Christian bronies: meet, greet, and mingle!

[AndrewsarchusJones 13]

Oh boo, tumblr is blocked for me.

When it comes to religion everyone is already on high defense, for understandable reasons, so I thought it necessary, hehe.

 

I agree with you completely, no doubt. I'm not Christian, but I consider myself spiritual. Probably closest to atheist or agnostic here. Maybe in a 'I don't care' category. Anyway! I harbor no ill will to anyone for whatever their religion is. Doesn't matter to me, met plenty of crappy people of all kinds to know it's a human thing, not a 'place label here' thing.

I was quite pleased to read this thread and see people rejoicing in a shared connection, then I find quotes like the one I quoted and if leaves a sour taste. But that doesn't taint all the nice people here.

[. eris . 1,661]

Oh boo, tumblr is blocked for me.

When it comes to religion everyone is already on high defense, for understandable reasons, so I thought it necessary, hehe.

 

I agree with you completely, no doubt. I'm not Christian, but I consider myself spiritual. Probably closest to atheist or agnostic here. Maybe in a 'I don't care' category. Anyway! I harbor no ill will to anyone for whatever their religion is. Doesn't matter to me, met plenty of crappy people of all kinds to know it's a human thing, not a 'place label here' thing.

I was quite pleased to read this thread and see people rejoicing in a shared connection, then I find quotes like the one I quoted and if leaves a sour taste. But that doesn't taint all the nice people here.

 

You are a very rare breed. Value yourself and your ideals, because I think you're the first non-religious person who has agreed with something I've said on these boards. O_O And it's a shame really, since most people I know aren't religious/spiritual, they're just people, and they have much better manners and morals than most religious people I know, or most atheist people I know.

 

It's weird - we get so zealous about our worldview that we put blinders on the world around us. Even if our worldview is to avoid blinders altogether. :3

[BronyPony 575]

"If a few members do X, that must mean most of them X!"

 

Genius!

 

For my next trick, I'll use the westboro baptists to prove most Christians hate soldiers!

 

(I hope my sarcasm is very evident here.)

That seems to be the outlook when Atheist see a religious person do something wrong. Hehe, sorry if I caught the hypocrisy. If the Atheistic community could somehow do anything without contradiction, especially with them trying to judge religious "contradiction", I might actually take your comment quite seriously.

[AndrewsarchusJones 13]

 

That seems to be the outlook when Atheist see a religious person do something wrong. Hehe, sorry if I caught the hypocrisy. If the Atheistic community could somehow do anything without contradiction, especially with them trying to judge religious "contradiction", I might actually take your comment quite seriously.

 

And that outlook would be unfair. But not all Atheist do that, unless you've met them all and can attest to that.

What does the Atheistic community have do do with that quote? Is it because I am one? Why, exactly, won't you take my comment seriously? Is it because of me or is it because of the actions of others?

What do you mean by 'caught the hypocrisy', like did it rub off on you, like you're saying you 'caught it' like a cold from the hypocrisy of others?

All these question are genuine.

[BronyPony 575]

 

 

And that outlook would be unfair. But not all Atheist do that, unless you've met them all and can attest to that.

What does the Atheistic community have do do with that quote? Is it because I am one? Why, exactly, won't you take my comment seriously? Is it because of me or is it because of the actions of others?

What do you mean by 'caught the hypocrisy', like did it rub off on you, like you're saying you 'caught it' like a cold from the hypocrisy of others?

All these question are genuine.

 

Well, if you say not all Atheists do that, then you must then also say that not all religious people do that. 

 

I don't take comments seriously unless there is any point in them(especially the sarcasm detected in your post).

 

And I seriously hope that last part was sarcasm, again. 

[AndrewsarchusJones 13]

Well, if you say not all Atheists do that, then you must then also say that not all religious people do that.  

 

Yes, if you've looked at my post I've made it clear I do not judge people on their labels but their actions. I would not assume that all religious people do that, I don't assume all atheist people do that. Some do, some don't, depends upon individual in question.

