@jerv All you care about is proselytizing to those who will listen and belittling those who don’t. You twist words more than Satan even could, assuming he exists.
No, I usually do not even mention Christ the gospel etc. and focus on the next inane cactus question, but when mendacities and erroneous facts about Christ and the gospel crop up, I am compelled to speak, just as you if you believe someone tosses out inaccuracies about science or evolution. If doing so offend you (surely it has others) I apologize you were offended but I will defend the gospel with no compunction.
Where have I dispelled Christ? I disagree with many people’s interpretations of his words, your’s included, but there actually isconsiderable evidence that, roughly 2,000 years ago, there was a man in Nazareth named Jesus, and I don’t recall ever claiming otherwise.
In all honesty I cannot say you said in words there was no Christ, however, from my position if you do not believe in Christ, not just that He existed and walked the Earth, but that this very world was created through Him, then you are in a de facto position of opposition. Using evolution as an illustration, iff I say I do not believe this or that about evolution I may not actually have said, ”believe evolution is fake”, but short of believe in it, logically makes me in opposition of it, even tacitly.
According to the Bible, Man “evolved” from dust, so I fail to see how your story is any more credible. Besides, who is to say that Adam was Homo Sapiens as opposed to Ardipithecus ramidus? Define “man”.
One, the Bible I know said man was formed from the dust of the ground, which to me implies it was fashioned, made to be in a certain order, like construction, where evolved was something just happened at random. Yeah, who the man Adam was he might have been what scientist said he was, but if he was Homo erectus (which is curious to me as to why call him “upright man” unless there was supposed be an un-upright man, and who was he?), Homo Sapien, or something else. For me, those are issues that I will ask of the Lord when I meet him, but right now they have no effect on what Christ has done. I am not in denial that there are fossil evidence of dinosaurs, I believe in one small part of the Bible it addressed it but it is not of great importance to get bogged down on as many have let it.
Your claims that you love science ring false as you are still deluded into thinking that things that science has proven must be wrong because you perceive a conflict between science and scripture that does not exist. Of course, people like you perceiving a conflict with scripture wind up starting a conflict between science and religion;
Now who is misinterpreting who? I never said science has to be debunked before God rings true. I in fact like science, everything they discover something it shows the glory of God’s handiwork. There are many things science figure they can explain how it works, yet they cannot create any of it, and if they can somewhat re-create any of it is a paltry effort with many limitations. That is like knowing how a banana crème pie is made and baked and not being able to do it yourself when you supposedly know the recipe or formula. If people were like me (in reference to ”people like you”), they would love for science to keep going what they do even when they believe they are taking God out of the equation.
Nor can I…. aside from the fact that needing a threat of eternal damnation in order to not do those things doesn’t automatically make you a good person. Sure, many Christians are truly decent people who would still be decent if they were of a different faith, or of no faith at all. It’s not like Christianity has a monopoly on moral decency
Again we have a de facto agreement. A person can read the Bible from cover to cover three times a year and be no better than someone who never read it, applications is what is key. Not every non-believing person is a bloodthirsty tyrant, mass murderer etc. To get out of the secular just being a good person is not enough, good people can still to harm to other people. A man can give 40% of his income to charity but step on and exploit the workers in his factory in order to bless those receiving the charity money, so where does that leave him, a villain or a saint? If his contributions help 1,000s of needy families but at the expense of a couple hundred workers do the contributions nullify the harm he is doing to his own workers? He is technically still a moral and good guy; he gives to the poor.
If miscreants fly their own flag, fine, the only reputations they’re hurting are there own, but when you have evil trying to hide under the flag of good like that, it gets a little hard to trust anyone under that flag.
Why the double standard? Are you to say there have been only saints in the US government? Because some (maybe many) are self-promoting opportunist, that will whore themselves out to whomever can keep them in office or help them gain a higher office, government ought to be overthrown because by the standard you seem to be trying to lay, you can’t trust any of it or them because a portion misused it for their own gain. For that matter, we might as well include many top line companies who CEOs, presidents and executives ripped off customers, stockholders, and etc. to line their own pockets.
@Dutchess_III (What is wrong with evolving from something “unhuman”? Is there something super special about “humans.”)
If you want to believe humans which would include yourself came from something less than human, knock yourself out. And since you seem to indicate there is nothing special about humans, if humans doom themselves by global warming/climate, super viruses, nuclear annihilation , etc. it will be a plus for the world.
@ragingloli Some humans think so much of themselves that they would hate to be associated with “lowly” animals.
Some humans are so full of themselves they believe they have to be the top of the food chain and bastion of intelligence in the uiniverse and there can be nothing above them, certainly not a Deity they will have to recon with. Yeah, I can see that.
