Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Question to Christians who Believe Evolution

LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2014 10:30:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I will attempt to be nice about this, because I don't wish to contribute to the Religion Forum's corruption.
However, here I go:

1. In accepting the Theory of Evolution, do you discard the Biblical accounts of the Garden of Eden, the Fall of Man in the Garden of Eden, and the Biblical Flood?
2. If not, how do you fit them into the account, with the Evolutionary model contradicting a Literal Biblical Account of the Book of Genesis?

Let's be civil about this. Begin.
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2014 11:01:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/6/2014 10:30:55 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
I will attempt to be nice about this, because I don't wish to contribute to the Religion Forum's corruption.
However, here I go:

1. In accepting the Theory of Evolution, do you discard the Biblical accounts of the Garden of Eden, the Fall of Man in the Garden of Eden, and the Biblical Flood?

Only in the sense that it is not to be taken literally, but theologically.

2. If not, how do you fit them into the account, with the Evolutionary model contradicting a Literal Biblical Account of the Book of Genesis?

Genesis isn't a literal account. What is important is its theological teachings, not whether it actually happened. Since Genesis actually having happened does not conform to science (evolution), then it can be concluded that Genesis is simply a theological account and not one of history or science.

Let's be civil about this. Begin.
Nolite Timere
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2014 11:10:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/6/2014 11:01:24 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 8/6/2014 10:30:55 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
I will attempt to be nice about this, because I don't wish to contribute to the Religion Forum's corruption.
However, here I go:

1. In accepting the Theory of Evolution, do you discard the Biblical accounts of the Garden of Eden, the Fall of Man in the Garden of Eden, and the Biblical Flood?

Only in the sense that it is not to be taken literally, but theologically.

2. If not, how do you fit them into the account, with the Evolutionary model contradicting a Literal Biblical Account of the Book of Genesis?

Genesis isn't a literal account. What is important is its theological teachings, not whether it actually happened. Since Genesis actually having happened does not conform to science (evolution), then it can be concluded that Genesis is simply a theological account and not one of history or science.

Let's be civil about this. Begin.

Well there goes jesus.
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2014 11:32:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/6/2014 11:10:38 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/6/2014 11:01:24 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 8/6/2014 10:30:55 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
I will attempt to be nice about this, because I don't wish to contribute to the Religion Forum's corruption.
However, here I go:

1. In accepting the Theory of Evolution, do you discard the Biblical accounts of the Garden of Eden, the Fall of Man in the Garden of Eden, and the Biblical Flood?

Only in the sense that it is not to be taken literally, but theologically.

2. If not, how do you fit them into the account, with the Evolutionary model contradicting a Literal Biblical Account of the Book of Genesis?

Genesis isn't a literal account. What is important is its theological teachings, not whether it actually happened. Since Genesis actually having happened does not conform to science (evolution), then it can be concluded that Genesis is simply a theological account and not one of history or science.

Let's be civil about this. Begin.

Well there goes jesus.

Not really, since Jesus is mentioned by tens of secular historians during the century in which he lived.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2014 9:26:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/6/2014 10:30:55 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
I will attempt to be nice about this, because I don't wish to contribute to the Religion Forum's corruption.
However, here I go:

1. In accepting the Theory of Evolution, do you discard the Biblical accounts of the Garden of Eden, the Fall of Man in the Garden of Eden, and the Biblical Flood?

No.

2. If not, how do you fit them into the account, with the Evolutionary model contradicting a Literal Biblical Account of the Book of Genesis?


Because taking it "literal" is bad exegesis.

Let's be civil about this. Begin.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
CountCheechula
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2014 4:48:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/6/2014 10:30:55 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
I will attempt to be nice about this, because I don't wish to contribute to the Religion Forum's corruption.
However, here I go:

1. In accepting the Theory of Evolution, do you discard the Biblical accounts of the Garden of Eden, the Fall of Man in the Garden of Eden, and the Biblical Flood?
2. If not, how do you fit them into the account, with the Evolutionary model contradicting a Literal Biblical Account of the Book of Genesis?

Let's be civil about this. Begin.

