Okay, 'gloves off ' -

Please do be careful when saying, "[i]just because people say they are Christians does not make them one".[/i] when referring to the words of the Christians with beliefs in 'old earth' that we have been discussing.

Does that mean you don't think that the Associate Professor of Theology at Virginia Theological Seminary, the Professor of Theology and for that matter, the Pope, plus all the others are not Christians - merely because they don't agree with you and your idea of 'old earth versus new earth'. Surely not.

And if so, perhaps it would be best if we agreed to simply and utterly - and very quickly - veered away from your sentence?

For, I too think of certain things when I think of a true Christian. First, they believe in God - are kind and tolerant, filled with gentleness and love for both their Christ and their fellow man and are neither quick to judge others nor arrogant in their Faith.

- - - -
On a personal note ... CGM, I'm confused about "He is catholic. I go to a Pentacostal church.. Are Catholics not recognised as Christians within the Pentacostal Church?

I've encountered this phenomenon before. As an Atheist, even when I'm defending another's essential privilege to believe as they will, I'm treated with contempt. "What do you know about religion, you don't even believe in "God"?" The answer is simple enough - I've studied it. I've studied science. I've studied history. I've studied a lot of things. When I encounter something I don't understand, or that I find intriguing, I'll research it and try to learn more. But it isn't only what I have to say that the religionists consider irrelevant. They consider me, as a person, irrelevant, since I don't believe the 'right" way.

One point of clarification. I don't say that I "don't believe in God", since such a statement leaves the possibility open that there is, indeed, a "God" for others to believe in. I don't believe in the existence of any supernatural deity. There is a subtle yet significant difference between the two statements.

I'm sorry, but can anyone even doubt why I consider this individual closed and narrow minded? I mean, really.

True. Most that claim to be are really only "Christians". To use a tired old cliche - they "talk the talk, but don't walk the walk".

Actually, it's a matter of no one that doesn't agree with CGM is recognized as a Christian by CGM. Take it for what it's worth.

Wow this is getting interesting yet at the cost of another BC member. I agree with CGM3 that the pope is not a Christian, but a Catholic. There are many many differences between Christians and Catholics.

Mattv, while I can see why you think he is closed minded, do you think that you have to say it so bluntly? Something you have to understand though is that CGM3 takes the Bible literaly and that is it, no talking to him at all about questioning that.

CGM3 what you need to understand is that if you are going to take part in this discussion you need to look at all of the information they put out. You need to be willing to question your beliefes or else don't take part in the discussion at all.

-Steve

What I am saying is just what the Bible says be careful of wolfs in sheeps clothing like when looking up articles on the internet or
even on tv,books and such.



Catholics are a Christian branch of the church I think you would say that. They do believe differently than us I prefer to not talk about this yet as in the weeks to come we will be studying how the catholics believe in comparison to us at my church.

To both Matt and Mara I meant nothing by saying he is catholic and I am not. I did not dwell on it so whatever you are adding to something that was not there. See how I said nothing else after that on the subject? Dont put words in for me when you dont know what I was saying.

What I mean is we believe differently.



I have quoted this before. Its a verse in the Bible.

"The gate is wide and the road is easy that leads to destruction, and there are many who take it. For the gate is narrow and the road is hard that leads to life, and there are few who find it" (Matt.7:13-14)(From the Sermon on the Mount)




Lets talk on this as you think I meant something like the pope wasnt or a catholic is not a Christian. I should have talked more instead of just saying that as it did not make much sense I guess. I think what I meant to say is simply we believe differently. Um....I dont know what else to say. I really dont know what you were getting at when saying this. I may have at the time of writing that thought you meant to have a BRAWL over the difference of beliefs or something I am not sure I put my words down correct when saying that as its I dont know....argh getting myself confused trying to think why I said that. But I did not mean anything like he was not a Christian, I know that.



I did read the info. This topic has went BOOM and its hard to keep up sometimes. Question my beliefs how? Go on.....

I am a christian as well I am sure you know.

What I am saying is if they provide evidence don't blow it off by just looking at the Bible in a debate scenario. If lets say that was just me and you personally then that would be fine, but look at it, then look at scientific evidence for it, if you do not know there is no need to answer at that moment. Look at it and conclude maybe it is wrong, check the Bible and other sources not just Christian ones, then see how you stand with that. You know where I am getting.

I know that you are trying to follow Romans 12:1-2 all the way good job!!!!

Remember Psalms 119:9-11 also

-Steve

So who gets to decide who is christian and who is not?


I think you need to study the history of christianity a little more closely.

Originally there was only one church centered in Rome (the election of Clement as the bishop of Rome in 92AD is a useful marker for Roman leadership of the church). This church split into two in the great schism of the 11th century. This left the Roman Catholic Church (Rome) and the Eastern Orthodox Church (Constantinople). This schism was caused by doctrinal issues such as the authority of the Pope and was exacerbated by cultural and linguistic differences between Latins and Greeks.

The next big split was the protestant reformation in the early 16th century, which was begun by Martin Luther. The aim of the reformation was to reform the church of perceived doctrinal corruptions. This split left the Roman Catholic Church still centered in Rome and various protestant churches scattered throughout western Europe.

The Church of England traces its formal corporate history from the 597 Augustinian mission, stresses its continuity and identity with the primitive universal western church, and notes the consolidation of its particular independent and national character in the post-reformation events of Tudor England (this interpretation is disputed by the Roman Catholic Church which sees the creation of the Church of England as marking a break with english christianity prior to the reformation). The english church separated from Rome in 1534, during the reign of King Henry VIII. A theological separation had been foreshadowed by various movements within the english church such as the Lollards, but the english reformation gained political support when Henry VIII wanted his marriage to Catherine of Aragon annulled.

The Methodist revival originated in England. It was started by a group of men including John Wesley and his younger brother Charles as a movement within the Church of England in the 18th century, focused on Bible study, and a methodical approach to scriptures and christian living. The term "Methodist" was a pejorative term given to a small society of students at Oxford, who met together between 1729 and 1735 for the purpose of mutual improvement.

Pentecostalism is a revival meeting ministry formed by Charles Fox Parham (a minister of Methodist background) in Kansas in the early 20th century. Parham formulated the doctrine that speaking in tongues was the "Bible evidence" of the Baptism of the Holy Ghost.

So as you can see Pentecostalism (and other denominations) all trace their history back to the original Roman Catholic Church. There are more than 1 billion catholics in the world, which represents almost 50% of the total number of christians on this planet. The one thing that all these various christian sects have in common is the bible, the history of which is interesting in itself.

The Old Testament canon entered into Christian use in the Greek Septuagint translations and original books, and their differing lists of texts. In addition to the Septuagint, Christianity subsequently added various writings that would become the New Testament. Somewhat different lists of accepted works continued to develop in antiquity. In the 4th century a series of synods produced a list of texts equal to the 46-book canon of the Old testament and to the 27-book canon of the New Testament that would be subsequently used to today, most notably the Synod of Hippo in AD 393.

It was actually the Roman Catholic Church that decided which writings would form the bible.

[quote name='cowsgonemadd3'
One more thing to add, just because people say they are Christians does not make them one.
[/quote]

Webster’s Dictionary defines a Christian as “a person professing belief in Jesus as the Christ or in the religion based on the teaching of Jesus.”

Do you have a different definition?

I may have mentioned before that I'm a plain speaking Yankee, and that it's a good thing I never went for a career in Diplomacy. And the last couple of days have been bad ones, though I do try not to let things like that color my remarks. I did say "Sorry", first, though.

'Budapest' date='Aug 1 2007, 02:12 AM' post='582997']
It was actually the Roman Catholic Church that decided which writings would form the bible.


I will keep your post in mind the next time I sit down to read my Hebrew Bible. lmao.

I'd like to take a moment to bring some calming, well-reasoned, thoughful comments to this thread.

