Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire So, which of the 6 theories of Evolution do you unbelievers believe in?

That's also the way Kent Hovind, the subject of the OP see it, along with millions of other Christians. He has a whole talk on how you have to believe in a literal interpretation of the OT, because without the OT, there is no NT, no NT, no Jesus, and no trip past the Pearly Gates.

No?
So where are you going?

I’m in disagreement with anyone (Kent Hovind, you, other followers of Jesus, etc.) who thinks the Bible is the foundation of the Christian faith.
Some people worship a book, others attack the faith of Christianity by attacking that book, and others try to follow Jesus’ teachings and worship Him.

Typical elitist catholic thinking others have the
problem.

Fact is there were direct enquiring questions about
your claims that you ran away from, coz you had
already painted yourself into a corner.

What you Lost was not a competition, . what you
lost is credibilty in your argument. because it
was full of holes. So you dumped it, bundled up
your pride [ego] and ran... then put up some sad
lame excuse.

Its not the first time your crapola has been shown
to be nonsense... You've had your ass handed to
to you before, yet you persist with your intellectual
giant stance on such matters. You get so caught
up in your own web of convoluted bullschit and
contradictions that you don't see the trap you lay
for yourself... 😂

You are good at pissing until it comes
to actually getting it in the bowl.

Thanks, Fester, take care.

Lots of things give us comfort. For some, it includes discrediting HIM.

Some are made uncomfortable to hear of others worshipping HIM.

AS is one of those. Why? Pretty obvious he's not too secure in his belief, and has to keep reminding himself he has nothing to worry about.

It aint uncomfort with believers.
Its hearing some of them spew their pieholes about it and condeming others for not falling in line lock step in what they believe to be their mission to save someone else's soul.
And feeling fugging smug about it all while doing it.

I dont need anyone to set me straight about what I beleive.
Espeically when their are a million six christain religons all reading outta different versions of gods book. Cut copied and pasted by those men with power thruout time on what they wanted in it or out of it.
Then throw benjamins into the equation.


Just saying.....

You don't know what you are addressing so confidently. In what field is your Ph.D.? Consider Dr. Jason Lisle. He is a six day young universe creationist who made discoveries in the sun that no other scientist discovered prior to his discovery. I heard him say (I will paraphrase. But it's close.) "Evolution is myth for which there is NO evidence." Consider Dr. Russell Humphreys. He is a six day young universe creationist who predicted what would be discovered by the solar system research projects. He made his prediction based on God's Word where It read the universe came from water. What are your discoveries or prediction that are scientifically supported?

Who is condemning HIM? GODs word. We just repeat the Good News. That's what AS cant stand.

His argument is with the Word.

What have believers lost if they are wrong. They arent going to regret having believed.

He wants proof from us, when he cant provide proof for us.

Hey jag. I’m NOT discrediting you or anybody else.

We are all stuck here doing what we do......

No jag, I’m not talking s hit bud.

renegade50, you seem to be missing in some education. I didn't get permission from either of the following so punch me in the head next time you see me. Take a look at this quote from Doc Rocket responding to antlers.



Originally Posted By antlers
If ones personal faith and belief in The Messiah is threatened by what others say or believe, or by what ancient manuscripts contain...then maybe the problem isn't with what others say or believe, or with what ancient manuscripts contain.
Answered by Doc Rocket

Well, you're kind of right about this, on a basic level.

However, it appears you are not up to speed on the history surrounding the Canon of New Testament scripture, nor the Judeo-Christian tradition of debate over minutiae! Don't worry, you're not alone. I doubt that 1 Christian in 10 in the USA knows even the basic history of the First Century Church. Nonbelievers, maybe 1 in 1000.

The first thing, i.e., why are we Christians so quick to argue about What others say and believe about the Christian faith, is because what we ALL say about our faith matters to EVERY Christian believer. The traditions of Judaism, outlined in the Torah and multiple rabbinical texts, argue that discussion of every new viewpoint on Scripture is not just desirable, but a mandatory exercise in the Jewish religion. And Christianity, which is nothing more nor less than the fulfillment of the Jewish religion in the person, life works, and teachings of Jesus, has followed that tradition for millennia.

So that's why we argue about it. It's our tradition. If you don't like our tradition, butt out and go take care of your own traditions. I'm not being mean or angry here, I'm just sayin'.

The second thing: why does every new "ancient" text or artifact that pops up stir up immediate opposition by so many Christians? Well, it's because our faith is founded on a very carefully selected set of writings from the first century A.D. While some non-Christians (i.e., outsiders who don't "get" our traditions) may take delight in promoting "new" texts that appear to contradict the Canon of Scripture--because they're mostly ch!tt-disturbers, in my experience--these texts are almost always the same old crap that's been popping up since the 2nd or 3rd century, and which has been cataloged in the Pulp Fiction aisle of the theological library for the better part of 2000 years.

