Evolution Corrupts the Gospel

[Meatros]

Scientifically it still means change, and usually with a positive connotation. The change can be simple variation, which is what we see constantly, even in nuclear families, or it can be referring to the argued-about changes from a one-celled organism to a fern or elephant or mosquito. It is this last use of evolution which is so widely argued, and one which I and many creationists (of various stripes) feel has no evidence to support it outside of imagination and interpretation.

I'm glad you agree with me on the destructive rhetoric. While I disagree with your opinion (on the matter of evo), it's structured in such a way that I will give it all due consideration. Whereas destructive rhetoric would just make me simply disagree with you (no matter what was said basically).

However, all that being said, 'evolutionism' is a correct term in the same way 'creationism' is. Both refer to the belief system which exists with or without facts -- the attitude, if you will, which says, "My mind is made up; don't bother me with the facts."

I fail to see how either evolutionism or creationism is a belief system in and of themselves. They both can be incorporated into belief systems and IMO creationism is more like a religion then it is like a science (it's central tenets can not be IMO tested). But that's for another thread I suppose.

Actually, to tell the truth I think all of us here are creationists to an extent. To my knowledge we all agree that God created everything. It's the manner God went about it that we are disagreeing on.

 

[Meatros]

But in fact - evolutionism strikes at the very heart of the Gospel. Huxley knew it and most evolutionists (and all creationists) know it.

There is no fall of mankind from a perfect sinless state.

This has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Evolution is as Helen stated-about change and as such it has absolutely nothing to do with man either falling or not falling from a perfect sinless state.

As such I don't see how evolution would effect the non-literalists opinion of mankind falling from a sinless state. It happened, and the metaphor of Adam is still in effect.

There is no need to restore mankind back to that high and lofty state from which he fell.

Once again evolution doesn't deal with this at all. It has as much relevance here as the theory of gravity.

As such there is no reason not to believe that man does not need to be forgiven.

The very concept of "the Savior" is void.

Since evolution does not negate a Savior, the necessity of one is still very important. After all there is more to sinning then just being born.

The NT arguments that Paul and Christ made BASED on the "DETAILS" of Gen 1-3 are "void".

Not void, just in all likelihood not taken into proper consideration.

The Arguments that God makes from His own Law - appealing to Gen 1-3 "DETAILS" are void.

You are assuming that non-literalists take Genesis to be of no worth, which is simply not the case at all. It's of worth as a metaphorical truth, not a literal one. Also, God changes his laws throughout the bible, for different purposes.

And in the NT - voiding ONE part of the LAW - nullifies all of it according to James.

The house of cards falls flat.

According to the literalists beliefs this might be true. So the house does not fall flat. The house is actually reveal to be an ill-constructed strawman that sets up the non-literalists position on Genesis to be one of worthlessness. Which is not true at all.

 

[Helen]

Hi again, Meatros,

I think you will find that the Fall is closely connected with the concept of anti-evolution for many. You see, if man evolved physically from an ape-like ancestor, then he was never in a perfect and sinless state, so how could he fall? Does redemption 'restore' man to his state 'before' he was H.sapiens? Are we to become some kind of ape-like creature? This is the logic, or lack of it, that many creationists see with the idea of theistic evolution.

I want to ask you something: Why do you consider Adam a metaphor?

You also stted that God changes His laws throughout the Bible. I have not seen that. Could you point out what you mean, please?

 

[The Galatian]

Helen, do you think that animals other than man can sin?

 

[The Galatian]

The Bible has EVERYTHING to say about God CREATING MORE THAN a single celled organism from which ALL life "sprang".

Galation observes:
You've confused abiogenesis (which God tells us was the way He did it) with evolution.

In fact evilutionists INVENTED the term -

God invented the process. Which is more impressive to me. It should be to you, too. Again, you have confused evolution with abiogenesis.

Whereas the Bible says COMPLEX living systems sprang out of non-living material by the WORD of God - in a single day.

Nope. That's your addition to Scripture. However, even if you were right, and Genesis wrong, it would still have nothing to do with evolutionary theory, which makes no claims about the origin of life.

The Bible declares DIRECT divine fiat creation in SIX days "FOR in SIX DAYS God created the Heavens and the Earth and the SEA and ALL THAT IS IN THEM".

We are aware that you have chosen to interpret this as literal. But you have given us no reason to accept your idea.