Genesis is a book written by Moses on top of Mt. Sinai and if God explained to him about evolution and so on Moses would go to sleep. Also the early stories are very well written in how it provides answers to questions about sin and how the world started in a reasonable way back then 1000 BC. Also God said the 7 days to create the Sabbath and get the Jews pumped about getting one day off a week from hard ancient labor.
Every man shall kneel and every tongue will confess.
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2014 5:48:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/6/2014 11:32:55 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 8/6/2014 11:10:38 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/6/2014 11:01:24 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 8/6/2014 10:30:55 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
I will attempt to be nice about this, because I don't wish to contribute to the Religion Forum's corruption.
However, here I go:

1. In accepting the Theory of Evolution, do you discard the Biblical accounts of the Garden of Eden, the Fall of Man in the Garden of Eden, and the Biblical Flood?

Only in the sense that it is not to be taken literally, but theologically.

2. If not, how do you fit them into the account, with the Evolutionary model contradicting a Literal Biblical Account of the Book of Genesis?

Genesis isn't a literal account. What is important is its theological teachings, not whether it actually happened. Since Genesis actually having happened does not conform to science (evolution), then it can be concluded that Genesis is simply a theological account and not one of history or science.

Let's be civil about this. Begin.

Well there goes jesus.

Not really, since Jesus is mentioned by tens of secular historians during the century in which he lived.

No, bulproof is correct, even if he is trying to insult. To what effect is what is Jesus Christ to be as Son of God, if the God He says He comes from isn"t true? Also to what effect is the writhing of Moses if the God of Israel wasn"t with Moses in the desert with the Children of Israel?

No one argues whether or not Moses lead Israel out of Egypt, but did the Creator and Judge walk with Moses? No one argues the Jesus was a person in the times mentioned, but is He the Son of God?

If you don"t believe what Moses wrote how can you believe in Jesus Christ as your Savior?
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2014 5:52:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/7/2014 4:48:36 PM, CountCheechula wrote:
At 8/6/2014 10:30:55 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
I will attempt to be nice about this, because I don't wish to contribute to the Religion Forum's corruption.
However, here I go:

1. In accepting the Theory of Evolution, do you discard the Biblical accounts of the Garden of Eden, the Fall of Man in the Garden of Eden, and the Biblical Flood?
2. If not, how do you fit them into the account, with the Evolutionary model contradicting a Literal Biblical Account of the Book of Genesis?

Let's be civil about this. Begin.

Genesis is a book written by Moses on top of Mt. Sinai and if God explained to him about evolution and so on Moses would go to sleep. Also the early stories are very well written in how it provides answers to questions about sin and how the world started in a reasonable way back then 1000 BC. Also God said the 7 days to create the Sabbath and get the Jews pumped about getting one day off a week from hard ancient labor.

Okay, so how did man fall?
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
CountCheechula
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2014 5:55:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/7/2014 5:52:39 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 8/7/2014 4:48:36 PM, CountCheechula wrote:
At 8/6/2014 10:30:55 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
I will attempt to be nice about this, because I don't wish to contribute to the Religion Forum's corruption.
However, here I go:

1. In accepting the Theory of Evolution, do you discard the Biblical accounts of the Garden of Eden, the Fall of Man in the Garden of Eden, and the Biblical Flood?
2. If not, how do you fit them into the account, with the Evolutionary model contradicting a Literal Biblical Account of the Book of Genesis?

Let's be civil about this. Begin.

Genesis is a book written by Moses on top of Mt. Sinai and if God explained to him about evolution and so on Moses would go to sleep. Also the early stories are very well written in how it provides answers to questions about sin and how the world started in a reasonable way back then 1000 BC. Also God said the 7 days to create the Sabbath and get the Jews pumped about getting one day off a week from hard ancient labor.

Okay, so how did man fall?

The release of the Devil/ after the Devil was cast to earth.
Every man shall kneel and every tongue will confess.
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2014 5:56:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/7/2014 5:55:15 PM, CountCheechula wrote:
At 8/7/2014 5:52:39 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 8/7/2014 4:48:36 PM, CountCheechula wrote:
At 8/6/2014 10:30:55 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
I will attempt to be nice about this, because I don't wish to contribute to the Religion Forum's corruption.
However, here I go:

1. In accepting the Theory of Evolution, do you discard the Biblical accounts of the Garden of Eden, the Fall of Man in the Garden of Eden, and the Biblical Flood?
2. If not, how do you fit them into the account, with the Evolutionary model contradicting a Literal Biblical Account of the Book of Genesis?

