How evolution is driving the clergy to atheism

[Aaron]

http://creation.com/caught-in-the-pulpit

Richard Dawkins is quoted as saying:

If the evidence before your eyes doesn’t support a belief, you cannot will yourself to believe it anyway.​

...and he's right.

There are those on this board asserting belief in Evolution, not because they choose to, but because that's how they see it, and they can't see it any other way, yet they assert that they "choose to believe" in the Resurrection, Virgin Birth, etc.?

Deny Genesis, and you deny the rest. It's as simple as that.

 

[Crabtownboy]

http://creation.com/caught-in-the-pulpit

Richard Dawkins is quoted as saying:

If the evidence before your eyes doesn’t support a belief, you cannot will yourself to believe it anyway.​

...and he's right.

There are those on this board asserting belief in Evolution, not because they choose to, but because that's how they see it, and they can't see it any other way, yet they assert that they "choose to believe" in the Resurrection, Virgin Birth, etc.?

Deny Genesis, and you deny the rest. It's as simple as that.

There are many interpretations of Genesis. So you say a person who does not agree with you is denying Genesis. Then, in turn, say as you do not interpret Genesis the way they do, that you are denying Genesis. And so we are left with an argument ... and maybe both of you are wrong, sincerely wrong in your interpretation.

Oh well .............. just agree with me and you will be correct. In you do not agree you are denying the Bible. Just as valid a statement as yours.

 

[JamesL]

Richard Dawkins is quoted as saying:

If the evidence before your eyes doesn’t support a belief, you cannot will yourself to believe it anyway.​

...and he's right.

There are those on this board asserting......... that they "choose to believe" in the Resurrection, Virgin Birth, etc.?

It is humanly IMPOSSIBLE to "will" one's self to believe. One is either convinced, or he doesn't believe.

Even among those who embrace the Genesis account as literal, are many here who seem to desire some power of choice toward the gospel promise

 

[pinoybaptist]

http://creation.com/caught-in-the-pulpit

Richard Dawkins is quoted as saying:

If the evidence before your eyes doesn’t support a belief, you cannot will yourself to believe it anyway.​

...and he's right.

There are those on this board asserting belief in Evolution, not because they choose to, but because that's how they see it, and they can't see it any other way, yet they assert that they "choose to believe" in the Resurrection, Virgin Birth, etc.?

Deny Genesis, and you deny the rest. It's as simple as that.

Was it Karl Marx who said that either God is Sovereign, or man is, but the two can't be both sovereign, or words to that effect ?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Was it Karl Marx who said that either God is Sovereign, or man is, but the two can't be both sovereign, or words to that effect ?

Karl Marx?!?

 

[Aaron]

There are many interpretations of Genesis. So you say a person who does not agree with you is denying Genesis. Then, in turn, say as you do not interpret Genesis the way they do, that you are denying Genesis. And so we are left with an argument ... and maybe both of you are wrong, sincerely wrong in your interpretation.

Oh well .............. just agree with me and you will be correct. In you do not agree you are denying the Bible. Just as valid a statement as yours.

There are many interpretations of the Resurrection, and Virgin Birth, the Cross, the Atonement, etc.

There is only one right interpretation of Genesis, and it is the one that prevailed prior to Darwinism and it's daughter, your sister, Marxism.

 

[just-want-peace]

There are many interpretations of the Resurrection, and Virgin Birth, the Cross, the Atonement, etc.

There is only one right interpretation of Genesis, and it is the one that prevailed prior to Darwinism and it's daughter, your sister, Marxism.

Ditto!!!!!
Generally there is no need to "INTERPRET" the Word.

IMHO, if the straightforward obvious meaning is clear, then why try to "interpret"? (interpretation and delving deeper are not the same!!) There may be some deeper lessons to be learned, but the deeper meanings will never, NEVER, contradict the surface meaning.

The only way much (most?) of the problems arise is when one has to ignore the PLAIN meaning so the allegorical (or other) meaning can fit. IOW, one is then telling God that what He said is not what He meant. (Perfect example is trying to claim God used evolution, contradicting His word that He "created-----")

Very dangerous ground, as adding to, and deleting from, His word is verboten!!!!

 

[OnlyaSinner]

I view Bible interpretation as a valid practice, but that hinges on what one labels as interpretation and becomes a semantics discussion. That said, I heard long ago that one of the first rules of Bible interpretation is:

When the plain sense of scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense.

 

[Crabtownboy]

There are many interpretations of the Resurrection, and Virgin Birth, the Cross, the Atonement, etc.

There is only one right interpretation of Genesis, and it is the one that prevailed prior to Darwinism and it's daughter, your sister, Marxism.

Which interpretation before Darwin. There were many even then depending on your denomination, country, society and culture ... so which one?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Was it Karl Marx who said that either God is Sovereign, or man is, but the two can't be both sovereign, or words to that effect ?

Karl Marx?!?

Kark Marx. The exact quote, rendered from German to English, is "This is like asking, is God the sovereign or is man? One of the two is a fiction, even though an existing fiction."

Marx was actually discussing the philosophy of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, a hero of sorts to Marx and who is now considered the forerunner of Marx's communist theories. Marx was critiquing Hegel's views of forms of government, one of which has the government as "all powerful" and another -- presumably democracy -- in which the people retain the power. Marx wasn't endorsing God, just what he saw as an insipid viewpoint.

 

[Aaron]

Which interpretation before Darwin. There were many even then depending on your denomination, country, society and culture ... so which one?

Christ's. Have your heard of Him?

 

[pinoybaptist]

Karl Marx?!?

yes, brother. Karl Marx.
And as TND pointed out, it was not an endorsement of the truth of God's existence.
But you can see how even the timely enemies of God sees how there can be no fence sitting on the matter.
no in-between.
if he had been a believer, he most assuredly would have been a "Calvinist".
but whoa there, to those who would disagree with the last paragraph, let's not turn this into a C/A debate, apologies to the OP.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Christ's. Have your heard of Him?

And how do you know how Jesus interpreted Genesis? While thinking about this keep in mind Jesus did not speak English and thus meaning would be lost in anything that he said when it was translated into English.

I am hoping for a rational, logical answer, but do not expect one. Anyway, I'd probably miss it as I will be away until early mid-May.
yth
Blessings.

 

[Aaron]

. . . keep in mind Jesus did not speak English and thus meaning would be lost in anything that he said when it was translated into English.

John Wycliffe and his Lollards would disagree with you. Wycliffe risked his life and many of his Lollards burned at the stake with copies of their English Bibles around their necks all for naught.

So exactly how long ago did CrabMaoboy abandon the Scriptures for the docrine of devils?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

And how do you know how Jesus interpreted Genesis? While thinking about this keep in mind Jesus did not speak English and thus meaning would be lost in anything that he said when it was translated into English.

Jesus was a Jew, who spoke Hebrew and Aramaic, as well as Greek -- the last being the international language of business and commerce in the first century. But as not only a Jewish man who spoke both Hebrew and Aramaic, Jesus was the Author of Genesis 1-2. He is God. And God inspired Moses to use strictly literal language in the recounting of the Creation, indicating six literal 24-hour days.

Therefore, Jesus understood it just as Aaron and I understand it.

Jesus, because by God's inspiration of Moses in his writing, He essentially wrote it.

Aaron and I, because we believe God.

Done here? Good ...

 

[Yeshua1]

And how do you know how Jesus interpreted Genesis? While thinking about this keep in mind Jesus did not speak English and thus meaning would be lost in anything that he said when it was translated into English.

I am hoping for a rational, logical answer, but do not expect one. Anyway, I'd probably miss it as I will be away until early mid-May.
yth
Blessings.

Jesus AND paul both took genesis to be literal historical facts of history, real Adam and Eve, real Fall, real days, not a spiritualized/allorgorical viewpoint!

 

[Crabtownboy]

Jesus AND paul both took genesis to be literal historical facts of history, real Adam and Eve, real Fall, real days, not a spiritualized/allorgorical viewpoint!

How do you know this? I do not know if you are right or wrong. I do know there are people who say Jesus and Paul did not take Gen. 2 literally. I do not know if they are right or wrong.

An example:

If we look at what Jesus is depicted as saying about Genesis 2 in the Synoptic Gospels, he points to the story about God making two people out of one, and then goes on to talk (as Genesis does) about two becoming one flesh. Not literally being, but becoming. And then, even though it is a story that is literally about the rejoining of what God has cleaved asunder, the conclusion drawn is the opposite, that what God has joined no human being should cleave asunder.
That is not literalism. Quite the opposite, in fact. It is an interpretation that appreciates the story's symbolism.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/explor...literalists-when-it-comes-to-genesis-2-3.html

 

[quantumfaith]

Christ's. Have your heard of Him?

Uncalled for....oh I forgot it's you.

 

[just-want-peace]

Crabby:

How do you know this? I do not know if you are right or wrong. I do know there are people who say Jesus and Paul did not take Gen. 2 literally. I do not know if they are right or wrong.

IOW, your belief of God's word is dependent on what others think???? Pitiful!!!

What does this loudly broadcast about your belief of Jesus actually dying & rising again?????

If you can't trust part of the Bible, why do you trust any of it???

If this is your attitude toward the Word, you'd best lay off this forum & spend more time ----- well, that is more spiritually productive!

 

[OldRegular]

There are many interpretations of the Resurrection, and Virgin Birth, the Cross, the Atonement, etc.

But only one correct interpretation!

There is only one right interpretation of Genesis, and it is the one that prevailed prior to Darwinism and it's daughter, your sister, Marxism.

:thumbs: