Curches Celebrate Darwin's Birthday

[Papewaio]

No legitimate Church would celibrate Darwin's birthday or make statements in defense of his ludicrous idea.

Those mentioned in the article are Apostate Churches that have no connection to God or anything that is good.

No legitmate Church does not understand the concept of turning the other cheek or that God judges not man.


You of course in your infinite wisdom know that Darwin was a man of God and after his world trip to see the majesty of Nature that He created, Darwin was going to become a minister.

I for one have no issues reconciling the two. Mind you I see God more like a scientist that is running a chem experiment or running Code

OS Universe 7.0 (6.66 was buggy as hell)
Application Earth 1.5 (Each Prophet being a major update, only some of which were needed, and this regional differentiation has a problem with leaking out and markets fighting each other)... Earth 2.0 is the second comming and like MS apps has been annouced but continously pushed back due to security flaw fears.

[Navaros]

You of course in your infinite wisdom know that Darwin was a man of God and after his world trip to see the majesty of Nature that He created, Darwin was going to become a minister.

This is absurd. Darwin was an evil man who is surely not anywhere close to being with God at the moment.

Jesus warned about men like that. They are called "wolves in sheep's clothing".

No man who has committed the one unforgivable sin: committed blasphemy against the Holy Spirit by claiming the Word of God is a lie (as Darwin has done) can ever claim to be anything other than an enemy of God and a friend of "the world" (there is no way to be both).

[GoreBag]

You of course in your infinite wisdom know that Darwin was a man of God and after his world trip to see the majesty of Nature that He created, Darwin was going to become a minister.

This is absurd. Darwin was an evil man who is surely not anywhere close to being with God at the moment.

Picturesque, almost.

[Papewaio]

If someone sells an idealogy that neglects facts and truth for a higher good they are the ones in sheeps clothing.

[Redleg]

This is absurd. Darwin was an evil man who is surely not anywhere close to being with God at the moment.

He is probably closer to God then you are at the moment.

Jesus warned about men like that. They are called "wolves in sheep's clothing".

Darwin was not a false teacher of religion.

No man who has committed the one unforgivable sin: committed blasphemy against the Holy Spirit by claiming the Word of God is a lie (as Darwin has done) can ever claim to be anything other than an enemy of God and a friend of "the world" (there is no way to be both).

From what I remember of my science and biology to be more spefic. I never read where Darwin stated that the word of God is a lie. Care to reference the work where he stated that?

Tsk Tsk - someone does not understand the teachings of Jesus.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

This is absurd. Darwin was an evil man who is surely not anywhere close to being with God at the moment.

Jesus warned about men like that. They are called "wolves in sheep's clothing".

No man who has committed the one unforgivable sin: committed blasphemy against the Holy Spirit by claiming the Word of God is a lie (as Darwin has done) can ever claim to be anything other than an enemy of God and a friend of "the world" (there is no way to be both).

Youve got a log in your eye Navraos,

Darwin was himself a christian, all he did was show the method whereby different species came into being. An act no more blasphemous then any observation you make of the world around you, the bible did not contain all gods methods as they were unimportant to the central message, but by the order of creation occuring in genesis you can still see the pattern of evolution from simple sea creatures to mankind (and other organisms).

[Reverend Joe]

No man who has committed the one unforgivable sin: committed blasphemy against the Holy Spirit by claiming the Word of God is a lie (as Darwin has done) can ever claim to be anything other than an enemy of God and a friend of "the world" (there is no way to be both).

I believe you are making a mistake here... the "one unforgivable sin" is the failure to sleep with a woman (or a man, if you are a woman) when (s)he wishes you to.

From the holiest of holy books:
"'...he who can sleep with a woman and does not, commits a great sin. ...if a woman calls you to share her bed and you don't go, your soul will be destroyed! That woman will sigh before God on judgement day, and that woman's sigh, whoever you may be and whatever your fine deeds, will cast you into hell!'"

