The worst Christian ever

[just-want-peace]

A preview of the next liberal revision of the Holy Scriptures that include (in red) the necessary comments to jive with modern science

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness[FONT=&quot]: [/FONT]
(In reality, He just created the paramecium, amoeba etc, that eventually became what we now call “MAN”)
and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image[FONT=&quot], [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](not really; unless God’s image really was an amoeba - or similar???)[/FONT]
in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Gen 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat[FONT=&quot]. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](Of course this was several billion years AFTER His initial creation)[/FONT]
Gen 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so[FONT=&quot]. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](so the dinosaurs et al had this long stretch of time to adapt, and become masters of the earth and did fine, UNTIL man finally made the grade and caused a global warming cycle - from all those fires he built for cooking & heating his cave - and caused all sorts of catastrophes that doomed the dinos.)[/FONT]
Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
[FONT=&quot](incidentally, this evening and morning business is pure conjecture simply written for a people of old that wouldn’t fathom the modern concept of evolutionary ages of billions of years)[/FONT]


Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
Gen 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
Gen 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
[FONT=&quot](Seventh Day - not literal of course since we are told later -Psalm 90:4 - that a thousand days to God is as: 1) a day past, or 2) a watch in the night; obviously allegorical, so a the correct interpretation of this “seventh day”, would be billions of years. Pretty long rest, huh!)

Can't you just imagine the parenthetical comments that would accompany the "allegory" of Adam, Eve, and the serpent????? Or the flood?????
[/FONT]

 

[JTornado1]

"Worst Christian Ever"? Why is someone posting a thread about me? :tongue3::smilewinkgrin:

 

[Johnv]

[FONT=&quot]Can't you just imagine the parenthetical comments that would accompany the "allegory" of Adam, Eve, and the serpent????? Or the flood?????[/FONT]

We're not arguing creation/evolution here per se. We're arguing whether it's appropriate to judge the salvation of a person based on whether they agree or disagree with you on the side of the debate. Like I said earlier, it is right and reasonable to engage in discussion and debate as to whether these verses should be taken literally. It is not right or reasonable, however, to judge a person's salvation based on whether they share the same opinion on it. Neither is it appropriate to judge a Christian as being "the worst Christian ever" solely based on their position on Genesis.

 

[matt wade]

We're not arguing creation/evolution here per se. We're arguing whether it's appropriate to judge the salvation of a person based on whether they agree or disagree with you on the side of the debate. Like I said earlier, it is right and reasonable to engage in discussion and debate as to whether these verses should be taken literally. It is not right or reasonable, however, to judge a person's salvation based on whether they share the same opinion on it. Neither is it appropriate to judge a Christian as being "the worst Christian ever" solely based on their position on Genesis.

Remember all, Johnv is the authority on what is "right and reasonable". He has deemed it is "right and reasonable" to debate whether God told the truth in the Bible. He has deemed it "right and reasonable" to debate whether or not God's Word is literally God's Word.

 

[Palatka51]

Speciation has been documented, so you might want to raise the bar to evolution being the changing from one genus to another genus.

Where, please show me documentation that has complete consensus in the scientific community. Why even the word you use (Speciation) is not a word. There is no documented proof that one species has born anything but that of it's own kind.

Lets say a goat gives birth to a species that is a step up in evolution. The likelihood of that new step propagating itself is zero, for it will have no mate. Well lets say 100 goats give birth to that next step. Does that happen in only one herd, or are they scattered throughout the world? If they are scattered, the chances are higher but still slim that they could propagate. Lets say that it is local to one herd. The genetic inbreeding would soon render that new species extinct as one abnormality after another would wreck havoc.

Now what would have to happen to spawn a new species? There would have to be 100's of 1000's of that new "goat-thing" to be born within a few years to allow that new species a chance of propagation.

When examining the fossil evidence there has never been a starting point that points to the arrival of a new species. Fossil findings always point to mass extinctions and in that evidence there is no evidence of missing links of any kind. No species, including man, has ever been conclusively proven to have a "missing link".

 

[Johnv]

I don't think we shoudl hijack this thread into a C/E debate (that wasn't its purpose), but to answer your questions briefly:

...even the word you use (Speciation) is not a word.

Speciation is not a word? It's in the dictionary, and the definition is "the development of new biological species".

There is no documented proof that one species has born anything but that of it's own kind.

You're arguing apples and oranges. I'm not making any argument about kind (which, imo, referrs to genus, not species), I'm simply referring to the fact that speciation has been observed, documented, and passed the scientific method. Some examples of these are Oenothera gigas, Stephanomeira malheurensis, Mimulus guttatus, and several Drosophila. This should not be an issue for creationsts. A creationist can easily argue that "kind" is a genus, and that genus has not been observed, which is a completely true statement.

Remember all, Johnv is the authority on what is "right and reasonable".

It's amusing when the one espousing himself to be the authority on who is saved and who is not engages in stone-trowing.

 

[Palatka51]

It's amusing when the one espousing himself to be the authority on who is saved and who is not engages in stone-trowing.

OOH!! So now we have stones in our hands. Kinda gives me a back to my caveman ancestor kinda feel, Nice. :laugh:

 

[Johnv]

So now we have stones in our hands.