I even said that the outlook Atheists have that you outlined was unfair. Have I said any contradictory to that? My comment about westboro was to expand upon the unfairness in your comment by using another as an example, so of course if someone were to truly believe that the actions of westboro account for all of Christianity, I would find it unfair. I've already made my disapproval known on that subject.

 

No, you said you didn't take my comment seriously because:

"If the Atheistic community could somehow do anything without contradiction, especially with them trying to judge religious "contradiction" "

 

 

Which I'm confused about how relates to my comment. I would like an explanation.

 

"And I seriously hope that last part was sarcasm, again."

 

Which part? Asking about the 'caught by hypocrisy' or the genuine part? Everything I've said since my first post has been a genuine question to figure out where you're coming from. I'm very confused why hypocrisy in Atheists was brought up. What I've taken from it is that you're blaming hypocrisy of others as an excuse for your comments. But I'm not sure if my perception is correct, your statements came from the left field and I don't know what to do with the information you're giving me because it doesn't relate well, from my point of view, to the discussion.

[firesoxs 93]

To the first statement, I ask...why?  What requires anyone to pick a side, as it were?  Just because something is not mentioned in the Bible, does that it mean it doesn't (or can't) exist?

 

To the second statement, I ask...how do you know voodoo is real?  Have you tried it?  Is it possible that it's just a bunch of smoke and mirrors used by a savvy "witch doctor" who simply wants to intimidate and manipulate others, to further his own mundane ends? Is it possible that -- even if the witch doctor himself believes it to be real -- it's all nonsense?

First off the bible actually dose account for other religions. In a biblical view the power of any idol, medicine man, witch doctor or  sorcerer comes from the devil. The practitioners of these religions may or may not know they are worshiping the devil, but that doesn't make it any less true. This is one of the reasons why alot of people say that we are bigoted and intolerant, and truthfully alot of us are which is extremely disappointing. Some Christians will see someone how holds an opposing belief and yell "God hates you, and you're going to hell you sinner!" A true Christian however, will see the same person and feel pity and compassion for them because they don't know what they'er getting themselves into. That is actually why most Chrisians prefer to use the word "save" rather than "convert".

 

Secondly, I can attest to the power of voodoo because I have seen the power of the devil first hand. While most  religions that utilizes miraculous sings and "magic" are cheep parlor tricks, (that's why i don't trust churches who claim to perform miraculous healings) but some of these powers are real, especially if they are considered dark or taboo. (remember the power comes from the devil)

Hope this answers your questions.

[Flutterspark 48]

Kinda sounds like my beliefs. Ever heard of the Church of Chirst? It's not a main branch of Christainity, but we certaintly do exist. And we have some famous members, like Wierd Al and the Robertson family from Duck Dynasty.

 

Sure makes us look like sane people.

 

I'd heard the name before, but I don't really know much about them.

 

That's pretty cool, actually.

 

EDIT: I just looked you guys up on a website that came up on google. I definitely like the idea behind it.

 

 

 

A true Christian however, will see the same person and feel pity and compassion for them because they don't know what they'er getting themselves into.

 

I agree. At the end of the day, if it comes from God, it's good. Otherwise, it's evil.

 

ANOTHER EDIT: I mean, specifically talking about supernatural powers.

Edited April 14, 2013 by Flutterspark

[CrimsonBrony 6]

Well, I've been raised in a roman Christian way but I don't really feel like one. I mean... sometimes I don't know what to think, sometimes I fell like there is someone superior to me, a God that watch over me, sometime not.

Maybe God is in everybody heart ^^

[I used to be a stranger 7,993]

This post has been redacted by the author.

Edited May 6, 2021 by Blue

[Windy Scamper 403]

I'd heard the name before, but I don't really know much about them.

 

That's pretty cool, actually.

 

EDIT: I just looked you guys up on a website that came up on google. I definitely like the idea behind it.