Galation observes:
"YOM" is not necessarily translated to "day" and is often used for various periods of time.

You're simply not paying attention. The quote above is from Exodus 20:8-11 where YOM for 6 DAYS "YOU shall labor and do all your work" Is set in exact equivalence with "FOR in SIX days the LORD CREATED the heavens and the earth" - same author, same context, same word, iron clad exegesis.

Nope. Obviously, man working for six days is not remotely the same as God creating the universe. It is on a much smaller scale, in both extent and time. They are very different things; God has chosen to compare the long times and great work of creation with mans duty and need for a day of contemplation and worship of God.

EVEN evolutionist-believing Orthodox Jewish Hebrew scholars ADMIT that the context for YOM in Exodus 20:8-11 is iron clad, fixed and obvious.

Nope. You've been misled. I've been told by a number of such Jewish scholars quite the opposite.

Galation observes:
And as early Christians pointed out, there can be no days, or mornings or evenings without a Sun to have them. Some try to force a 24 hour day in to this text, but they are trying to replace God's word with their own ideas.

Wrong as usual Galation. (surprise, surprise - eh?)

You've been misled. Augustine, for example, pointed this out...

"Augustine trifles with the six days in a strange way, making them days of hidden meaning, according to the knowledge of angels, and does not let them be six natural days." - Martin Luther, who also denied that the Earth orbits the Sun.

"Origen (an influential early Christian theologian) ridiculed the notion of a creation that lasted during six days. And even the proponents of this approach have to concede that there are significant problems with it, for example:

How could there be “evenings” and “mornings” on the first three days if the sun was not created until the fourth day?

Why would Almighty God need to cease from His work because of the turning of the world on its axis?

http://members.iinet.net.au/~raphael/ph_3_2.html

The Genesis 1 "account" states that a light source is the FIRST act of DAY ONE. And in fact it appears that it is a single side light source with a rotating planet IF we are to ADD our "great knowledge" of how the system works. (As you seem to want to do).

That is not a sun. Merely shining a light on the Earth does not make for mornings or evenings. These words have specific meanings, and only if you change them, can you make scripture say what you want it to say. You would be better off letting it say what it says.

Turning a blind eye to scripture our compromising evolutionist bretheren hope to find a Gospel that will not be corrupted by the doctrines of evolutionism.

Since science can say nothing about the supernatural, that's never been a problem for Christians.

Galation observes:
If you want your doctrine accepted by other Christians, you'll need to do more than insist you are right.

If you want your speculation that you actually CAN compromise the Gospel WITH evilutionism and STILL have the Bible Gospel -

You seem to be arguing with yourself, again. No orthodox Christian would suppose that any compromise like that is necessary; evolution is completely compatible with Scripture if you accept it as it is.

Rather you show with every post - that my opening post on this thread - has gone unchallenged by a serious, detailed, compelling response of any kind.

I've shown you that Genesis itself is not consistent with the sort of creation you want. I've shown you that the early Christians knew that a literal six day Genesis could not be true.

I direct your attention to the admonition about mocking and insults. When you say "evilutionists, you geve people reason to question your integrity and judgement, whether or not the rule is enforced. And it does your argument no good. You're pretty much left with "because I say so" as your reason for believing otherwise.

That's not enough.

 

[BobRyan]

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But in fact - evolutionism strikes at the very heart of the Gospel. Huxley knew it and most evolutionists (and all creationists) know it.

There is no fall of mankind from a perfect sinless state.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Meatros --
This has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

Why dodge the point then? Why - IN ALL these response have you YET to "show" the fall of mankind from a sinless pure state of peace and fellowship WITH His creator - and how that FITS evolution?

Recall that the "title" is "Evolution corrupts the Gospel" your objective would be to show that it does not - show it - do the math - present the details. You know, make your case instead of ducking, dodging and obfuscating as if that will cause anyone reading to "forget the subject".

Meatros --it has absolutely nothing to do with man either falling or not falling from a perfect sinless state.

In fact it is totally INCONSISTENT with that idea. It promotes "The law of tooth and claw, carnage and extinction" to "achieve progress".

God's Word promotes "Divine command, order in creation, obedience, worship and sinless perfection without death or disease". To FALL from that state "has meaning".

To "fall from the carnage of tooth and claw" has no meaning at all - it corrupts the Gospel.