Yep, Matt Wade believes that anyone who does not share his view of Genesis is not saved. He further stated that any husband who referrs to his wife as "most beautiful of all" is going against God's Word, and a liar. That's throwing stones.

 

[Palatka51]

Yep, Matt Wade believes that anyone who does not share his view of Genesis is not saved. He further stated that any husband who referrs to his wife as "most beautiful of all" is going against God's Word, and a liar. That's throwing stones.

Come on John, you're a thinking man, evolution just can not be true. If it were you'd have species after species blossoming all over the place all the time in order for "natural selection" to weed out the week. There'd be link after link overlapping link after link. That is not seen in the fossil record nor is it found in real time every day.

 

[Johnv]

Come on John, you're a thinking man, evolution just can not be true.

I'm not arguing evolution. I'm arguing whether it's appropriate to judge the salvation of a person based on whether they agree or disagree with you on the side of the debate. Like I said earlier, it is right and reasonable to engage in discussion and debate as to whether the Genesis narrative should be taken literally. It is not right or reasonable, however, to judge a person's salvation based on whether they share the same opinion on it.

 

[Palatka51]

I'm not arguing evolution. I'm arguing whether it's appropriate to judge the salvation of a person based on whether they agree or disagree with you on the side of the debate. Like I said earlier, it is right and reasonable to engage in discussion and debate as to whether the Genesis narrative should be taken literally. It is not right or reasonable, however, to judge a person's salvation based on whether they share the same opinion on it.

If God got it wrong in the first chapter of His book then how are we to trust the rest of the story??

 

[Palatka51]

If God got it wrong in the first chapter of His book then how are we to trust the rest of the story??

In other words, if one can not take the first chapter by faith, how in the world is one able to take the accounts of the resurrection by faith?

 

[Palatka51]

I'm not arguing evolution. I'm arguing whether it's appropriate to judge the salvation of a person based on whether they agree or disagree with you on the side of the debate. Like I said earlier, it is right and reasonable to engage in discussion and debate as to whether the Genesis narrative should be taken literally. It is not right or reasonable, however, to judge a person's salvation based on whether they share the same opinion on it.

If one can't have faith to believe the Genesis account of how God started things how can one have faith in what the Bible says how He will end things? So Yes, you can call to question a person's faith/salvation if they doubt the written account as it is.

 

[Johnv]

If God got it wrong in the first chapter of His book then how are we to trust the rest of the story??

Again, I'm not arguing that at all. I'm saying it's grossly inappropriate to judge a person's salvation on that alone.

 

[Robert Snow]

Again, I'm not arguing that at all. I'm saying it's grossly inappropriate to judge a person's salvation on that alone.

It appears that Matt Wade isn't the only one here who cannot read! It seem like Palatka51 can't read either!

 

[Palatka51]

Again, I'm not arguing that at all. I'm saying it's grossly inappropriate to judge a person's salvation on that alone.

So if a self labeled Christian were to state that he could not accept the account of the resurrection of Christ as a literal bodily resurrection of the dead but because he likes the sayings of Christ he calls himself a follower of Christ (Christian) you would not call that person's salvation into question?

We come to revelation of God by faith and by His grace, He is faithful to forgive us. If one can not have faith in the Word of God as it is written where then is the forgiveness? Wherefore is the salvation?

 

[Palatka51]

It appears that Matt Wade isn't the only one here who cannot read! It seem like Palatka51 can't read either!

Wow, I'm glad I still have my reflexes that stone came with in a mile of me. :tongue3:

 

[Johnv]

So if a self labeled Christian were to state that he could not accept the account of the resurrection of Christ as a literal bodily resurrection of the dead...

There are scriptural essentials, and scriptural nonessentials. Essentials (virgin birth, trinity, deity of Jesus, the resurrection, second coming, etc) are core tenents of Christian faith, and not optional. Nonessentials (calvinism/arminianism, millenialism, genesis literalism, original sin, pre/posttrib rapturism, etc) are not core tenents, and are subject to individual liberty.

 

[matt wade]

There are scriptural essentials, and scriptural nonessentials. Essentials (virgin birth, trinity, deity of Jesus, the resurrection, second coming, etc) are core tenents of Christian faith, and not optional. Nonessentials (calvinism/arminianism, millenialism, genesis literalism, original sin, pre/posttrib rapturism, etc) are not core tenents, and are subject to individual liberty.

And you decide what is a core tenant, right Johnv? Sorry, bud, believing that God created man is a core tenant. If you can't understand that, then you are beyond help.

 

[Palatka51]

There are scriptural essentials, and scriptural nonessentials. Essentials (virgin birth, trinity, deity of Jesus, the resurrection, second coming, etc) are core tenents of Christian faith, and not optional. Nonessentials (calvinism/arminianism, millenialism, genesis literalism, original sin, pre/posttrib rapturism, etc) are not core tenents, and are subject to individual liberty.

Says you, but you will pardon me if I count your assessment of core tenants as just yours. And with that and a quarter it still will not buy me a cup of coffee. I will trust all of the Word of God as it is written. Because if I take just a peace here and there of God's Word as you and Robert Snow do, my soul just might indeed be in jeopardy. If It is going to take the full amount to get the coffee, it will take the full Word of God for you to live a Godly, Christian life.

shesh, I do have a reading problem. I just can't read misspelled words. :BangHead: