SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
446
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 71:
Line 71: + + + + + + + + + + + +
→Evolution
:::::In response to Swordsman, apparently you do reject one Adam, which makes [[original sin]] and the Passion almost impossible to explain in a coherent manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:10, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
:::::In response to Swordsman, apparently you do reject one Adam, which makes [[original sin]] and the Passion almost impossible to explain in a coherent manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:10, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
NateK, you wrote: "Let's put this simply. I'm nearly 50 years old. I've been studying theology a long time." I realize that you said that you are not an expert, but one of the surest signs of someone erring due to pride is them bragging on how long and hard that they have been studying something. This coupled with you saying you are a proud Irish Catholic with a family line stretching back into Catholicism and family in high places in the Roman Catholic Church is a ripe recipe for error. I had a business owner boss who commented on someone bragging about how long they had been in our industry and how good they were. My boss said something to the effect of: "Has he been in the industry 20 years or one year 20 times?" People have been known to repeat the same errors over and over.
Second, we both know that you are violently shoehorning Darwinism into the biblical text and that you are supposedly "seeing" something that the early Church fathers and Jews for thousands of years "missed". It is like your myriads of "missing links". Nate, "It is important to note that no major Hebrew scholar says that Genesis is poetry. This is because Genesis has all the grammatical marks of being a historical narrative."[http://creation.com/genesis-poetry-father-hermeutics] Your creation compromises are not at all compelling as can be seen [http://creation.com/is-genesis-poetry-figurative-a-theological-argument-polemic-and-thus-not-history HERE] and [http://creation.com/creation-compromises-questions-and-answers HERE]
So why are you and theistic evolutionists committing fundamental Bible exegesis errors. It is due to valuing scientific consensus in the secular world over the Biblical text. And the history of the scientific consensus argument when weighed against the accuracy and insight/foresight of the biblical text has a very checkered past. See: [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/10/scientific-consensus-and-evolutionary.html Jesus vs. the scientific consensus].
Lastly, creation scientists have a history of consistently winning creation vs. evolution debates dealing with the science and winning those debates hands down. See: [[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]]. Now evolutionists are very reluctant to debate creationists on the science. Your unwillingness to debate [[VivaYehshua]] is not surprising, but it is very telling. There must be some reason why are unwilling to debate the grassroots champion of the grassroots [[Question evolution! campaign]] who is studying biology at the university level. Is it because you are afraid of badly losing? I think it is. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:13, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
::NateK, one other thing. To my knowledge, it has always been the liberal Roman Catholics that I have locked horns with at CP and never the conservative ones. That is because the scientific consensus and evolutionism is such a "golden calf"/"sacred cow" to liberals and to [[liberal Christianity]]. And one of the ironies is that many liberal Catholics rarely read the Bible nor do the liberal Catholic hierarchy in the Western World stress Bible reading as can be seen by this statistic taken from a Roman Catholic website: "Far more disturbing was the poll result that showed that 44 percent of Catholics “rarely or never” read the Bible, while this is true of only 7 percent of Evangelicals and 13 percent of non-Evangelical Protestants. The level of religious vitality must be very low in a Christian church in which 44 percent of the membership almost never bothers to read the Bible."[http://www.crisismagazine.com/2009/why-catholics-dont-read-the-bible]
::Furthermore, the fruits of evolution loving liberal Christianity are quite sour as can be seen at: [[Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity]]. Bill Donahue of the Catholic League recognizes that many liberal Roman Catholics in the hierarchy of the church in the Western World has yielded bad fruit as can be seen [http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality_and_pederasty#Roman_Catholic_Church.2C_Homosexuality_and_pederasty HERE]. Of course, this is not surprising. When you value pseudoscience and the scientific consensus over Scripture, the results are going to be bad. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:43, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
:You're really not getting it and I think people can readily tell that by how far away you get from the real points at hand when you launch into these irrelevant screeds. We're talking about theology and Biblical hermeneutics. It's time to step up to the plate, my good man. Instead of talking about other people's exegesis, I've repeatedly challenged ''you'' to debate your own with me. Each time you raise some nonsense that I've told you I don't care about, and continue publicly debasing yourself by showing such cowardice in crowing about an anonymous college kid on a chat site. Assigning him to fight the fights you stirred up with your pride and hatred of those who disagree with you is pathetic. I want to the debate the person who knows very little of what he talks about and vaingloriously accuses me of the worst sin. Let's do this. Then perhaps you'll think twice before you continue personally insulting people just because they disagree with you. That's just awful behavior. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 13:50, 16 June 2013 (EDT)