an immaculate CONCEPTION: God simply took Josephs seed and put it into Mary; Hence He is the Son of Man, the Son of David, phsically and the Son of God spiritually because It was not of mans doing but of Gods.


What? But why? How therefore is.... what?

You sound confused.. go lie down awhile..
The Cross.. the Cross.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 6:43:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 6:36:26 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 8/22/2011 6:34:35 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/22/2011 6:30:47 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:

It was a virgin Birth and an immaculate CONCEPTION: God simply took Josephs seed and put it into Mary; Hence He is the Son of Man, the Son of David, phsically and the Son of God spiritually because It was not of mans doing but of Gods.


What? But why? How therefore is.... what?

You sound confused.. go lie down awhile..

Is what you are saying actually Christian belief. In which case how is Jesus the son of God, how is he free of original sin?

At least children's fairytales are written to make sense.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 6:47:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 6:43:47 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/22/2011 6:36:26 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 8/22/2011 6:34:35 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/22/2011 6:30:47 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:

It was a virgin Birth and an immaculate CONCEPTION: God simply took Josephs seed and put it into Mary; Hence He is the Son of Man, the Son of David, phsically and the Son of God spiritually because It was not of mans doing but of Gods.


What? But why? How therefore is.... what?

You sound confused.. go lie down awhile..

Is what you are saying actually Christian belief. In which case how is Jesus the son of God, how is he free of original sin?

At least children's fairytales are written to make sense.

It's what I believe and I'm a Christian.. the other is Catholic doctrine mostly swallowed by everyone else..

Jesus was born spiritually alive and so free from sin; it is only flesh devoid of God's spirit that is sinful.
The Cross.. the Cross.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 6:49:58 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 6:47:28 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 8/22/2011 6:43:47 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/22/2011 6:36:26 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 8/22/2011 6:34:35 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/22/2011 6:30:47 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:

It was a virgin Birth and an immaculate CONCEPTION: God simply took Josephs seed and put it into Mary; Hence He is the Son of Man, the Son of David, phsically and the Son of God spiritually because It was not of mans doing but of Gods.


What? But why? How therefore is.... what?

You sound confused.. go lie down awhile..

Is what you are saying actually Christian belief. In which case how is Jesus the son of God, how is he free of original sin?

At least children's fairytales are written to make sense.

It's what I believe and I'm a Christian.. the other is Catholic doctrine mostly swallowed by everyone else..

Jesus was born spiritually alive and so free from sin; it is only flesh devoid of God's spirit that is sinful.

Christians believe that the nature of Christ's birth means he is free from orginal sin. You believe that he was free of sin because he was free of sin. One is a consistent myth, the other is handwaving.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
heart_of_the_matter
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 9:23:31 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
izbo10

I believe evolution must be defined first! because that really makes all the difference in what someone is talking about!

What I am meaning now (in this context)(not in actuality - because I believe "evolution to mean something else)

But Evolution in the (misunderstood) way some people seem to define evolution (basically to argue vs. Creationism):
1. That man was not always a human but evolved from an animal = Which I believe is false.
2. That some believe that mankind evolved from primordial ooze at some point = Which I also believe is false.

I am a Christian and I believe that evolution (when defined in those ways) and Christianity CANNOT coexist!

Other contradictions include:
God created everything and pronounced everything as being GOOD (no evolution was needed at all)

God gave man dominion over the animals (meaning man was not ever another animal but rather always "human")
Nickwalker12
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 2:41:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
According to my Catholic High School science teachers, yes.

They believe that God started it, the scientific fact of The Theory of Evolution followed.
Atheist, Hard Determinist, Secularist Humanist, and a young Philosopher. Sup.
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 10:31:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 9:23:31 AM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:
izbo10

I am a Christian and I believe that evolution (when defined in those ways) and Christianity CANNOT coexist!

But they obviously do coexist. (Or, to match tone, they DO coexist.) Perhaps you mean that there is a logical conflict, so they shouldn't coexist? But that seems a self-destructive thing to say, since Christianity is shot thru with logical conflicts. One might as well argue that Christian CANNOT accept John, since you prefer Luke (or vice versa).

Obviously, most Christians can harmonize your perceived problem with evolution with the same ease that they harmonize the multitude of conflicts within the bible. If they weren't practiced at this, they wouldn't be Christians.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 4:59:51 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 6:49:58 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/22/2011 6:47:28 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 8/22/2011 6:43:47 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/22/2011 6:36:26 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 8/22/2011 6:34:35 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/22/2011 6:30:47 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:

It was a virgin Birth and an immaculate CONCEPTION: God simply took Josephs seed and put it into Mary; Hence He is the Son of Man, the Son of David, phsically and the Son of God spiritually because It was not of mans doing but of Gods.


What? But why? How therefore is.... what?

You sound confused.. go lie down awhile..

Is what you are saying actually Christian belief. In which case how is Jesus the son of God, how is he free of original sin?

At least children's fairytales are written to make sense.

It's what I believe and I'm a Christian.. the other is Catholic doctrine mostly swallowed by everyone else..

Jesus was born spiritually alive and so free from sin; it is only flesh devoid of God's spirit that is sinful.

Christians believe that the nature of Christ's birth means he is free from orginal sin. You believe that he was free of sin because he was free of sin. One is a consistent myth, the other is handwaving.

No, I believe He was free of sin because He was spiritually alive, connected to God.. wanna debate this?
The Cross.. the Cross.
heart_of_the_matter
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 12:26:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 10:31:59 PM, wiploc wrote:
At 8/22/2011 9:23:31 AM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:
izbo10

I am a Christian and I believe that evolution (when defined in those ways) and Christianity CANNOT coexist!

But they obviously do coexist. (Or, to match tone, they DO coexist.) Perhaps you mean that there is a logical conflict, so they shouldn't coexist? But that seems a self-destructive thing to say, since Christianity is shot thru with logical conflicts. One might as well argue that Christian CANNOT accept John, since you prefer Luke (or vice versa).

Obviously, most Christians can harmonize your perceived problem with evolution with the same ease that they harmonize the multitude of conflicts within the bible. If they weren't practiced at this, they wouldn't be Christians.

I was just using the wording in the topic heading. To put it another way: One idea is false and one idea is true. They are mutually exclusive in that both ideas can't be correct. Sure both ideas may still "exist", but it is just that one of the existing ideas is wrong....like you said...a logical conflict. and I would be all for eliminating the error and correcting the false doctrine which some believe in.
What example from Luke and John were you thinking about that you don't think could be reconciled logically--- without saying the other is in obvious error?
VocMusTcrMaloy
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 5:31:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/20/2011 2:16:23 PM, izbo10 wrote:
A lot of people will say that you can be a christian and it does not mean you cann't believe in evolution. I think as a christian you would have to throw out Luke in order to make the 2 compatible. Let me post the reason why:

Luke 3:23-38

New International Version (NIV)

23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,

the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat,

the son of Levi, the son of Melki,

the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,

25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos,

the son of Nahum, the son of Esli,

the son of Naggai, 26 the son of Maath,

the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein,

the son of Josek, the son of Joda,

27 the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa,

the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel,

the son of Neri, 28 the son of Melki,

the son of Addi, the son of Cosam,

the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,

29 the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer,

the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat,

the son of Levi, 30 the son of Simeon,

the son of Judah, the son of Joseph,

the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,

31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna,

the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan,

the son of David, 32 the son of Jesse,

the son of Obed, the son of Boaz,

the son of Salmon,[a] the son of Nahshon,

33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram,[b]

the son of Hezron, the son of Perez,

the son of Judah, 34 the son of Jacob,

the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham,

the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,

35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu,

the son of Peleg, the son of Eber,

the son of Shelah, 36 the son of Cainan,

the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem,

the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,

37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch,

the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel,

the son of Kenan, 38 the son of Enosh,

the son of Seth, the son of Adam,

the son of God.

This is to show that Jesus was a descendent of David, so if that is meant to be literal when does it become a metaphorical statement. Or was Luke just making this up? What is the story here?

