SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
446
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 59:
Line 59: + +
→Evolution
::Nate, you can believe whatever you like, but the logic is with one Adam committing original sin, one Flood cleansing the world of debauchery, and the Passion to redeem the original sin. If there was more than one Adam, then original sin becomes implausible, and the Passion makes no sense. It is very difficult or impossible to make logical sense of both the modern theory of evolution and the [[Passion of Christ]]. And, as a result, most people who promote the theory of evolution reject the divinity and resurrection of Jesus.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:12, 15 June 2013 (EDT)
::Nate, you can believe whatever you like, but the logic is with one Adam committing original sin, one Flood cleansing the world of debauchery, and the Passion to redeem the original sin. If there was more than one Adam, then original sin becomes implausible, and the Passion makes no sense. It is very difficult or impossible to make logical sense of both the modern theory of evolution and the [[Passion of Christ]]. And, as a result, most people who promote the theory of evolution reject the divinity and resurrection of Jesus.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:12, 15 June 2013 (EDT)
Nate, put all your theistic evolution chips on the table. Debate the creationist university biology student [[VivaYehshua]]. Unless of course, you think he would badly beat you in a debate on the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions] for evolutionists. We both know that he would win such a debate hands down. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:59, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
:I've said this over and over, yet you seem to be willfully misrepresenting my position. Let's put this simply. I'm nearly 50 years old. I've been studying theology a long time. I am not an expert by any means but I also don't care about evolution. I care about theology and in particular about the correct representation of Catholic theology and dogma on Conservapedia. Biblical hermeneutics as it relates to Genesis is very interesting. I would like to learn more and showing you to be an ill-informed fool is a great chance to do that. I have no interest in debating an obscure "creationist university biology student" who is a stranger to this discussion. I've repeatedly challenged ''you'' to debate me on the theological basis for ''your'' beliefs because ''you'' are the one who frequently insults me and Greg and shows a very weak grasp of Biblical hermeneutics, but you always tremble like a timorous chicken in your intellectual bunnyhole and demand people debate someone else. Are those the words you use to speak to "obscure internet posers" when you use your ESP to look into their hearts to judge them? That's just silly. There's no sensible excuse for it if you're going to participate in these discussions. Either you put your chips on the table and justify your theological position or you show yourself to be a rank coward with your vain boasting, taunts, and demands that we go talk to someone else about your nonsense. If you want to say I'm not justifying that claim, let's debate it. We are instructed to be defenders of our faith. Do you have the courage and conviction to put some skin in the game? [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 09:48, 16 June 2013 (EDT)