Makes us sound kinda strict, but that's the general idea. Then again, it was a summary, so yeah. I like how they kept in the part about a capella singing, because that is one of the main differences for us.

 

Nothing like a church coming together and just singing.

[Flutterspark 48]

I like to keep my creed simple.

1 Corinthians 15:3-8: "For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born."

 

However I don't pick a side in regards to the systematic theology of Genesis 1-9. Psalmist and Literalist interpretations in my opinion both have potential of rendering the Bible vulnerable in terms of applying its material to scientific rigour in ways which it is not compatible.

 

I was not trying to imply that one must believe in the baptism of the Holy Spirit and a young earth in order to be saved, I was simply trying to clarify my exact standpoint so that I might be able to find others with the same or similar standpoints. Or even bring up conversation about them, like now.

 

I don't think that the Church, as in the body of Christ, should be divided because of such an issue as how long God chose to spend creating the Earth. But, I do believe that interpreting Genesis correctly is extremely important and effects how we view the rest of the Bible.

 

An article I came across recently by Creation Ministries International has a wealth of information on it's importance: Did God Create Over Billions of Years?

 

Makes us sound kinda strict, but that's the general idea. Then again, it was a summary, so yeah. I like how they kept in the part about a capella singing, because that is one of the main differences for us.

 

Nothing like a church coming together and just singing.

I don't personally have a problem with instrumental singing, but I'm sure a capella can be powerful.

 

I imagine your congregation are rather good singers?

[Windy Scamper 403]

Not neccessarily, as just from traveling and various camps I've been with a wide range of people and voices. But, there's just something powerful about no instruments, just 4 different parts, keeping time and rhythm and learning songs on the spot together just to praise God. It's amazing just to take that effort, step back, and admire the sound. It really is breathtaking.

 

I suggjest you look up the Harding University (college associated woth CFC) National Anthem. It's one of the main reason they were chosen as the NCAA best road trip game place over Indiana and Butler. (And Whichita State, but the contest was before the tourney, so no one cared about them.)

 

Please note; I am not insulting instrumental music, it's just that many branches have stopped a capella music, and it really does sound just as great.

 

In fact, here's the HU national anthem. Though that's not a hymm, they sing it in the same style.

 

It's breathtaking.

 

[Flutterspark 48]

Not neccessarily, as just from traveling and various camps I've been with a wide range of people and voices. But, there's just something powerful about no instruments, just 4 different parts, keeping time and rhythm and learning songs on the spot together just to praise God. It's amazing just to take that effort, step back, and admire the sound. It really is breathtaking.

I remember being with a group of Christian kids, learning some simple worship songs to sing, so that we could entertain a large group of children in the near future. It was a really good feeling to have just our voices, together. It definetly united us more than just a couple of us playing guitar would have.

 

I unfortunately cannot view the video, as my internet is too slow right now.  At least I can take your word for it!

[Hazel-Beam 88]

Present! *smiles and holds hand up* I'm a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (we're more commonly known as Mormons) and I'm happy to have found this thread. It's nice to see that I'm not alone in my faith in God here, both with regards to the internet and the brony community.

[RockinRarity 1,605]

I am a Christian and I believe in the possibility of a billion-year-old Earth and evolution. I read a bit of the article above about the issue and I want to make two points.

 

1. I don't think that the animals were ever meant to live eternally in communion with God on this earth. God had promised this to Adam and Eve, who by that point were sentient beings who had a spiritual component (a soul) breathed into by God when God saw that they were very good - made in His image and likeness. But when we turned against God, death was introduced to the human race. But Jesus conquered sin and death on the cross - for humans, not animals.

 

2. The story of Genesis is not a scientific telling of the creation of the world. Science did not exist the way that we understand until the 1800's. So the story of Genesis is a telling of the beginning of God's relationship with humanity. This doesn't make it untrue. It just means that it is not a literal telling of what literally happened because that story would not have spoken to the Jews in as profound of a way.

 

I do not know about much of the science behind evolution and the geology of how old the earth is. But I believe in seeking the truth, and there is so much out there that is true that is not found in the Bible. As a Catholic, I believe that the Bible is true. But I do not believe that the Bible is the only source of truth. Our God is bigger than that.

[Flutterspark 48]

I am a Christian and I believe in the possibility of a billion-year-old Earth and evolution. I read a bit of the article above about the issue and I want to make two points.

 

1. I don't think that the animals were ever meant to live eternally in communion with God on this earth. God had promised this to Adam and Eve, who by that point were sentient beings who had a spiritual component (a soul) breathed into by God when God saw that they were very good - made in His image and likeness. But when we turned against God, death was introduced to the human race. But Jesus conquered sin and death on the cross - for humans, not animals.

 

2. The story of Genesis is not a scientific telling of the creation of the world. Science did not exist the way that we understand until the 1800's. So the story of Genesis is a telling of the beginning of God's relationship with humanity. This doesn't make it untrue. It just means that it is not a literal telling of what literally happened because that story would not have spoken to the Jews in as profound of a way.

 

I do not know about much of the science behind evolution and the geology of how old the earth is. But I believe in seeking the truth, and there is so much out there that is true that is not found in the Bible. As a Catholic, I believe that the Bible is true. But I do not believe that the Bible is the only source of truth. Our God is bigger than that.

 

Argh! Accidently closed the tab in which I was writing this...

 

1. I don't know what God's original plan for animals would have been, either.

 

"God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day." - Genesis 1:31 (NIV)

 

Genesis states that God saw all that He had made, and it was very good. I don't think that God would call the death of animals "very good".

 

From the CMI article:

 

"Some alleged ‘experts’ try to sidestep this ‘very good’ issue by saying that the Fall only caused human death and disease. This cannot be true. For one thing, Romans 8:19–22 clearly teaches that the curse of death and suffering following Adam’s Fall affected “the whole creation”, i.e. the entire physical universe."

 

2. Science is about finding out about the physical world around us by experimentation and logical reasoning. The Bible is a historical document. One cannot really apply the word "science" to a historical document, but instead only talk about whether it is true or false. Either way, if Genesis is not a literal and factual telling of events as they actual happened, than how can we trust the rest of the Bible to be?

 

Again, the article:

 

"While it is possible to be a Christian and believe in an old earth, it would indicate that one has either not thought through the consequences, or that the Bible is not the ultimate authority for one’s faith. If Genesis is not real literal history, how can one know where the truth actually does begin in Scripture? Today’s ‘science’ also ‘proves’ that men don’t rise from the dead. So if we allow that same science to tell us that Jesus has not risen from the dead (which would be consistent in the compromiser’s worldview) then our “preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain,” as the Apostle Paul wrote (1 Corinthians 15:14)."

 

The Bible, as a book title, is not a source of truth. God's Word is the source of Truth. There can be no other truth than God's Word. The Bible's contents is God's Word. How could there be other truths besides God's Truth? There couldn't be unless the Bible isn't really God's Word. And if the Bible is not God's Word, then one has no basis for Christianity whatsoever.

 

----------

 

Please imagine me speaking that without any malice or anger. I wrote it purely to defend my beliefs and also to inform, not to fight.

[Planty 1,053]

Hey all I'm a Christian ! I was raised in a christian family but only really came to God over the last 3 years and fully commit my life .

 

@@Flutterspark, The bible does not talk about the game of the earth nor evolution.

 

"The Bible is about purpose and the theory of evolution is about process, thus they can't be weighted against each other". Basically saying similar to bible is a historical document not a scientific one.

 

I would also leave this here : Say there is a tree that is 50 years old. God creates a second tree identical to that tree and puts it next to it the first tree. How old is the second tree?

 

Would you say that it is 50 years old (which would be how it appears) or 1 day old?

 

I think you also have to remember that when Genesis was written, it was trying to explain the creation of the Earth to people who did not understand how to read and write. The point is not how the earth was created but that it was created by God. So to me this is not the most important thing to focus on.