You make a very valid point here Izbo. I agree that if someone is going to believe the Bible, they shouldn't believe part of it and try to make it line up with evolution. I wish more Christians were as zealous about Jesus as you are about atheism! If a man is going to commit to a belief system, why not commit all the way! If I believed evolution, I would just go ahead and be an atheist too! I see your point 100%!
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 6:33:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 5:31:17 PM, VocMusTcrMaloy wrote:
At 8/20/2011 2:16:23 PM, izbo10 wrote:
A lot of people will say that you can be a christian and it does not mean you cann't believe in evolution. I think as a christian you would have to throw out Luke in order to make the 2 compatible. Let me post the reason why:

Luke 3:23-38

New International Version (NIV)

23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,

the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat,

the son of Levi, the son of Melki,

the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,

25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos,

the son of Nahum, the son of Esli,

the son of Naggai, 26 the son of Maath,

the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein,

the son of Josek, the son of Joda,

27 the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa,

the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel,

the son of Neri, 28 the son of Melki,

the son of Addi, the son of Cosam,

the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,

29 the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer,

the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat,

the son of Levi, 30 the son of Simeon,

the son of Judah, the son of Joseph,

the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,

31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna,

the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan,

the son of David, 32 the son of Jesse,

the son of Obed, the son of Boaz,

the son of Salmon,[a] the son of Nahshon,

33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram,[b]

the son of Hezron, the son of Perez,

the son of Judah, 34 the son of Jacob,

the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham,

the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,

35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu,

the son of Peleg, the son of Eber,

the son of Shelah, 36 the son of Cainan,

the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem,

the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,

37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch,

the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel,

the son of Kenan, 38 the son of Enosh,

the son of Seth, the son of Adam,

the son of God.

This is to show that Jesus was a descendent of David, so if that is meant to be literal when does it become a metaphorical statement. Or was Luke just making this up? What is the story here?

You make a very valid point here Izbo. I agree that if someone is going to believe the Bible, they shouldn't believe part of it and try to make it line up with evolution. I wish more Christians were as zealous about Jesus as you are about atheism! If a man is going to commit to a belief system, why not commit all the way! If I believed evolution, I would just go ahead and be an atheist too! I see your point 100%!


Why?
VocMusTcrMaloy
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 6:39:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 6:33:59 PM, Rusty wrote:
At 8/23/2011 5:31:17 PM, VocMusTcrMaloy wrote:
At 8/20/2011 2:16:23 PM, izbo10 wrote:
A lot of people will say that you can be a christian and it does not mean you cann't believe in evolution. I think as a christian you would have to throw out Luke in order to make the 2 compatible. Let me post the reason why:

Luke 3:23-38

New International Version (NIV)

23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,

the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat,

the son of Levi, the son of Melki,

the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,

25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos,

the son of Nahum, the son of Esli,

the son of Naggai, 26 the son of Maath,

the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein,

the son of Josek, the son of Joda,

27 the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa,

the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel,

the son of Neri, 28 the son of Melki,

the son of Addi, the son of Cosam,

the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,

29 the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer,

the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat,

the son of Levi, 30 the son of Simeon,

the son of Judah, the son of Joseph,

the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,

31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna,

the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan,

the son of David, 32 the son of Jesse,

the son of Obed, the son of Boaz,

the son of Salmon,[a] the son of Nahshon,

33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram,[b]

the son of Hezron, the son of Perez,

the son of Judah, 34 the son of Jacob,

the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham,

the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,

35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu,

the son of Peleg, the son of Eber,

the son of Shelah, 36 the son of Cainan,

the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem,

the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,

37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch,

the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel,

the son of Kenan, 38 the son of Enosh,

the son of Seth, the son of Adam,

the son of God.

This is to show that Jesus was a descendent of David, so if that is meant to be literal when does it become a metaphorical statement. Or was Luke just making this up? What is the story here?

You make a very valid point here Izbo. I agree that if someone is going to believe the Bible, they shouldn't believe part of it and try to make it line up with evolution. I wish more Christians were as zealous about Jesus as you are about atheism! If a man is going to commit to a belief system, why not commit all the way! If I believed evolution, I would just go ahead and be an atheist too! I see your point 100%!


Why?

Why only doubt part of the Bible?
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 6:50:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 5:31:17 PM, VocMusTcrMaloy wrote:

You make a very valid point here Izbo. I agree that if someone is going to believe the Bible, they shouldn't believe part of it and try to make it line up with evolution. I wish more Christians were as zealous about Jesus as you are about atheism! If a man is going to commit to a belief system, why not commit all the way! If I believed evolution, I would just go ahead and be an atheist too! I see your point 100%!

Of course, you'd have to explain what exactly you mean by "believe the Bible".
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!