Let's be civil about this. Begin.

Genesis is a book written by Moses on top of Mt. Sinai and if God explained to him about evolution and so on Moses would go to sleep. Also the early stories are very well written in how it provides answers to questions about sin and how the world started in a reasonable way back then 1000 BC. Also God said the 7 days to create the Sabbath and get the Jews pumped about getting one day off a week from hard ancient labor.

Okay, so how did man fall?

The release of the Devil/ after the Devil was cast to earth.

So man fell because the Devil fell? The Bible says nothing like that!
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
CountCheechula
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2014 5:59:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The Devil refused to worship Humans so after being cast down He introduced sin.
Every man shall kneel and every tongue will confess.
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2014 6:15:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/6/2014 11:01:24 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 8/6/2014 10:30:55 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
I will attempt to be nice about this, because I don't wish to contribute to the Religion Forum's corruption.
However, here I go:

1. In accepting the Theory of Evolution, do you discard the Biblical accounts of the Garden of Eden, the Fall of Man in the Garden of Eden, and the Biblical Flood?

Only in the sense that it is not to be taken literally, but theologically.

2. If not, how do you fit them into the account, with the Evolutionary model contradicting a Literal Biblical Account of the Book of Genesis?

Genesis isn't a literal account. What is important is its theological teachings, not whether it actually happened. Since Genesis actually having happened does not conform to science (evolution), then it can be concluded that Genesis is simply a theological account and not one of history or science.


This seems kind of ad hoc.

Let's be civil about this. Begin.
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2014 10:43:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/7/2014 5:48:22 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 8/6/2014 11:32:55 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 8/6/2014 11:10:38 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/6/2014 11:01:24 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 8/6/2014 10:30:55 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
I will attempt to be nice about this, because I don't wish to contribute to the Religion Forum's corruption.
However, here I go:

1. In accepting the Theory of Evolution, do you discard the Biblical accounts of the Garden of Eden, the Fall of Man in the Garden of Eden, and the Biblical Flood?

Only in the sense that it is not to be taken literally, but theologically.

2. If not, how do you fit them into the account, with the Evolutionary model contradicting a Literal Biblical Account of the Book of Genesis?

Genesis isn't a literal account. What is important is its theological teachings, not whether it actually happened. Since Genesis actually having happened does not conform to science (evolution), then it can be concluded that Genesis is simply a theological account and not one of history or science.

Let's be civil about this. Begin.

Well there goes jesus.

Not really, since Jesus is mentioned by tens of secular historians during the century in which he lived.

No, bulproof is correct, even if he is trying to insult. To what effect is what is Jesus Christ to be as Son of God, if the God He says He comes from isn"t true? Also to what effect is the writhing of Moses if the God of Israel wasn"t with Moses in the desert with the Children of Israel?

No one argues whether or not Moses lead Israel out of Egypt, but did the Creator and Judge walk with Moses? No one argues the Jesus was a person in the times mentioned, but is He the Son of God?

If you don"t believe what Moses wrote how can you believe in Jesus Christ as your Savior?

Easy. Jesus Christ is a Spiritual Being, an Archetype. The Gospels report a Spiritual Being and not a man. In passages totally ignored of meaning, Jesus says he's not "one born of women" like John the Baptist was and what is a man "not born of women"? Do any of you know of such a man? Therefore, what the Gospels report is not real history but a Play presenting the teachings of a Spiritual Being claiming to be the Son of Man. What is a "Son of Man" as that phrase pops up quite a bit in the Old Testament and Jesus uses it to describe himself all through the Gospels.