 

I personally believe in old age earth, but either way I don't see it as an amazingly important. I feel like sometimes we get caught up arguments over things that are un-important, Jesus being dieing for our sin's and allowing us to be guilt and shame free from our failings are much more important to me .

 

I find the grace of God to be unfathomable, and recently have learned to strive towards acting out the words of the bible rather then arguing over secondary issues which I did for a very very long time  completely neglecting my own actions.

 

I try and live by this, not forgetting anyone in the world and the effect that even simple actions can have on others:

 

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A31-46&version=NIV

 

 

 

³⁴ “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. ³⁵ For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, ³⁶ I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

³⁷ “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? ³⁸ When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? ³⁹ When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

⁴⁰ “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

 

 

Edited April 15, 2013 by Happy Plant

[RockinRarity 1,605]

Argh! Accidently closed the tab in which I was writing this...

 

1. I don't know what God's original plan for animals would have been, either.

 

"God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day." - Genesis 1:31 (NIV)

 

Genesis states that God saw all that He had made, and it was very good. I don't think that God would call the death of animals "very good".

 

From the CMI article:

 

"Some alleged ‘experts’ try to sidestep this ‘very good’ issue by saying that the Fall only caused human death and disease. This cannot be true. For one thing, Romans 8:19–22 clearly teaches that the curse of death and suffering following Adam’s Fall affected “the whole creation”, i.e. the entire physical universe."

 

2. Science is about finding out about the physical world around us by experimentation and logical reasoning. The Bible is a historical document. One cannot really apply the word "science" to a historical document, but instead only talk about whether it is true or false. Either way, if Genesis is not a literal and factual telling of events as they actual happened, than how can we trust the rest of the Bible to be?

 

Again, the article:

 

"While it is possible to be a Christian and believe in an old earth, it would indicate that one has either not thought through the consequences, or that the Bible is not the ultimate authority for one’s faith. If Genesis is not real literal history, how can one know where the truth actually does begin in Scripture? Today’s ‘science’ also ‘proves’ that men don’t rise from the dead. So if we allow that same science to tell us that Jesus has not risen from the dead (which would be consistent in the compromiser’s worldview) then our “preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain,” as the Apostle Paul wrote (1 Corinthians 15:14)."

 

The Bible, as a book title, is not a source of truth. God's Word is the source of Truth. There can be no other truth than God's Word. The Bible's contents is God's Word. How could there be other truths besides God's Truth? There couldn't be unless the Bible isn't really God's Word. And if the Bible is not God's Word, then one has no basis for Christianity whatsoever.

 

----------

 

Please imagine me speaking that without any malice or anger. I wrote it purely to defend my beliefs and also to inform, not to fight.

 

Believe me, it is my intention to have a civil conversation about our differences. Fighting is petty and emotionally charged, after all. We have better things to be angry about.

 

It makes me wonder, though - if death was not part of the original plan for animals, either, then does that mean that Adam and Eve were supposed to be vegetarian/vegan? Even though we were given canine teeth for the purpose of being able to tear off meat and chew it? What about the other animals who prey on one another? Did snakes eat mice before the Fall? And what about plants? Did plants die before the Fall? Were we only supposed to eat things that kept the roots alive, or were we forbidden from eating things like carrots or potatoes?

 

My point is that we rely on the death of animals and plants in order to survive as a species. Maybe we didn't have to before the Fall, but that is incredibly hard to imagine, and it only leads to more questions.

 

I also want to address a specific point that you made. You said, "If Genesis is not a literal and factual telling of events as they actual happened, than how can we trust the rest of the Bible to be?"

 

But what if I were to tell you that biblical scholars have developed four different ways to interpret the Bible? Four different interpretations that go beyond the literal meaning.

