RE:Christian Naturists being Fooled about Doctrine

evolution is fact. unlike the nonsense of the bible...which has so many holes in it that its truly unbelievableEvolution is a theory...that's why they call it the theory of evolution.Darwin's theory is dependent on the unobserved concept of macro-evolution (intergenerational differences accumulating into different species over time. The fossil record challenges rather than supports traditional evolutionary theory."The scientific evidence for evolution is not only weaker than is generally supposed, but as new discoveries have been made... the reasons for accepting the theory have diminished rather than increased."--Tom Bethel "House of Cards.Also your "nonsense of the Bible"? has been proven to be historically accurate through archaeology, and the historical lining up of events over thousands of years.Obviously you have not really sought out any evidence to prove you theory true. Otherwise you would be convinced of the truth of the Bible. That is if you were honest.Ok... You clearly don't know what "theory" means within a scientific context: a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation.Yes, evolution is a fact made of of observable theories much like gravity. God is a placeholder for things we don't understand. As we learn more about the universe god will get smaller and smaller until the whole idea vanishes. God is no more than an imaginary friend these days. And no, not much in the bible is historically accurate. Noah's flood for example. Without getting into the biology, plenty of civilizations existed at the time of the supposed flood and managed to thrive... interesting.

Here Here the probability of life on earth happening by random chance is like a chance that a male gorilla becoming pregnant form eating a peanut shell. We all know Darwin's reactivity theory was proven baseless as the bones called the missing g link was proven later by DNA to be the bones from a monkey mixed with pig bones, Darwin was proven a liar fraud and evolution theory was laughed out of schools. I think if you don't like Christian views that you find another group to bother! I will soon delete this this poster if he/she continues to interject negativity here.

This post was edited
RE:Christian Naturists being Fooled about Doctrine

Many things are based on theories - ideas about how things in the world might work.
Atomic bombs were just only a theory - until someone actually made one, and then dropped it onto a Japanese city. Then it's not a theory anymore; its 100,000 innocent dead.

This post was edited
RE:Christian Naturists being Fooled about Doctrine

Just wondering why a person would join a group for Christians and not support Christianity? Duh! Wait a minute, I do know why. 1 Timothy 6:3-5 (KJV) "If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself."

And to make it a little easier to understand, the New Living Translation (Second Edition) states: 1 Timothy 6:3-5 Some people may contradict our teaching, but these are the wholesome teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. These teachings promote a godly life. Anyone who teaches something different is arrogant and lacks understanding. Such a person has an unhealthy desire to quibble over the meaning of words. This stirs up arguments ending in jealousy, division, slander, and evil suspicions. These people always cause trouble. Their minds are corrupt, and they have turned their backs on the truth. To them, a show of godliness is just a way to become wealthy.

I'm just wondering if evolution is correct for the creation of humanity, did the apes meet to decide which ones would evolve into humans and which ones would remain as apes?

This post was edited
RE:Christian Naturists being Fooled about Doctrine

Thank you, I could agree more!

This post was edited
RE:Christian Naturists being Fooled about Doctrine

Thank you, I could agree more!

This post was edited
RE:Christian Naturists being Fooled about Doctrine

Amen to that. Actually it starts in middle school. Evolution is the only thing taught as if it were truth, but in reality has many holes.

I have never met a Creationist who understands science, but they all insist that they do, right before demonstrating that they do not. And anyone who finds "Dr Dino" the least bit persuasive, doesn't understand science. He makes no scientific statements; all he does is mock scientists, and offers nothing scientific in return. I also have never found a Creationist writing that doesn't misrepresent literally everything about evolution.

Let me put it this way: my undergrad textbook on evolutionary biology made zero references to Creationism; its authors didn't see a need to try to refute Creationism, but instead laid out what was currently understood about evolutionary processes. Where is the equivalent creation science textbook? One that doesn't define itself by trying to refute evolution, but simply lays out what is currently known about creation science?

We don't see chemistry textbooks bothering to refute alchemy. We don't see physics textbooks bothering to refute magic. They don't need to, because they are about sciences, not about reactionary movements. Yet "creation science" books are completely dominated by attempts to refute evolution -- because they are about a reactionary movement, not about a science.

This post was edited
RE:Christian Naturists being Fooled about Doctrine

have them explain wind they can not

This post was edited
RE:Christian Naturists being Fooled about Doctrine

Amen AzNudist4Life, good to see those who are still paying attention for what they will be held accountable to by a higher intellect, that is Jesus Christ and those who Love God and keep Him above all.

Interesting you speak of a higher intellect. Does a higher intellect expect everyone just to take whatever they are taught as doctrine? Or does a higher intellect expect people to examine not just ancient books, but also reason, logic, and observation? I believe that I will be held accountable for whether or not I used the faculties of reason that I was given.

If you look at Matthew's Nativity story and Luke's Nativity story, you find discrepancies. In Luke, we find Jesus being circumcised at the age of 8 days, as is Jewish custom, and the prescribed sacrifice. Then it says, "39 When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth."

Wait -- what happened to the flight to Egypt? Matthew tells us that after the Magi visited in Bethlehem, Herod ordered the slaughter of all the boy babies in Bethlehem. Was this before or after the circumcision on day 8? If it was before, why does Luke tell us that they returned to Nazareth, instead of fleeing to Egypt? If it was after, why would Herod order slaughter in Bethlehem, not Nazareth; and why would they flee to Egypt if the slaughter was happening in the wrong town?

How many mistakes does it take to disprove inerrancy?

Now of course, many before me have noticed this discrepancy. There are whole books called harmonies of the synoptics which have offered various ideas about how these contradictory timelines can both be true. In the end, people who hold to inerrancy simply pick the one that makes the most sense to them. But that presupposes an existing belief in inerrancy. What if you wanted to prove inerrancy in the first place? You couldn't do it by this kind of post hoc reasoning.

There is or was a book out there, author's name Kipapa, which purported to prove that only Matthew and Mark are really God's Word, and that Luke and John were written by Antichrist to deceive people. I don't hold to that. But I understand where Kipapa got it from -- he couldn't reconcile the discrepancies between Matthew and Luke. In order to believe that the one is inerrant, he logically had to reject the other.

This post was edited
RE:Christian Naturists being Fooled about Doctrine

Wildling I question whether you ever looked at the OP, and did you view the video, if so please confine your arguments to the subject of the "rapture deception" and fell welcome to starting a post concerning your arguments with the source of your findings such as did it originate from the 1611 of the original King James version or some other writings. We appreciate constructive contributions.

This post was edited
RE:Christian Naturists being Fooled about Doctrine

Wildling I question whether you ever looked at the OP, and did you view the video, if so please confine your arguments to the subject of the "rapture deception" and fell welcome to starting a post concerning your arguments with the source of your findings such as did it originate from the 1611 of the original King James version or some other writings. We appreciate constructive contributions.

I have discussed the rapture in a previous thread. To reiterate briefly: the one verse that rapture believers like to cite is 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17. But if I look at it carefully, I see, first, that it says that the dead in Christ will rise first. That is the definition of resurrection. So, will there be more than one Resurrection, or is this verse perhaps actually about the Resurrection at the Last Day? And then I see that it ends by saying we will be ever with Him. The word ever means always, not just for the duration of a tribulation period or a millennial period. So that again looks like it refers to the Resurrection at the Last Day. I don't need to watch a video to draw that conclusion; I need only look carefully at the actual words of the verse.

Not to be snarky, but looking at the actual words of a verse is something that a lot of fundamentalists, in particular, seem averse to doing. For example, the only verse in the Bible that even comes close to mentioning abortion is Exodus 21:22, which clearly distinguishes abortion from murder. Yet I continually see the anti abortion crowd cite that exact verse to "prove" that abortion is murder. They do it by not paying close attention to the wording.

In fairness, I wasn't me who first took the thread into debating evolution. That happened within the very first comment, and several more comments before I came in.

The early Christians knew that they were a minority with no political power, and they expected to stay that way. I doubt if any Christian before Constantine ever envisaged a Christian nation here on earth; the New Testament repeatedly tells us that our inheritance is in heaven. Those early Christians suffered terrible tribulations, including imprisonment, torture, and death, and they were not raptured away from it but had to endure. In our time, some Christians feel SO persecuted because their brand of Christianity isn't the law of the land. Now I will be snarky: today's fundamentalists can't hold a candle to the early Christians. And the early Christians were a doctrinally diverse bunch, with Gospels and Epistles in circulation that we don't recognize today, but each had its supporters and believers then.

This post was edited