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

[Subtle thread hijack]

This one's for the Christians out there who believe in Original Sin. Man has Original Sin. In the Bible, it comes from Genesis, when Adam & Eve sin in the garden. Now, if Genesis can't be taken literally, when does Original Sin come into play? The first homo sapien? Did our first acsestors just develop Original Sin one day?

This is rather important. If there is no Original Sin, what did Jesus have to save us from?

Anyone have a good explanation how Original Sin jives with evolution?

Hope I have my theology all right...

[Xiahou]

Well, I cant provide the official line (dont know it), but Id think the argument would be that Adam's original sin would also be symbolic for the corruption of human nature rather than a particular act...

[Lemur]

[Overt thread hijack]

Man has Original Sin. In the Bible, it comes from Genesis, when Adam & Eve sin in the garden. Now, if Genesis can't be taken literally, when does Original Sin come into play? The first homo sapien? Did our first acsestors just develop Original Sin one day?

The best summation of Original Sin I ever heard went something like this: Remember Woody Allen's line about "Sex is only dirty if you do it right?" That's an aspect of it. The yearning for debasement, the appeal of ugliness and pain, that's a part of it too. There's a part of human nature that abhors perfection and goodness. That's why we are capable of spurning God's love.

Anyway, that's one way of looking at it. Another way would be to look at what exactly Adam and Eve did wrong. They grabbed onto knowledge. They raised themselves up from the animal state to a slightly different place. So by that reading, the evolution of a complex brain is our original sin. We've grabbed hold of comprehension and reason, but without the grace and goodness that ought to go with it.

I'm sure one can read it in any number of ways. If you're a real stick in the mud, you could even read it literally. Although I've always been puzzled by people who do that. God is very specific abotu how we're supposed to stone to death people who collect wood on the Sabbath. But you never hear the televangelists advising us to do so. Why not? I would like to stone a person to death for collecting sticks on the wrong day. Sounds like wholesome fun.

[ajaxfetish]

[Subtle thread hijack]

This one's for the Christians out there who believe in Original Sin. Man has Original Sin. In the Bible, it comes from Genesis, when Adam & Eve sin in the garden. Now, if Genesis can't be taken literally, when does Original Sin come into play? The first homo sapien? Did our first acsestors just develop Original Sin one day?

This is rather important. If there is no Original Sin, what did Jesus have to save us from?

Anyone have a good explanation how Original Sin jives with evolution?

Hope I have my theology all right...

My church doesn't buy into the original sin doctrine, but as for the need for the salvation of Jesus, the commandments he sets are seriously rigorous (don't lust, be angry, etc.) and there are plenty of scriptural references for all having 'sinned and come short of the glory of God,' so for us the sin and the need is individual.

I'm also very glad to hear about the reasonable response to evolution. Many within my church are very anti-evolution and don't even realize we have no official stance toward the theory. Happy birthday, Chuck!

Ajax

[GoreBag]

From the holiest of holy books:
"'...he who can sleep with a woman and does not, commits a great sin. ...if a woman calls you to share her bed and you don't go, your soul will be destroyed! That woman will sigh before God on judgement day, and that woman's sigh, whoever you may be and whatever your fine deeds, will cast you into hell!'"

That's in the Book of Flava Flav?

[Bartix]

I believe you are making a mistake here... the "one unforgivable sin" is the failure to sleep with a woman (or a man, if you are a woman) when (s)he wishes you to.

From the holiest of holy books:
"'...he who can sleep with a woman and does not, commits a great sin. ...if a woman calls you to share her bed and you don't go, your soul will be destroyed! That woman will sigh before God on judgement day, and that woman's sigh, whoever you may be and whatever your fine deeds, will cast you into hell!'"

I believe you are making a mistake here...

Wherefore I say unto you, all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men, but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men

I am not knowing original meaning, so other rule may or may not be applied to women.

[Reverend Joe]

I believe you are making a mistake here...

I am not knowing original meaning, so other rule may or may not be applied to women.

Who said anything about the Bible being the holiest of holy books?

[Ser Clegane]

That reminds me of the good old "Chick Tracts"...

Apes, Lies and Ms. Henn

Big Daddy?