However,

since some of you would worry that my identity had been hijacked,

I'll refrain from posting anthing of that sort.

Now there's an example of clear thinking.

post 665#
and still no-one has answered the question
it is now my goal for the day to find an answer suitable for everyone

Yes but it was the Catholic Church that decided that the Hebrew bible would be canon for christians (strictly speaking, the Catholic Church uses the Greek Septuagint, it was not until the protestant reformation that most protestant churches started using the Hebrew bible). It was also the Catholic Church that decided which books would form the New Testament canon.

Sorry, which question?

If you mean the Topic title, it has been answered.

As long as we are using the same definition of Evolution (Wikipedia).

That definition is widely accepted in scientific circles as fact,

Even if we add the word Theory (Wikipedia) to it, it is still widely accepted as reasonably accurate enough to be taught as the prevailing scientific concept.

Scientists are not a close-knit group of "believers", and they will constantly challenge and change when necessary the knowledge they have. However, at any given time, they will have a prevailing viewpoint which they will teach to others, again knowing that new discoveries may alter some of the ideas.


We've also pointed out that if one extends "evolution" beyond biology to include the beginnings of the known universe, it does not necessarily conflict with the possibility of the creation by a god, unless one staunchly clings to a literal interpretation of a translation of various writings in multiple languages.

At least, that's my take so far.

right heres my first attempt(and hopefully last)

evolution should be taught as fact


evolution should not be taught as fact

hope that suits both factions

mz30, waits with baited breath for the evil third faction to raise its ugly head

Sorry but no....theistic evolution is not applicable. The topic is why particles-to-people evolution is taught as fact. When in fact, we all use the SAME FACTS but have different interpretations. Evolution is a belief strictly based on interpretation of the same facts that the case for Intelligent Design is based on.

mz30 exhales his baited breath and beholds the third faction

ok jwinathome
back to the drawing board.i will not be defeated.

mz30 slope back into the underworld known as the world wide web to seek the answers to this age old question

Sorry mz30, but the second link you supplied was referencing theistic evolution.

Somehow me pointing out that it is not part of the subject (as its not taught in school) is an "evil faction" ...........?

was a joke jwinathome

Clearly.

Yes, I do. I christian is someone who has truly accepted Christ in to their heart as their saviour. That is a true Christian.

-Steve

As other people will probably say....

"How do you determine if that person has truly accepted or not? Also, many people can say that they have truly accepted, how can you say they haven't?"

You set them on fire, if the fire goes out they are Christians...right?

Steve that definition is so close to the one I posted you would need a pry bar to separate them, they are one in the same as I read it.

need TOS while i commend you for your religious beliefs at such a young age,i have to disagree with your above statement,while i am not a practising catholic i was christened a catholic,does that make me any less of a catholic ?
not really i think ,my problem is with the bible and the superior being theory.
lets add this the bible as i have stated earlier is in my opinion a nice story and for people to base there lives on this book,who by the way could have been written by hans christian anderson (story wise).when will people learn it is not the word of god,it was written by man,translated from stone tablets that were found somewere or other ,who's to say those stone tablets were'nt written by the j.k rowling of the day?

the superior being(deity)whatever you want to call him ,were is he why has there never been any proof about him,and please don't quote the bible to me.the theory of evolution to me is just more plausible ,am not saying tht god did,nt create the world maybe he did if he is real.but what i will debate is the fact that if he did it was'nt when the bible says he did.
i mean the facts are there to back them up(or are we being lied too).

the superior being(deity)whatever you want to call him ,were is he why has there never been any proof about him,

mz30...I am gonna go out on a limb here and make a prediction that I would bet my life's savings and all future earnings on...I predict you will meet God in the future.


Now as I asked before, is personal experience a form of acceptable "proof" or not? Go back to the cut and heal example....

I ask again, mz30...is it possible that there is proof that man does not yet "know" that exists that could indeed prove a superior being? Or has every single stone been overturned and every piece of evidence been presented, and all knowledge in existence is known?

If evolution is so accepted, and the debate is completely over...why not move on? Why continue to rehash old evidence?