I know what a "Son of Man" is because God led me to recover the lost Celestial Torah code that explains the reference which is astrological like the rest of the Celestial Torah code embedded within Scriptures while the authors had no idea God had done this. For our times to reveal. In this way, Scriptures lose all their historical and logical errors of the prejudices and lack of knowledge of their authors and become instead vehicles containing God's Messianic Message to humankind. The Celestial Torah code can be traced back 35,000 years so it is beyond the Bible scope going much farther back as an Archetypal teaching, a Way, a Paradigm, a Torah. And it is Christian, Messianic all the way through the connection going back 35,000 years to make Celestial Torah Christianity the world's oldest religious consciousness.
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2014 11:04:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The Lion-Man: 35,000 years old first human figurine along with Venuses of Willendorf type . The Ariel is an astrological creature composed of the Fixed Signs Leo and Aquarius. It contains the spiritual tension of the Messiah as the Cross bar in the Grand Cross of Heaven that creates the Merkabah, the Chariot of God,

http://i145.photobucket.com...

The Sphinx is the Lion-Man with the Man head and Lion body. So to the invisible Ariel, Angel of Peace, Angel of Jerusalem, Lion of God. When the primitive Lion (Leo-Ruler) heads the Ariel you get an Ariel Sharon, ruthless killer of men. The Gospel of Thomas warns against this:

Jesus said, "Blessed is the lion which becomes man when consumed by man; and cursed is the man whom the lion consumes and becomes man."

Celestial Torah Christianity: it takes all the bullshite out of Bible beliefs while it reveals the Spiritual Message in plain language for our times to understand. They couldn't before as no one knew about the Celestial Torah code in rabbinical knowledge of the origins of the earthly Torah of Judaism.
Keltron
Posts: 161
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2014 1:08:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/6/2014 11:01:24 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 8/6/2014 10:30:55 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
I will attempt to be nice about this, because I don't wish to contribute to the Religion Forum's corruption.
However, here I go:

1. In accepting the Theory of Evolution, do you discard the Biblical accounts of the Garden of Eden, the Fall of Man in the Garden of Eden, and the Biblical Flood?

Only in the sense that it is not to be taken literally, but theologically.

Theologically meaning strictly metaphysical. Strictly metaphysical in the sense of non interpenetration with the physical. Jesus' blood sacrifice, then, is a strictly metaphysical, non physical event as well since its theological underpinnings reside within a strictly metaphysical sphere. So what import does it have in the physical realm?

The last time I attended the Easter service at the local Lutheran church it didn't seem like they were talking about something non-literal. If one disposes of literalism as regards the foundational mythology in Genesis in reference to the Fall and original sin, how does one preserve it as regards salvation theory?
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2014 6:40:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Sam Harris makes the point if the bible is wrong (literally) about human origins it doesn't give confidence about the claims it makes about humans future (literally).
"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
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2014 8:17:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/8/2014 1:08:33 AM, Keltron wrote:
At 8/6/2014 11:01:24 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 8/6/2014 10:30:55 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
I will attempt to be nice about this, because I don't wish to contribute to the Religion Forum's corruption.
However, here I go:

1. In accepting the Theory of Evolution, do you discard the Biblical accounts of the Garden of Eden, the Fall of Man in the Garden of Eden, and the Biblical Flood?

Only in the sense that it is not to be taken literally, but theologically.

Theologically meaning strictly metaphysical. Strictly metaphysical in the sense of non interpenetration with the physical.

Jesus' blood sacrifice, then, is a strictly metaphysical, non physical event as well since its theological underpinnings reside within a strictly metaphysical sphere. So what import does it have in the physical realm?

I don't understand how you came to the conclusion that the New Testament is also only a theological teaching, and not literal.

Your logic seems to follow:

P1. A is B.
P2. C is similiar to A.
C1. Therefore C is B.

However, this is just a fallacy which connects one conclusion to two different things, even if they are similiar.

The Genesis account must not be true necessarily in order for Christianity to be true, however, the Life, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus must be true or else Christianity is false. In terms of this world at least. One could conceive a world where God's plan of salvation did not involve the Passion of Christ, but that is irrelevant because he did involve it. So in reference to this world in which God did send Jesus, it is necessary that the Life, Death, and Resurrection be true.

The last time I attended the Easter service at the local Lutheran church it didn't seem like they were talking about something non-literal. If one disposes of literalism as regards the foundational mythology in Genesis in reference to the Fall and original sin, how does one preserve it as regards salvation theory?