99% of Christians are largely ignorant of the history of the early Church, from the time of the Acts of the Apostles to the Fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. This was a time of enormous expansion of the Church, but the very cool part about it was that while the number of Christians exploded over the course of a few decades, the geographic expansion was very small. This meant that pretty much EVERYone knew somebody who actually knew, was taught by, and witnessed the miracles of Jesus. And the Jews, who comprised the early majority of Christians, were/are real sticklers for THE TRUTH.

This means nobody could bullsh!t about the Gospel of Christ. Posers were recognized and cast out immediately. You couldn't hide behind an internet handle in those days. You were either the real deal, or you got stoned to death. Sometimes you even got stoned to death if you WERE the real deal, so being a poser wasn't exactly a high-paying gig, you know what I'm saying? Oh, and keep in mind that in the First Century it wasn't like today, when any schmoe can write a book and publish it online... if you wrote a book then, the only way it got published was if other people agreed that it was really good stuff, and copied it out by hand for other folks to read.

So the people who actually wrote down the life, words, teachings, and miracles of Jesus were guys who actually knew him. If someone didn't really know him and TELL THE TRUTH as it was known by hundreds of first-hand witnesses, their scribblings would've been ignored. If not burned and the author stoned to death. By the early 2nd Century, the de facto Canon of Scripture we know as the New Testament had been pretty much agreed upon by the vast majority of Church leaders and scholars, based on a very tight-knit history they all shared.

Mark wrote his Gospel first, probably within about 20 years of Jesus' death and resurrection. John's gospel was probably written within a few years of the Fall of Jerusalem, Matthew and Luke somewhere in between. Lots of other folks wrote down their memories of the events, too, but for the most part these were ignored by the Church because the majority of the Churches thought they were incomplete, contained too many untruths, or were flawed in other ways. The four main Gospels were endorsed and widely circulated as a result.

Now, there were some dissenters (as there always are in human affairs) and they started up their own versions of church that were anywhere from slightly wonky to batsh!t-crazy. And by the early 3rd Century, enough of these outliers existed that the orthodox Church had no choice but to lay down the law--in keeping with ancient Judeo-Christian traditions of heterodoxy--and they held a series of councils in which the majority of Christian leaders and scholars said what was the truest material in keeping with the historical writings of Church Fathers. All of batsh!t-crazy gospels were ch!tt-canned at that time, but all manner of non-believers keep bringing them up as "proof" against the Christian religion.

So that's why we care about somebody resurrecting (pun intended) some piece of batsh!t-crazy "Christian" writing from the 6th Century. Our forefathers worked really, really hard to clean up the true story about Jesus for us. They paid for it with their blood and their very lives, and we owe them a debt for that.

And that's why we tend to be derisive and dismissive about "ancient" texts that get "discovered" that were written at least 500 years after the Biblical texts we endorse. It's part of our tradition.

People who aren't Bible-believing Christians can say and think what they like for themselves, but they can't expect us not to defend our religion, our tradition, our history is something precious to us, and we don't care to have fools who are ignorant of our tradition and our history to pass off their ignorance as valid opinion.

No, I was referring to AS, fester. AS discredits HIM.

Jag.


Google books of bible not included in bibles.
Bunch of em.....

Who made those decisions not to include em back in the day.
Man......
Those books are gods words also are they not....

There's no necessary contradiction between the Genesis account of the events within the Garden of Eden (understood poetically) and evolution. At some point, there had to be a first man, at which point God could have separated him out, breathed a soul into him, and from him made Eve. Adam's parents could very well (consistent with the Genesis account) have been physiologically identical to himself, but only lacking something that would have made them fully human in God's eyes.

Thanks for posting that. It reads that some States do indeed still require the old oath. I see that web address is for the Freedom From Religion website, not sure they are my endall reference to the Constitution.

Ok hawk, you have to elaborate a bit more......

I have read some of them.

Made some religious groups uncomfortable and were deleted. I think they explain a lot.

+1

Of course you do. You might be a Christian, but I see no indications you are one of the radical nutty fundamentalist Christians. There's over 30,000 flavors of Christianity, and they are not all equal. But for some who are, scientific realities such as and old Earth, Evolution, and in some cases, even a round earth are a threat to their faith and the conditions they believe necessary for an eternal afterlife in paradise.

Ringman, it’s more than OK with me for you to use this discourse between DocRocket and I anytime and wherever you want. It’s public information and you don’t need permission. Also, although it was a good discourse, I stand by what I said...

“If ones personal faith and belief in The Messiah is threatened by what others say or believe, or by what ancient manuscripts contain...then maybe the problem isn't with what others say or believe, or with what ancient manuscripts contain.”

My faith and belief in Jesus is not threatened by what others say or believe, or by what ancient manuscripts contain. At all.

Hope you’re well. Hope you have a good day.

Dividing cells, life in general is no doubt a amazing miracle, I just dont believe it is due to divine intervention, hard to just blindly accept traditional christian beliefs that are meant to somehow explain what you cant see, smell, hear or physically feel.... yet evolution is clearly evident........