By accepting evolution, in any form, you must deny the absolute truth of the Word of God. By denying the Word of God, you are also, in effect, denying God Himself.
57 comments
No, not really. Only unless you have no concept of a metaphor, or an analogy, etc. They're not mutually exclusive, the two theories. The Bible doesn't say it's absolutely concrete in terms of interpretation.
Well, yes. That's where imagination kicks in, you see. It's part of that whole "intelligence" thing you may have heard about, and some folks can actually use it.
By accepting evolution, in any form, you must deny the absolute truth of the Word of God.Bullshit. There are a lot of christians who have no problem with accepting god and the theory of evolution. Evolution makes no claims about god, and there is no reason why any god [if it existed] could not work through evolution.
By denying the Word of God, you are also, in effect, denying God Himself.
Yeah, maybe when it comes to your biblegod. But allow me to remind you, Randy, that there are a lot of other gods out there.
And the answer is..........the hen!!. By the way, which part of the absolute Word of God are we denying?, that he created first a common ancestor to the monkey or that there was a subspices of snakes who could speak?
But what if you deny that the Bible is 'The Word of God' while believing in God?
Actually, no, you are only denying the existence of the Biblically-literal, pre-20th Century, dogmatic version of God promoted by rigidly closed minded evangelical Christian churches. (And, interestingly enough, also the God promoted by fundamentalist Islam.)could be denied.
By accepting any of the following, in any form, you must deny the absolute truth of the Word of God: Mendelian inheritance, the heliocentric solar system, the idea that insects have any number of legs other than four, and the idea that snow and hail are not stored in a heavenly fridge for later use.
@ anevilmeme:enforcing those rules and regulations on all people with or without their consent.
He has become so fixated on the Law that he has forgotten the Gospel. Yes, God (alledgedly, to be honest) gave laws, rules, and orders in the Bible, but He also (again alledgedly, through Jesus) proclaimed to the people that they were forgiven for failing to live up to them. Yes, in the Bible, God sets an impossible standard for humanity, but He also acknowledges that it is an impossible standard and forgives for failing to meet it.
People usually get heavily involved in Legalism because they just can't bring themselves to believe that God would ever just give salvation to anyone; they can't believe that God considers all sinners, including themselves, to be equally in need of that salvation. To the Legalist, there must be something you just have to do to earn it, and if you can earn it, then it stands to reason that you can lose it as well.
They get so focused on earning God's "approval," that they forget all those bits in the Bible where it spells out that you can't, in fact, earn it. Now I'm not saying that the Bible is the ultimate truth, such a claim is unprovable, but the Legalist turns a blind eye to large portions of it that do not support their idea that salvation must be "earned" through compliance with a bewildering system of rules, regulations, and obligations.
I have met a lot of Legalists in my time, and they all seem to be motivated by one of two things: either they just can not accept that salvation is a gift, and spend their entire lives in mortal terror of God damning them to Hell for not meeting some obscure, arcane "standard," or they have discovered the fact that by inspiring that terror in others they can amass to themselves an amazing amout of power and attention.
I suspect Bro. Randy is the second sort.
I would like to comment. They´re not impossible standards, they are for today but not for the nomad people who adopted them. And talking about the Gospel, well, it´s a pretty fair idea of how obsolete those rules were by the time of Jesus. Anyway, the problem with Bro. Randy and his idea of inerracy in the Bible is that he hasn´t an opinion of his own and adheres, like an amulet, to a literal interpretaion of the Bible. Accepting the "science knowledge" of the Biblical people is like trying to find a vaccine against AIDS following the teaching of the stone age shamans, does it make sense?. No?, neither does it.
Well, let's see. I accept evolution as scientifally proven, I deny that the Bible, or "the Word of God", is the absolute truth, and as an athiest, I do not accept that there is a god. So what's the problem?
Yeah, I'm with MK. That makes a lot of sense, Sandman. You're a smart guy; keep up the good work.
The Bro is a member of an ultra-conservative KJV-only Baptist church. Although he calls his web site "Teens for Christ", his definition of "Christian" pretty much excludes anyone who isn't a fundamentalist Baptist like himself. As his wife, Mrs. Debbie, wrote, "The Baptist church is the one that Jesus began when He was here on earth. ... No other denomination was started by Jesus....they were all started by fallible mortal men". The Bro continues on "When the catholics came into power, they quickly began to try to subdue the truth of the Word of God ... T[h]ough they were revolting from the Catholic church, the protestants all took bits and pieces of Catholicism with them." The Bro continues on to denigrate most mainstream Baptist churches, too.
Sounds about right to me. I'm glad you finally see that, Bro. Randy.against evolution? Damn, thought we were getting somewhere.
@Hawker Hurricane: Nice to see you here, man!is God's absolute truth. I deny that the Bible is the perfect, flawless word of God as copied by thousands of people over hundreds of years. I do not deny a God, but I do deny that this one version of a Perfect Being is the only correct one.
There's a difference, Bro. Randy.faith and even less intelligence.
You might want to get your head up out of the Book and see what God is doing. I'll bet you'll be very surprised that God can do what God needs to do without having to depend on a fundamentalist's interpretation of the Bible.
"By accepting evolution, in any form, you must deny the absolute truth of the Word of God. By denying the Word of God, you are also, in effect, denying God Himself."
Yeh. So?
By accepting evolution, in any form, you must deny the absolute truth of the Word of Randy. By denying the Word of Randy, you are also, in effect, denying God Himself.
"By accepting evolution, in any form, you must deny the absolute truth of the Word of God. By denying the Word of God, you are also, in effect, denying God Himself."
Yeh. So?
"By accepting evolution, in any form, you must deny the absolute truth of the Word of God. By denying the Word of God, you are also, in effect, denying God Himself."
Bro. Randy is an alleged paedophile. His existence - never mind his argument - is invalid.
you are also, in effect, denying God Himself
I'm not seeing a problem here.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