Meatros -
As such I don't see how evolution would effect the non-literalists opinion of mankind falling from a sinless state. It happened, and the metaphor of Adam is still in effect.

Fine - "show your work" - do the math. Show in the "details" listed at the top of this thread and repeated often IN the thread - HOW that works so that Evolution is affirmed AS WELL as the Gospel without having a self-conflicted mythology as your "result".

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no need to restore mankind back to that high and lofty state from which he fell.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Meatros -

As such there is no reason not to believe that man does not need to be forgiven.

Forgiven for "WHAT"?? Failure to properly exterminate the competition? Failure to perform tooth-and-claw balance as required? Failure to inflict the proper carnage on his environment?
Failure to smash and bash the right quota of monkey brains?

Failure to squat on his cave floor in the correct way?

"what would he need Forgiveness for"?

Why would God have to "Send His Son to die in our place"? If we were just - eating our monkey-brain breakfast - like any hominid offspring - killing and grunting his way through life??

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The very concept of "the Savior" is void.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Meatros --
Since evolution does not negate a Savior, the necessity of one is still very important. After all there is more to sinning then just being born.

The Romans 5 sinful nature - recieved as the result of "ONE mans fall" that caused the system of death to spread to ALL mankind is foreign to evolution because it NEEDS a system of death LONG before that. Get it??

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NT arguments that Paul and Christ made BASED on the "DETAILS" of Gen 1-3 are "void".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Meatros--
Not void, just in all likelihood not taken into proper consideration.

I detect some "gyrations" in your logic at that point. Do you care to "show your work" - "do the math" show how appealing the VERY DETAILS that you claim are "false" - will help Paul's case since that is what HE does.


quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Arguments that God makes from His own Law - appealing to Gen 1-3 "DETAILS" are void.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Meatros --
You are assuming that non-literalists take Genesis to be of no worth, which is simply not the case at all. It's of worth as a metaphorical truth, not a literal one. Also, God changes his laws throughout the bible, for different purposes.

You are floundering - grasping at straws to address the point. The point was very direct and obvious - the text of Exodus 20:8-11 appeals to the literal time sequence details of Gen 1-2:3 to make its case - AND there is no way to argue "Go perforam action A just as I performed action A" if my doing it is "undefined".

So please - show how you can make the case for that in Exodus 20 as IT summarizes the Genesis 1 details.

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And in the NT - voiding ONE part of the LAW - nullifies all of it according to James.

The house of cards falls flat.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Meatros --
According to the literalists beliefs this might be true.

Are we actually making progress here - or are you about to redefine James 2 for us?

Your piling of assertion upon assertion - while avoiding every detail raised as an objection to your speculation - is not a compelling form of rebuttal.

Pick one of these cases and deal with it in some convincing way. Show how your ideas "work" in the text.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I am coming to the rather dissappointing conclusion that our evolutionist bretheren have no better solution to this problem - but to simply "pretend" that Genesis 1 and Exodus 20 do NOT show a six day time sequence with six cycles of "evening and morning".

Apparently - denying the "obvious" is the only resort left for them. How sad.

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bible declares DIRECT divine fiat creation in SIX days "FOR in SIX DAYS God created the Heavens and the Earth and the SEA and ALL THAT IS IN THEM".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Galation
We are aware that you have chosen to interpret this as literal. But you have given us no reason to accept your idea.

Both atheist, and Bible believing Christian AS WELL as Jew readily "admit" that Moses' primary audience viewed the Genesis 1-2:3 "account" and the Exodus 20:8-11 "summary" of that account to show a seven day week - with cycles of evening and morning - ONE cycle for EACH day and exact equivalence shown for the day at Sinai in Exodus.
But all our evolutionist friends can "imagine" is a defense that "pretends" not to see what everyone else quickly "obvserves" about that language and the meaning to its primary audience.

Fascinating!

Bob

 

[Meatros]

I think you will find that the Fall is closely connected with the concept of anti-evolution for many. You see, if man evolved physically from an ape-like ancestor, then he was never in a perfect and sinless state, so how could he fall? Does redemption 'restore' man to his state 'before' he was H.sapiens? Are we to become some kind of ape-like creature? This is the logic, or lack of it, that many creationists see with the idea of theistic evolution.

As The Galatian makes quite obvious (IMO), animals don't sin. Therefore man *was* in a sinless state.

You also stted that God changes His laws throughout the Bible. I have not seen that. Could you point out what you mean, please?

Perhaps changes is a bit of a misnomer. I suppose sometimes God's laws do not apply to us anymore, such as some of the Leviticus laws (IIRC) that used to forbade man/woman from eating certian foods and wearing certain types of clothing.

 

[Meatros]

Why dodge the point then? Why - IN ALL these response have you YET to "show" the fall of mankind from a sinless pure state of peace and fellowship WITH His creator - and how that FITS evolution?

Recall that the "title" is "Evolution corrupts the Gospel" your objective would be to show that it does not - show it - do the math - present the details. You know, make your case instead of ducking, dodging and obfuscating as if that will cause anyone reading to "forget the subject".

Just because the title is "evolution corrupts the Gospel" doesn't mean it does. That's begging the question. I already answered how man could fall from a sinless state.

Fine - "show your work" - do the math. Show in the "details" listed at the top of this thread and repeated often IN the thread - HOW that works so that Evolution is affirmed AS WELL as the Gospel without having a self-conflicted mythology as your "result"

Just did. Also, what's with the caps lock?

The Romans 5 sinful nature - recieved as the result of "ONE mans fall" that caused the system of death to spread to ALL mankind is foreign to evolution because it NEEDS a system of death LONG before that. Get it??

How is it foreign to evolution? You are using evolution as a catch-all. It's your pinnacle strawman, the great 'evil' you feel that needs to be destroyed. Why do people do bad things? IMO, your opinion would be "because they accept evolution".

I detect some "gyrations" in your logic at that point. Do you care to "show your work" - "do the math" show how appealing the VERY DETAILS that you claim are "false" - will help Paul's case since that is what HE does.

I'm not surprised you detect whatever in my work, you've consistently set up strawmen whenever I post.

You are floundering - grasping at straws to address the point. The point was very direct and obvious - the text of Exodus 20:8-11 appeals to the literal time sequence details of Gen 1-2:3 to make its case - AND there is no way to argue "Go perforam action A just as I performed action A" if my doing it is "undefined".

You are interpreting things now. You are picking and choosing your bible verses to try to make your incredibly weak point. IMO God is making the point that one should work the first six days and then to pray on the sabbath-to honor God. You are actually taking away God's message to suggest God said this to 'prove' Genesis. The important point, which you overlook, is to keep the Sabbath holy, not to justify Genesis as you are doing.

So please - show how you can make the case for that in Exodus 20 as IT summarizes the Genesis 1 details.

You are taking Exodus severally out of context. I can't believe you are making a strawman out of God's word. Tell me, is the point of these Exodus words to prove Genesis or are they, in fact, to create a day where man/woman prays to God?

Your piling of assertion upon assertion - while avoiding every detail raised as an objection to your speculation - is not a compelling form of rebuttal.

I've answered. You don't like my answers because you choose not to like them. You are set in your mind and IMO Jesus could agree with me and you would set up the very same strawmen with him as you have attempted with me.

 

[Meatros]

I am coming to the rather dissappointing conclusion that our evolutionist bretheren have no better solution to this problem - but to simply "pretend" that Genesis 1 and Exodus 20 do NOT show a six day time sequence with six cycles of "evening and morning".

You know it's sad that you try to take on the role of God and separate fellow Christians.

I have to now ask you something. Regardless of what someone believes what is the *ONLY* way to get to heaven?

Show your work.

 

[Helen]

Originally posted by Meatros:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

I think you will find that the Fall is closely connected with the concept of anti-evolution for many. You see, if man evolved physically from an ape-like ancestor, then he was never in a perfect and sinless state, so how could he fall? Does redemption 'restore' man to his state 'before' he was H.sapiens? Are we to become some kind of ape-like creature? This is the logic, or lack of it, that many creationists see with the idea of theistic evolution.

As The Galatian makes quite obvious (IMO), animals don't sin. Therefore man *was* in a sinless state.</font>

First of all, I was only explaining a point of view you did not seem to understand.

However, secondly, the death and predation and bloodshed we see in the animal kingdom are NOT part of the original creation.
You will see in Genesis 1:29-30, that neither man nor the land-crawling beasts or the birds were anything but vegetarian in the beginning. In fact, it was not even until after the Flood that animals were afraid of man. So evolutionists must ignore entire passages in the Bible such as Genesis 1:29-30 and 9:2-3 in order to present their "case" to Christians.