One can believe that the Fall was a very real event, however the point of Genesis is only to explain the Fall theologically, and not give a literal account of it. The theological aspect essentially follows: When we are in obedience to God, everything is perfect, but when we act against God, evil and suffering come into existence. However, we do not need to believe that Adam and Eve were two actual people to still understand the theological teaching. It is within correct context, assuming evolution is true, to believe that we should only take the Genesis account from a theological, and not literal perspective.
Nolite Timere
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2014 8:37:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/8/2014 8:17:44 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 8/8/2014 1:08:33 AM, Keltron wrote:
At 8/6/2014 11:01:24 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 8/6/2014 10:30:55 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
I will attempt to be nice about this, because I don't wish to contribute to the Religion Forum's corruption.
However, here I go:

1. In accepting the Theory of Evolution, do you discard the Biblical accounts of the Garden of Eden, the Fall of Man in the Garden of Eden, and the Biblical Flood?

Only in the sense that it is not to be taken literally, but theologically.

Theologically meaning strictly metaphysical. Strictly metaphysical in the sense of non interpenetration with the physical.

Jesus' blood sacrifice, then, is a strictly metaphysical, non physical event as well since its theological underpinnings reside within a strictly metaphysical sphere. So what import does it have in the physical realm?

I don't understand how you came to the conclusion that the New Testament is also only a theological teaching, and not literal.

Your logic seems to follow:

P1. A is B.
P2. C is similiar to A.
C1. Therefore C is B.

However, this is just a fallacy which connects one conclusion to two different things, even if they are similiar.

The Genesis account must not be true necessarily in order for Christianity to be true, however, the Life, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus must be true or else Christianity is false. In terms of this world at least. One could conceive a world where God's plan of salvation did not involve the Passion of Christ, but that is irrelevant because he did involve it. So in reference to this world in which God did send Jesus, it is necessary that the Life, Death, and Resurrection be true.

The last time I attended the Easter service at the local Lutheran church it didn't seem like they were talking about something non-literal. If one disposes of literalism as regards the foundational mythology in Genesis in reference to the Fall and original sin, how does one preserve it as regards salvation theory?

One can believe that the Fall was a very real event, however the point of Genesis is only to explain the Fall theologically, and not give a literal account of it. The theological aspect essentially follows: When we are in obedience to God, everything is perfect, but when we act against God, evil and suffering come into existence. However, we do not need to believe that Adam and Eve were two actual people to still understand the theological teaching. It is within correct context, assuming evolution is true, to believe that we should only take the Genesis account from a theological, and not literal perspective.

What the Hell? Hey! This is the 21st Century and please STOP promoting backward low-level passe BAD RELIGION IDEAS such as you not knowing that there are TWO, count them, TWO Genesis versions written by TWO different groups of ancient Hebrew priesthoods and scribes. You and all Pauline Christians like you only report Genesis TWO and never report Genesis ONE. Yahwehist priests wrote Genesis Two and it is Yahwehism and utterly false to true Messianic/Christian theology which follows the Elohimists Genesis One theology of EL Elyon, God Most High. You don't know Hebrew history, just go by Paulist theologians and thereby swallow the Yahwehist priests perversion of God's Plan by falsely elevating Yahweh to EL's position as God Most High.

Learn true Canaanite/Hebrew history and stop promoting Pauline Christian lies. There is no spiritual authority derived from lying about real Hebrew history of the writers of the Bible stories. Christianity, true Christianity does not follow Yahweh as God but follows EL Elyon. Know your Canaanite deities. And remember who Jesus cried out to from the cross and it was not to Yahweh but to My EL, My EL. because Jesus himself reestablished the true Father to Son relationship between EL and Yahweh that the Yahweh priests had overturned with their Sinai Covenant erasing EL's identity and replacing it with EL's son, Yahweh to create "I AM" and the man-made "YHWH" idol, Pauline Christians are taught to worship instead of God Most High, Jesus' true Abba, his Daddy.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2014 9:12:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/7/2014 5:48:22 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 8/6/2014 11:32:55 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 8/6/2014 11:10:38 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/6/2014 11:01:24 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 8/6/2014 10:30:55 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
I will attempt to be nice about this, because I don't wish to contribute to the Religion Forum's corruption.
However, here I go:

1. In accepting the Theory of Evolution, do you discard the Biblical accounts of the Garden of Eden, the Fall of Man in the Garden of Eden, and the Biblical Flood?

Only in the sense that it is not to be taken literally, but theologically.

2. If not, how do you fit them into the account, with the Evolutionary model contradicting a Literal Biblical Account of the Book of Genesis?

Genesis isn't a literal account. What is important is its theological teachings, not whether it actually happened. Since Genesis actually having happened does not conform to science (evolution), then it can be concluded that Genesis is simply a theological account and not one of history or science.

Let's be civil about this. Begin.

Well there goes jesus.

Not really, since Jesus is mentioned by tens of secular historians during the century in which he lived.

No, bulproof is correct, even if he is trying to insult. To what effect is what is Jesus Christ to be as Son of God, if the God He says He comes from isn"t true? Also to what effect is the writhing of Moses if the God of Israel wasn"t with Moses in the desert with the Children of Israel?

No one argues whether or not Moses lead Israel out of Egypt, but did the Creator and Judge walk with Moses? No one argues the Jesus was a person in the times mentioned, but is He the Son of God?

If you don"t believe what Moses wrote how can you believe in Jesus Christ as your Savior?

I would guess the answer to that one would be faith.
Keltron
Posts: 161
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2014 8:44:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/8/2014 8:17:44 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 8/8/2014 1:08:33 AM, Keltron wrote:
At 8/6/2014 11:01:24 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 8/6/2014 10:30:55 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
I will attempt to be nice about this, because I don't wish to contribute to the Religion Forum's corruption.
However, here I go:

1. In accepting the Theory of Evolution, do you discard the Biblical accounts of the Garden of Eden, the Fall of Man in the Garden of Eden, and the Biblical Flood?

Only in the sense that it is not to be taken literally, but theologically.

Theologically meaning strictly metaphysical. Strictly metaphysical in the sense of non interpenetration with the physical.

Jesus' blood sacrifice, then, is a strictly metaphysical, non physical event as well since its theological underpinnings reside within a strictly metaphysical sphere. So what import does it have in the physical realm?

I don't understand how you came to the conclusion that the New Testament is also only a theological teaching, and not literal.

Your logic seems to follow:

P1. A is B.
P2. C is similiar to A.
C1. Therefore C is B.

However, this is just a fallacy which connects one conclusion to two different things, even if they are similiar.

The Genesis account must not be true necessarily in order for Christianity to be true, however, the Life, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus must be true or else Christianity is false. In terms of this world at least. One could conceive a world where God's plan of salvation did not involve the Passion of Christ, but that is irrelevant because he did involve it. So in reference to this world in which God did send Jesus, it is necessary that the Life, Death, and Resurrection be true.

The last time I attended the Easter service at the local Lutheran church it didn't seem like they were talking about something non-literal. If one disposes of literalism as regards the foundational mythology in Genesis in reference to the Fall and original sin, how does one preserve it as regards salvation theory?

One can believe that the Fall was a very real event, however the point of Genesis is only to explain the Fall theologically, and not give a literal account of it. The theological aspect essentially follows: When we are in obedience to God, everything is perfect, but when we act against God, evil and suffering come into existence. However, we do not need to believe that Adam and Eve were two actual people to still understand the theological teaching. It is within correct context, assuming evolution is true, to believe that we should only take the Genesis account from a theological, and not literal perspective.

I appreciate the response. I still don't understand why an actual blood sacrifice of God's son would be necessary if the Fall is a theological idea, and not an actual event.
Keltron
Posts: 161
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2014 8:50:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
In other words: In order to accommodate evolution, we have to say that the creation story is not literally true. But if the creation story is not literally true, then where is the need for salvation? No Fall and original sin, no need for atonement and salvation. I don't think you can have it both ways.
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2014 9:28:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/8/2014 8:50:16 PM, Keltron wrote:
In other words: In order to accommodate evolution, we have to say that the creation story is not literally true. But if the creation story is not literally true, then where is the need for salvation? No Fall and original sin, no need for atonement and salvation. I don't think you can have it both ways.

You forget evolution carrying us forward in human behavior differing from animal behavior. I follow the Christ Messiah Archetype not only because it's a real Spirit that you can reach but also because the Christ/Messiah Archetype contains the forward evolution of humankind moving from human being behavior still under the thrall of animal instincts to full humane being behavior which is Humanitarian. Christ then forms the Humanitarian Archetype that gives humankind a Model of a Humane Being and that's what we need to focus our individual and social behavior standards. The Fall of Man is Paul's doctrine and never made any rational sense but a Humanitarian Archetype does.
Keltron
Posts: 161
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2014 11:13:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/8/2014 9:28:06 PM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:
At 8/8/2014 8:50:16 PM, Keltron wrote:
In other words: In order to accommodate evolution, we have to say that the creation story is not literally true. But if the creation story is not literally true, then where is the need for salvation? No Fall and original sin, no need for atonement and salvation. I don't think you can have it both ways.

You forget evolution carrying us forward in human behavior differing from animal behavior. I follow the Christ Messiah Archetype not only because it's a real Spirit that you can reach but also because the Christ/Messiah Archetype contains the forward evolution of humankind moving from human being behavior still under the thrall of animal instincts to full humane being behavior which is Humanitarian. Christ then forms the Humanitarian Archetype that gives humankind a Model of a Humane Being and that's what we need to focus our individual and social behavior standards. The Fall of Man is Paul's doctrine and never made any rational sense but a Humanitarian Archetype does.

That's a good point, but it doesn't reflect the mainstream Christian take on sin and the need for salvation. I was thinking of Paul when I remarked that if the Fall is strictly metaphysical, then the blood sacrifice of Christ would also have to be strictly metaphysical in order to dovetail in the same sphere with the creation account in Genesis. Some people think that Paul was proposing such a metaphysical Christ. I don't have an opinion on that.

I think that as Christianity becomes more progressive in trying to harmonize faith with science, it requires more and more of an effort at intellectual compartmentalization to accommodate a non literal view of the OT, while still preserving a literal salvation theology. To me, it seems as though without a literal Fall and literal original sin, the literal atonement in blood of the Christ becomes merely a mythical fetish anachronism.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2014 12:21:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/8/2014 8:44:38 PM, Keltron wrote:
At 8/8/2014 8:17:44 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 8/8/2014 1:08:33 AM, Keltron wrote:
At 8/6/2014 11:01:24 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 8/6/2014 10:30:55 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
I will attempt to be nice about this, because I don't wish to contribute to the Religion Forum's corruption.
However, here I go:

1. In accepting the Theory of Evolution, do you discard the Biblical accounts of the Garden of Eden, the Fall of Man in the Garden of Eden, and the Biblical Flood?

Only in the sense that it is not to be taken literally, but theologically.

Theologically meaning strictly metaphysical. Strictly metaphysical in the sense of non interpenetration with the physical.

Jesus' blood sacrifice, then, is a strictly metaphysical, non physical event as well since its theological underpinnings reside within a strictly metaphysical sphere. So what import does it have in the physical realm?

I don't understand how you came to the conclusion that the New Testament is also only a theological teaching, and not literal.

Your logic seems to follow:

P1. A is B.
P2. C is similiar to A.
C1. Therefore C is B.

However, this is just a fallacy which connects one conclusion to two different things, even if they are similiar.

The Genesis account must not be true necessarily in order for Christianity to be true, however, the Life, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus must be true or else Christianity is false. In terms of this world at least. One could conceive a world where God's plan of salvation did not involve the Passion of Christ, but that is irrelevant because he did involve it. So in reference to this world in which God did send Jesus, it is necessary that the Life, Death, and Resurrection be true.

The last time I attended the Easter service at the local Lutheran church it didn't seem like they were talking about something non-literal. If one disposes of literalism as regards the foundational mythology in Genesis in reference to the Fall and original sin, how does one preserve it as regards salvation theory?