 

These are the four ways:

Literally: As you know, a literal account of how things happened

Allegorically: When everything in the Bible points to its significance in Christ - usually through foreshadowing

Morally: Inspiration for us to lead moral lives

Anagogically: Our promise from God that all things point to Heaven.

 

The writers of the Bible also used figures of speech. Jesus, many times, spoke in hyperbole. When he said, "If you hand causes you to sin, cut it off," he didn't mean that literally. You have to read the passage in context with the whole gospel, as well as the way that the world works. We don't see other Christians cutting their hands off, so Jesus must have meant something different.

 

There are also a few rules-of-thumb when determining when a scripture passage is not literal.

 

1. If the Bible itself says that it is not literal.

2. If the literal interpretation goes against common sense (ie Jesus called Herod a fox - this does not mean that Herod was literally a fox)

3. If the literal interpretation goes against known facts (this is where one could argue that it is a known fact that the earth is billions of years old and that macro-evolution is real, if current science is correct in this)

4. The literal interpretation would make God contradict Himself.

 

If none of these rules apply, then we can safely assume that the passage in question is in fact literally what it says. The story of Jonah, for example, does not fall under any of these rules, so we can say that the story of Jonah did in fact actually occur, even though the event itself can seem unreal to the common doubter (although I suppose one could argue that it contradicts common sense, but that is probably stretching it). We want to avoid calling anything extraordinary in the Bible "not literal" because God has done many extraordinary things, and we don't want to lose sight of that.

 

So that is my answer to your question. Keep in mind that I did not make up these rules. These rules come from a history of biblical studies.

 

The bible does not talk about the game of the earth nor evolution.

 

"The Bible is about purpose and the theory of evolution is about process, thus they can't be weighted against each other". Basically saying similar to bible is a historical document not a scientific one.

 

I think you also have to remember that when Genesis was written, it was trying to explain the creation of the Earth to people who did not understand how to read and write. The point is not how the earth was created but that it was created by God. So to me this is not the most important thing to focus on.

 

I personally believe in old age earth, but either way I don't see it as an amazingly important. I feel like sometimes we get caught up arguments over things that are un-important, Jesus being dying for our sin's and allowing us to be guilt and shame free from our failings are much more important to me .

 

I find the grace of God to be unfathomable, and recently have learned to strive towards acting out the words of the bible rather then arguing over secondary issues which I did for a very very long time  completely neglecting my own actions.

 

I like the way you put it. I do not think that it is all that important either. If current science is in fact wrong in regards to the billion-year-old earth and evolution and whatnot, then so be it. You are right that the important thing is that the story of Genesis tells us that God created the Earth. That I will always believe, no matter what science says.

[Ezio Auditore 702]

I'm a very proud Christian, I love God, and ever since I've started to really put him as the center point of everything, the world seems so clear now, and he's changed me and I talk to Him and He listens, and the things that he's done in my life it just blows my mind.

 

In regards to the discussion concerning Young Earth/ Old Earth, Theistic Evolution or not. The Bible explains THEISTICALLY how everything was made, it does not explain SCIENTIFICALLY how everything was made, I believe evolution is possible, I believe it also may be false, either way it doesn't disprove God in any way shape or form. 

[Flutterspark 48]

Wow, this is becoming a wealthy discussion!

@,

Hello! It's amazing how many bronies there are that are followers of Christ!

I agree with you for the most part. What one thinks about the Creation of the world is not the deciding factor in whether one is saved or not. What I'm trying to stress is, it's a secondary issue, but an extremely important one.

The article I linked to also stresses the importance. If the world is billions of years old, and if the fossil layers tell us this, then there are big implications for the rest of the Bible:

"To summarize, the age of the earth was derived from the rock layers, which have fossils in them, which puts death, suffering and disease before the Fall. The Bible is clear that there was no death before Adam (Romans 5:12)."

This is why, while it is a secondary issue, getting it wrong means the Bible conflicts with itself. This then introduces problems with the primary issue, getting saved. If the Bible has a hole in it, how can we trust it to be factual? If we can't trust it to be factual, how can we be sure that we are saved?

The top of a building may contain much more importance than the foundation of the building, but if the foundation is faulty, how can that building stand? Obviously we, as Christians, already know that the message of Jesus Christ is the truth. We have experienced it firsthand. Knowing this, we can not be quick to accept the possibility of a faulty foundation.

EDIT:
 

"The Bible is about purpose and the theory of evolution is about process, thus they can't be weighted against each other". Basically saying similar to bible is a historical document not a scientific one.

Evolution + The Big Bang and the Bible both try to give explanations to the origin of life, the universe, and everything. The Bible is a historical document with a reliable eye witness account, from God. Evolution is one interpretation of the evidence we have around us today. I don't see why they cannot be compared.

 

Both are contradictory to each other, as the Bible says that God created the universe, but Evolution says the universe made itself. One can't hold two contradictory items to be true at the same time.

@@RockinRarity,

Believe me, it is my intention to have a civil conversation about our differences. Fighting is petty and emotionally charged, after all. We have better things to be angry about.

 

Thank you. I agree.
 

It makes me wonder, though - if death was not part of the original plan for animals, either, then does that mean that Adam and Eve were supposed to be vegetarian/vegan? Even though we were given canine teeth for the purpose of being able to tear off meat and chew it? What about the other animals who prey on one another? Did snakes eat mice before the Fall? And what about plants? Did plants die before the Fall? Were we only supposed to eat things that kept the roots alive, or were we forbidden from eating things like carrots or potatoes?

It's interesting you should say that. Creation Ministries International have another article in response to a letter someone wrote. The letter was itself in response to Did God create over billions of years?, the article I have been referencing. This article is called 'No Death Before the Fall'?

"Your whole argument seems to hinge on the idea that there couldn’t have been any death before the fall.

Death of nephesh chayyah creatures, to be more precise. We don’t argue that plants and insects, etc., didn’t die before the Fall, and “what about skin cells” has always been a ridiculous straw man argument: we believe that certain forms of cell death would have had to be programmed at creation, as they are necessary for all multi-cellular life. Broadly speaking, there was no death of vertebrates."

Another article on the CMI website (yeah, I like these guys ), The Carnivorous Nature and Suffering of Animals, answers questions about parts of creation being carnivorous. It's a very long read, and I don't pretend to have gone through it all, but I did think this quote kind of gives the gist of the article:

"But however much, or little, pain and suffering there is in nature, the Bible indicates that the present state of things is not the ideal—God did not make it this way originally. Also, it was God who subjected the whole creation to ‘futility’ and its bondage to decay."

It would have been very easy for an omnipotent God to change creation after the Fall.

 

I also want to address a specific point that you made. You said, "If Genesis is not a literal and factual telling of events as they actual happened, than how can we trust the rest of the Bible to be?" But what if I were to tell you that biblical scholars have developed four different ways to interpret the Bible? Four different interpretations that go beyond the literal meaning. These are the four ways: Literally: As you know, a literal account of how things happened Allegorically: When everything in the Bible points to its significance in Christ - usually through foreshadowing Morally: Inspiration for us to lead moral lives Anagogically: Our promise from God that all things point to Heaven. The writers of the Bible also used figures of speech. Jesus, many times, spoke in hyperbole. When he said, "If you hand causes you to sin, cut it off," he didn't mean that literally. You have to read the passage in context with the whole gospel, as well as the way that the world works. We don't see other Christians cutting their hands off, so Jesus must have meant something different.

 

This is quite interesting, and I hadn't thought about this in depth before. In your example, though, the Bible is still giving a literal historical telling of an event as it actually happened: Jesus using hyperbole.