But if the Bible is correct, then the very processes of predation and 'natural selection' by death which evolution claims brought forth the H.sapien were actually the result of the Fall and are the consequences of sin. They did not exist before it. Therefore the picture Galatian and you are presenting is not just a reinterpretation of Genesis, but a clear denial of it.

Evolution DOES corrupt the Gospel by denying the reality of the foundation of it -- the sin nature of man and condition of creation itself being the consequence of the Fall. I would love it if you folks actually read the Bible carefully, for yourselves... it's all there.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />You also stted that God changes His laws throughout the Bible. I have not seen that. Could you point out what you mean, please?

Perhaps changes is a bit of a misnomer. I suppose sometimes God's laws do not apply to us anymore, such as some of the Leviticus laws (IIRC) that used to forbade man/woman from eating certian foods and wearing certain types of clothing. </font>[/QUOTE]Those laws were specifically for the ancient theocracy of Israel, as God Himself clearly points out. Please read your Bible. Those laws were never meant to have anything to do with other societies. We did, however, base a good part of our original Constitution here in the USA as well as our early legal system on what is called the "Judeo/Christian ethic" which takes the ethics and morality behind and within those early laws into consideration.

Please, please read your Bible for yourself. Slowly. Carefully. You will find that a lot of what you and some others here are presenting is clearly denied by the Bible. And at that point you are going to have to make a choice: believe Bible or believe man. You cannot combine the two and be faithful to either.

 

[The Galatian]

However, secondly, the death and predation and bloodshed we see in the animal kingdom are NOT part of the original creation.

Most Christians don't agree, for reasons below:

You will see in Genesis 1:29-30, that neither man nor the land-crawling beasts or the birds were anything but vegetarian in the beginning. In fact, it was not even until after the Flood that animals were afraid of man. So evolutionists must ignore entire passages in the Bible such as Genesis 1:29-30 and 9:2-3 in order to present their "case" to Christians.

It can't be. Many organisms, such as spiders, cannot be vegetarians in any respect; they are obligate predators. This is an allegory for the period in which our ancestors were innocent of evil, not an assertion that spiders used to be vegetarians. Because a literal interpretation of Gen. 1:29-30 cannot be reconciled with reality, we know it is allegory.

But if the Bible is correct, then the very processes of predation and 'natural selection' by death which evolution claims brought forth the H.sapien were actually the result of the Fall and are the consequences of sin.

No, what you are arguing is that if you are correct, then predation and natural selection must be the consequences of the Fall.

Which is why most Christians don't interpret God's word that way; it's not consistent with His creation.

They did not exist before it. Therefore the picture Galatian and you are presenting is not just a reinterpretation of Genesis, but a clear denial of it.

It's a denial of one particular interpretation of it. Nothing more than that. There are a number of different ways to interpret Genesis, including the creationist interpretation. It is not as accepted by Christians as others because it does not fit what we see of God's creation.

 

[Helen]

Originally posted by The Galatian:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />However, secondly, the death and predation and bloodshed we see in the animal kingdom are NOT part of the original creation.

Most Christians don't agree, for reasons below: </font>[/QUOTE]Again and forever, it does not matter what most people think, no matter who they are. It matters what God has said. He is the expert. He was there. He is the Creator.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />You will see in Genesis 1:29-30, that neither man nor the land-crawling beasts or the birds were anything but vegetarian in the beginning. In fact, it was not even until after the Flood that animals were afraid of man. So evolutionists must ignore entire passages in the Bible such as Genesis 1:29-30 and 9:2-3 in order to present their "case" to Christians.

It can't be. Many organisms, such as spiders, cannot be vegetarians in any respect; they are obligate predators. This is an allegory for the period in which our ancestors were innocent of evil, not an assertion that spiders used to be vegetarians. Because a literal interpretation of Gen. 1:29-30 cannot be reconciled with reality, we know it is allegory.</font>[/QUOTE]Let me know where you see that spiders have nephesh, or are considered part of the land beasts or the birds, OK? We also do not know what they were before the Fall.

In short, you are simply denying, as you state, Genesis 1:29-30 as being the truth. That is up to you. I find it perfectly in line with the description given by Isaiah of the restored creation when Christ will rule for a thousand years:

The wolf will live with the lamb,
the leopard will lie down with the goat,
the calf and the lion and the yearling together;
and a little child will lead them.
The cow will feed with the bear,
their young will lie down together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox.
The infant will play near the hole of the cobra,
and the young child put his hand into the viper's nest.
They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain,
for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord
as the waters cover the sea.
Isaiah 11:6-9

I suppose that is allegorical for you, too, though.

To many of us, that is a description of the once and future creation here on earth, when sin no longer reigns.

In short, I have no trouble knowing that Genesis 1:29-30 is the absolute truth.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />But if the Bible is correct, then the very processes of predation and 'natural selection' by death which evolution claims brought forth the H.sapien were actually the result of the Fall and are the consequences of sin.

No, what you are arguing is that if you are correct, then predation and natural selection must be the consequences of the Fall. </font>[/QUOTE]If that is the way you want to say it, fine. The sin and the Fall are rather intimately connected, you know!

Which is why most Christians don't interpret God's word that way; it's not consistent with His creation.

Ummmmm, we live in a fallen world. Of course it's not consistent with the world we know now! That is the whole point of Genesis!

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />They did not exist before it. Therefore the picture Galatian and you are presenting is not just a reinterpretation of Genesis, but a clear denial of it.

It's a denial of one particular interpretation of it. Nothing more than that. There are a number of different ways to interpret Genesis, including the creationist interpretation. It is not as accepted by Christians as others because it does not fit what we see of God's creation. </font>[/QUOTE]What we see of God's creation is a fallen creation, in bondage to decay -- and waiting to be released from that bondage! Or maybe Paul was being allegorical, too, in Romans 8?

Nor does Genesis have to be interpreted at all. It is telling the straight and unvarnished truth about creation and what happened. You deny it and think by 'reinterpreting' it you can shoehorn it into some kind of evolutionary scenario. In doing that, however, you are twisting and distorting not only Genesis out of recognition, but a good many other parts of the Bible, too!

So I think I prefer Bible and the actual evidence we see around us and what real science is showing.

 

[BobRyan]

Meatros
As The Galatian makes quite obvious (IMO), animals don't sin. Therefore man *was* in a sinless state.

So man "that is not man but really animal" was "sinless man" because he was in fact "sinless animal-not-human".

But then sinless-animal turns into sinful-man and that is the "evolution" view of sinless-MAN falling???

Do you realize how illogical your argument is for "SINLESS MAN" by insisting that he was NOT man but merely ANIMAL and that is sinless MAN falling?

Or are you saying that man was NEVER sinless - that ANIMAL is sinless and once ANIMAL fell - "and became man" THEN the tooth-and-claw-carnage-and-death dealing "ANIMAL" was no longer sinless, no longer in perfect fellowship with his Creator. AND so NOW God must send His Son to die for the sins of FALLEN ANIMAL - (man) because ANIMAL FELL when it "BECAME a MAN" by virtue of BEING a hominid+ he could now have a "bad thought" in the middle of bashing in his daily share of monkey-brains?

So - God sends His Son to die on the cross for "a fall" into spiritual darkness has taken place among the ANIMALS. ANIMAL "has become like one of US knowing good and evil by EVOLVING and BECOMING man". Now ALL mankind is "doomed" - condemned to hell for the "sin" of the ONE ANIMAL that "became man" and "thought something bad in his lonely cave one day" while playing grunt-and-bash with his fellow hominids.

All mankind must suffer sin, death, and eventually hell - because that one cave-dweller was 'incorrect on some point'.

What a fairytale is that spun by evolutionisms mythologies??

And so when I say that such nonesense as the above is a "corruption of the Gospel" - HOW could any serious Bible student doubt it for second?

Maybe the first step is to define "what is the Gospel" - can we really stretch it out to redeeming a "sinless monkey'ss-cousin that became human while sitting in his cave - and thereby sinned causing all his cave-dwelling-grunting postertiy to DESERVE the fires of HELL"?

If so - then is that not the poster-child for "corruption of the Gospel"?

I would call this an obvious open and shut case. Even out atheist friends will quickly agree that this is a far cry from what the Christian gospel is supposedly all about.

Bob

 

[Administrator2]

All posts dealing with doctrine arguments, name-calling, and personal accusations were deleted from this thread. That means every post after the one above was deleted. This thread is being closed as it is long enough now anyway.

All participants here should remind themselves of the rules of Baptist Board. Personal insults and slander are reasons for suspension or banning. This is a reminder.