Has anyone seen a prediction of what mankind would be in oh...another thousand years? how different we will be? I'm interested.

I'm not to say if they have or haven't but they knowk, and when they die they'll be feeling really stupid.

-Steve

How sad.....

yes i agree but as the band mettalica said sad but true

Guess we'll all find out eventually. If it is or isn't true.

or the people that believe will feel worse as they have lived there life accepting it as truth ,at least the people who don't believe are expecting it

If there is no afterlife mz30, and we cease to exist in any way....why would we care?

On the other hand....

Bah,If you read the Bible you would see more. Open up your eyes to whats going on in the Middle east just as the Bible predicted thousands of years ago.
Read and study the Bible and you will see this.

Back on topic people we can talk about religious topics in the other threads.

No the your definition and my definition are not the same at all. Yours says if they claim that they believe the teachings of Christ, anyone could say yea I believe that we should help out those that are less fortunate then us. That Jesus teaches about. But you have to accept him and be willing to give up everything worldly to be a true Christian. You can say yea I'm a Christian and I believe in that Jesus guy, but have never truly accepted him, then you are not a Christian, or Catholic.



Well I am not sure about the being christened, but if you have not accepted Crist into your heart, admited that you were a sinner, then no you are not saved and that makes you not a true catholic but you are recognised as one, See where I am getting at?Yes you are correct God didn't write it, but it is the word inspired by God.

-Steve

And "Intelligent Design" is no more than creationism with a different cover.

Read some good Science Fiction. In the 1930s and '40s there were many books and stories written about sciences and societies that were remarkably similar to the one we live in today. Even in the eighteen hundreds, people were writing about nuclear-powered submarines, weapons, etc. (most notably, Jules Vern), and other things which we now take for granted that were pure flights of fancy, then.

Um....things...that...aren't...man made.....Did nuclear-power submarines evolve?

I think you aren't understanding what I was asking.

cgm3i see a pattern emerging everytime something i said that you don't agree with you quote god/bible or whatever
to justify your point ,believe me i have read the bible and as i have said its a nice collection of storys,i do not need to waste my time on the word of man(just because the church says its gods word).you know cgm3i think it is you who as you stated need to open your eyes i see very clearly,and i am open to anyone theories on the matter i am a very openminded sort of guy.

as for the back on topic thing if you read the post i made the religious part was leading up to my point about evolution

Perhaps one of the wee problems is that it's virtually impossible to discuss evolution versus intelligent design without venturing into religion 'in general' - so in reality, guess none of us have really left the main focus of the thread after all.

I agree completely - most of us believe a chistian is someone who has "truly accepted Christ into their heart as their saviour".

So when one adds links leading to names and data written by people who not only meet the above criteria but, in addition,have recognised credentials in the Theological field - it is a tad unsettling to read a statement such as 'not all people calling themselves Christian are', apparently in reference to these people and others. Gentle smile.

While I surely don't want to speak for MattV or others here, I too do find it a tad disconcerting, although sometimes a bit humourous, that we - who do not believe in God - are often bending over backwards to ensure those who do are assured of keeping their Faith, even while trying to put our own arguments forward about things such as evolution and/or old earth versus young.

And I find it interesting when a member mentions there is variances of things. For instance - many, many people live happy and contented and good lives without having a God or other 'higher being' as part of their life/belief system. And yet, another member say if there is no afterlife and we cease to exist in any way, why should we care.

Do realize that I may be misinterpreting things here, but I wonder if an assumption isn't often made that one either can't have a truly good, happy and fulfilled life nor have any reason to lead a good, happy and fullfilled life without God in it.

So when I think about Evolution being taught in schools, I would have no objection to a teacher saying (briefly) something along the lines of "Evolution is based on science and while there are some who don't believe in it, we are not here to discuss religion and I expect you to listen and ace all the tests, regardless" - grin!