And yes, it's the context which is what allows the correct interpretation of that passage. The same goes for the book of Genesis. We can look at the Hebrew words in Genesis, and then look at the context of those words in other parts of the Bible to see what the author meant. From the "Did God Create Over Billions of Years?" article:

"Practically every Christian leader and theologian who lays out his reasons for believing in long ages rather than the biblical timescale has to admit that Genesis—when read at face value, in the Hebrew as well as the English translations—teaches a straightforward creation in six normal-length days. And that this is powerfully backed up by Exodus 20:11, part of the Ten Commandments, which shows the Genesis days were understood as normal-length days, with no room for millions of years or gaps in the text to insert them. But they unfortunately accept that science has somehow ‘proved’ millions of years, which is actually not the case."

 

There are also a few rules-of-thumb when determining when a scripture passage is not literal. 1. If the Bible itself says that it is not literal. 2. If the literal interpretation goes against common sense (ie Jesus called Herod a fox - this does not mean that Herod was literally a fox) 3. If the literal interpretation goes against known facts (this is where one could argue that it is a known fact that the earth is billions of years old and that macro-evolution is real, if current science is correct in this) 4. The literal interpretation would make God contradict Himself.

 

As it is not a fact that the Earth is billions of years old, Genesis looks to be literal by these guidelines.

@@Ezio Auditore,

Hi Ezio, it's good to meet you. Our God is a wonderful God!

 

In regards to the discussion concerning Young Earth/ Old Earth, Theistic Evolution or not. The Bible explains THEISTICALLY how everything was made, it does not explain SCIENTIFICALLY how everything was made, I believe evolution is possible, I believe it also may be false, either way it doesn't disprove God in any way shape or form.

 

I believe the Bible explains historically how everything was made.

There is no scientific method which can prove the age of the Earth. You are correct, science, which is about studying the physical world around us, could never disprove or even prove God, who is beyond physical.

I want to point out here to everyone, that there are two types of science that are easily confused. There is origins/historical science, and operational/experimental science. Operational science is probably what comes into your head when you hear the word "science": Doing experiments, making observations based on the outcomes, etc. But, Evolution, Old Earth, and New Earth world views are all origins science. Everyone has the same facts, but different interpretations. Origins science is purely this, educated guessing. It can never actually prove anything. The only way to know for sure about the age of the Earth is by reference to a reliable eye-witness account (e.g. for the creation of the Earth, the Bible citing God). Alternately, someone (Doctor Whooves) could use a time machine to go back in time and then use operational science to figure it out.

For more information on this, see 'It's Not Science'.

Edited April 18, 2013 by Flutterspark

[Fluttershy_babe 53]

Yeah, i'm catholic, but don't go to church or much. But i love god and all that.

I also went to a catholic primary school. And my high school is catholic, too. 

[Planty 1,053]

@@Flutterspark,

 

I would be careful, Evolution does not explain how we where created just merely the journey from the origin of life to where we where today.

 

Currently there is no real explanation for the creation of the universe. Even the big bang is very very vague and not really a fully fleshed out theory .

 

I will go over Romans 5:12 ! thank you for answering in such a detailed way !

[. eris . 1,661]

This may be besides the point, but I love it when Christians debate. xD It's so much more polite than some of the other religious/scientific debates I've seen raging on the internet - sometimes on these very boards.

[Mister G 101]

I'm a born-again Christian (Born-again comes from what Jesus said to Nicodemus), born and raised as one, went and currently studying in a Christian academy, and I will say that no matter how science tries to disprove or prove Him, Science can never see God.

Remember when Nietszche said that God is dead on 1883? After that, God said that Nietzche is dead in 1900

@Flutterspark, God would've just pressed the reset button on his creation, but He still loved it, that he decided to send His only Son to die on the cross so He would fix every last of our glitches. Jesus promised us the future patch of "paradise" (get the video game jargon?) which He offers without payment, as long as we install his Downloadable Content (meaning accepting him into our lives)

@Earl, This really must be the most polite debate I ever saw on the whole Internet. Unlike some debates in which will end in "You're going to hell...", This debate is OK without attacking someone on their faith.

Even if the earth did exist for billions of years, and even if evolution gets proven (they're both still theories), they will never ever disprove God. That's what I believe