One can believe that the Fall was a very real event, however the point of Genesis is only to explain the Fall theologically, and not give a literal account of it. The theological aspect essentially follows: When we are in obedience to God, everything is perfect, but when we act against God, evil and suffering come into existence. However, we do not need to believe that Adam and Eve were two actual people to still understand the theological teaching. It is within correct context, assuming evolution is true, to believe that we should only take the Genesis account from a theological, and not literal perspective.

I appreciate the response. I still don't understand why an actual blood sacrifice of God's son would be necessary if the Fall is a theological idea, and not an actual event.

The Fall is not a theological idea. The Genesis account is theological regarding the Fall, and was not a real event. However, the Fall itself was an actual event that occurred some time in human history.
Nolite Timere
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2014 11:13:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/6/2014 10:30:55 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
I will attempt to be nice about this, because I don't wish to contribute to the Religion Forum's corruption.
However, here I go:

1. In accepting the Theory of Evolution, do you discard the Biblical accounts of the Garden of Eden, the Fall of Man in the Garden of Eden, and the Biblical Flood?
2. If not, how do you fit them into the account, with the Evolutionary model contradicting a Literal Biblical Account of the Book of Genesis?

Let's be civil about this. Begin.

1. I'm not sure what to think of the garden of eden rather it be another realm, dimension, or unknown part of earth. The fall has nothing to do with evolution.

2. The flood might be a metaphor because if Noah was left with his family, then we are all the descendents of incest and this contradicts the bible's laws where it says incest is not ok. The flood is also disproved by modern science.
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2014 11:19:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think the level of thought here isn't up to the debate as are we really dealing with people who think the Flood actually happened and the races descended from Shem, Japheth, and Ham?

Another Ham for Christ sake says that's loony tunes in our times of knowledge of anthropological origins proven by dna distribution. Make mine ham on rye please..
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2014 11:23:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
And I'll have another bowl of Cush too, thank you, and here's the Canaan Peace Plan for ya at: http://biomystic.org.... That's it for the sons of Ham who dared look at drunken Noah and became the Jewish (Shem) scapegoat race of Hebrew racism.

The irony is that today phony "Semites" from Europe are conducting a genocidal war against real Semites in Palestine.
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2014 11:55:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/9/2014 11:13:33 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 8/6/2014 10:30:55 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
I will attempt to be nice about this, because I don't wish to contribute to the Religion Forum's corruption.
However, here I go:

1. In accepting the Theory of Evolution, do you discard the Biblical accounts of the Garden of Eden, the Fall of Man in the Garden of Eden, and the Biblical Flood?
2. If not, how do you fit them into the account, with the Evolutionary model contradicting a Literal Biblical Account of the Book of Genesis?

Let's be civil about this. Begin.

1. I'm not sure what to think of the garden of eden rather it be another realm, dimension, or unknown part of earth. The fall has nothing to do with evolution.

2. The flood might be a metaphor because if Noah was left with his family, then we are all the descendents of incest and this contradicts the bible's laws where it says incest is not ok. The flood is also disproved by modern science.

What you said about Noah's descendants and incest...why is incest unacceptable in 100% of cases to you (an action which was needed to populate the Earth) but homosexuality is good?
By the way, the rule against incest has not been repeated in the New Testament (yet homosexuality has) and it was added because of human genes becoming too messed up for incest to produce healthy humans. And since having kids is a lot of the purpose of marriage, it is counterproductive to marry through a method that will not produce offspring who aren't severely mentally handicapped. And obviously being married and having sex while planning to not have kids isn't really something that God approves of, so thus it also isn't acceptable in that sense. And it's not acceptable as Pre-Marital sex, as God doesn't accept that in any manner, form, shape, or fashion.
Thus, in the Modern Age where there are plenty of humans to marry and any offspring can't tolerate it, incest is a sin. That wasn't the case in 2000 BC (or whenever Noah and his sons walked off the Ark). It may not necessarily be the act of married incest itself which is sinful; it is the fact that nothing good comes of it.
As for science disproving the Flood...pffh.
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2014 12:13:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
No A&E
No fall
No salvation
No christianity

Only reason to disbelieve evolution.
Really simple ain't it christians, why don't you tell the truth?