With respect for those who believe in God, re-reading this entire thread reinforces my belief that it and our similar threads could, alone, stand as a reason why religion should not be taught in our public school systems. Rather, it should be taught in a religious setting of each parent and/or child's choice - for even in Christianity alone there are so so so many variations of it.

-----
PM to CGM ... if you are uncomfortable discussing the Pope and Catholic religion, that's honestly fine. May I make a wee suggestion before the anticipated discussion of it being made within your Church, though? A bit of true non-preceived thoughts while doing some research on your own prior to the discussion may be helpful - after all, 'be prepared' doesn't only apply to Boy Scouts and Girl Guides

I agree that religion should not be taught in schools because there are so many out there and so many variations of one religion that you could not keep everyone happy. I do think though that it should be required for the teacher to say Yes this is based upon scientific theory, and may change overtime. Things like that, is all I want done, but when it is taught as a fact then that is saying hey screw your religion this is how it happened. See what I mean?

-Steve

Yes, I do understand.

In fact, one of my first science teachers was, while one of the toughest teachers I ever had, immensely fair - and often funny. While he never mentioned 'intelligent design', he would make statements while doing an experiments, such as "And one must remember that the greatest scientist of their day thought the world was flat".

My only true adversion to organized religion of any sect is the 'blindness' that overtakes some - and it's often this 'blindness' that leads to and has lead to so much agony in our poor world.

Who said religion should be taught in the public education system?

I have never said Intelligent Design or Creationism should be taught in school. I think facts should be presented (the same facts that we all have to interpret) Beating a dead horse with that point, sheesh. and then present theories and interpretations of what those facts tell us.

Evolution at its FUNDAMENTAL ORIGIN has never been observed. Something from Nothing. Why would that be taught in school, if it requires more faith to believe that than other origins beliefs? There is no evolutionary explanation that is scientifically provable for the origin of life. If there was...we would be able to reproduce the results. Bupkis.

Are you talking about life coming from a primordial "soup"? If so, I believe it has been observed.



Could you give an example here? If you are talking about biological evolution, it is never described as "from nothing". There are always building blocks.



Because it is the prevailing scientific belief.



But, it does not since it has been demonstrated.



You saying that does not make it so. See above. I believe many supporting links have been provided throughout this thread.



Poppycock!

Oh,

you can still have some and .

It's a mystery to me what they both evolved from, however.

Some consider the way we think part of 'evolution' - so in this case, I'll share that man's brain evolved enough to create beer long, long ago apparently :

"EARLIEST KNOWN CHEMICAL EVIDENCE OF BEER - circa 3500-3100 B.C.

NOVEMBER, 1992--Researchers in the Museum Applied Science Center for Archaeology (MASCA) at The University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, analyzed an organic residue from inside a pottery vessel dated circa 3500-3100 B.C. from the site of Godin Tepe in the Zagros Mountains of western Iran. Their findings provide the earliest known chemical evidence of beer in the world".

Full text and source: http://www.museum.upenn.edu/new/research/E...asca/beer.shtml

Do you think that beers ability to lower the inhibitions of women had anything to do with man's initiative in this area?

Whatever....my eyes are open I just think well, I believe with everything in me that the Bible is the Word of God. The devil fools people and he will fool many as many will go to tell. Evolution is one of the ways the devil tries to fool many.
http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-inspired.html

Just because it was brought up here on how to interpret the Bible:
http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-literal.html

The bible does say God created everything. It really doesn't go into explicit detail as to how, certainly not in any matter that could be proven.

"Who cares what the pope says?" Whether you agree with the catholic church's interpretations of scripture or not, I'll put dollars to pesos Benedict has forgotten more about theology than you know.






Roman catholics most definitely believe that Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection was to bring redemption to any and all that would accept it. The RCC may put it more authoritatively than protestant churches, but the tenants of salvation are basically the same.




Within the scientific community, there are many hypotheses on how the first protocell developed, but there isn't really hard science backing them up as absolute fact. So in respect to the ultimate origin of life, those should be presented as hypothesis and not hard fact.
The evidence for common descent is massive and undeniable, however.