[Lancaster Online]

[clanker]

Post your thoughts and comments about this article.

I wonder if those churches that accept evolution have also decided to abandon creationism. It's got to be hard to buck tradition like that.

[maia_orual]

creationism isn't a tradition.

it's the first story in the Bible. now. . .if you take the Bible as completely true, the Word of God, then you would have to take the Biblical account of Creation as truth.

if you choose to eliminate that one part in order to accept Evolution, then you discredit the entire book.

i don't understand why anyone would claim the Bible to be the word of God on one hand and then say, "wait, it's all true except that one part. . .oh wait, and this other part i don't like. . .etc."

[clanker]

You mean like that scientist (sorry, I forget what dicipline) who cut out all the parts of the Bible that he knew to be false and ended up with a Swiss cheese book, but decided to believe it all anyway? Something like this could cause a great division between Christians who wish to believe from a 21st century standpoint and those that choose to remain with 1st century beliefs. I applaud those that want to open their minds and question the old lore as fact or fiction.

[crazycatwoman]

creationism isn't a tradition.

it's the first story in the Bible. now. . .if you take the Bible as completely true, the Word of God, then you would have to take the Biblical account of Creation as truth.

if you choose to eliminate that one part in order to accept Evolution, then you discredit the entire book.

i don't understand why anyone would claim the Bible to be the word of God on one hand and then say, "wait, it's all true except that one part. . .oh wait, and this other part i don't like. . .etc."

Who's to say that the world hasn't been 'recreated' more than once ? And that the Bible isn't just the Book of this particular age ? (Okay, I'm pretty sure someone on here's gonna whack me with a bolt of lightning for that....)

[dee]

Anyone who takes the Bible as truth instead of a guide needs their head examined. Parted waters? Speaking bushes? They are metaphors people. Good, well intended metaphors written by MAN. You know, the one with original sin?

[JoeDog]

I wonder if those churches that accept evolution have also decided to abandon creationism. It's got to be hard to buck tradition like that.

I fail to see the need to abandon it. Just because a movie takes liberty with science doesn't mean you can't enjoy it. The problem occurs when these liberties flow the other way.

[clanker]

The concepts of sin, soul, afterlife, worship, prayer, and messiah fall apart if the Bible is just allegory. If it is just a book of lessons, then the OT should be discarded altogether for being too archaic and no use to present times. Ancient Greek philosophers did a much better job exploring morality and the human condition.

[ceejay]

The concepts of sin, soul, afterlife, worship, prayer, and messiah fall apart if the Bible is just allegory. If it is just a book of lessons, then the OT should be discarded altogether for being too archaic and no use to present times. Ancient Greek philosophers did a much better job exploring morality and the human condition.

justplainjoe has a very unique take on scripture. His views do not represent "standard" Christian teachings or beliefs (as if you need me to tell you that!!!) Certain New Age groups and Unity churches take the allegory position, but I don't know of a single Christian church that does.

Mainline denominations play fast and loose with what they pick and choose from the Word. Most other Christians practice differing degrees of literalism. In other words, recognizing that in prophetic books there is a lot of symbolism, but taking scripture on its face as Truth. I completely understand that most agnostics and atheists are at a loss as to how anyone could accept and believe the Bible is the Word of God. And faith really is not explainable.

[justplainjoe]

The concepts of sin, soul, afterlife, worship, prayer, and messiah fall apart if the Bible is just allegory. If it is just a book of lessons, then the OT should be discarded altogether for being too archaic and no use to present times. Ancient Greek philosophers did a much better job exploring morality and the human condition.

you are really clueless. you should not judge what you have no working knowledge of.
really.
seriously.

justplainjoe has a very unique take on scripture.

it's not unique at all. it's what the first followers of jesus believed and practiced. it is quite common these days , with more and more truth seekers seeking more than dogma ,while traditional church going has declined.
when the bible says that jesus taught them in secret, what do you think he taugh them?
while mainline christians believe in jesus, they sure as hell do not believe him.
how many churches teach their parishoners that when they pray they should believe that the object of their desire is already theirs?
that's what jesus taught .

This post has been edited by justplainjoe: 05 November 2009 - 08:55 PM

[clanker]

you are really clueless. you should not judge what you have no working knowledge of.
really.
seriously.


it's not unique at all. it starded with the transcendentalists, emerson among them, and is quite comman these days while traditional church going has declined.
while mainline christians believe in jesus, they sure as hell do not believe him.
how many churches teach their parishoners that when they pray they should believe that the object of their desire is already theirs?
that's what jesus taught .

It's much easier if you go with Shakabuku Buddhism.

This post has been edited by clanker: 05 November 2009 - 08:55 PM

[crickson]

justplainjoe has a very unique take on scripture. His views do not represent "standard" Christian teachings or beliefs (as if you need me to tell you that!!!) Certain New Age groups and Unity churches take the allegory position, but I don't know of a single Christian church that does.

Mainline denominations play fast and loose with what they pick and choose from the Word. Most other Christians practice differing degrees of literalism. In other words, recognizing that in prophetic books there is a lot of symbolism, but taking scripture on its face as Truth. I completely understand that most agnostics and atheists are at a loss as to how anyone could accept and believe the Bible is the Word of God. And faith really is not explainable.

Wouldn't any church that follows the teachings of Christ be considered Christian? Regardless of how it is interpreted?
I'm just asking because it seems that you don't consider "New Age Christians" Christian.

This post has been edited by crickson: 05 November 2009 - 08:57 PM

[ceejay]

Wouldn't any church that follows the teachings of Christ be considered Christian? Regardless of how it is interpreted?
I'm just asking because it seems that you don't consider "New Age Christians" Christian.

No, no. Sorry if I wasn't clear with that. I did not say "New Age Christians". I said "New Age". There are a lot of New Agers who venerate the Bible as literature or wise sayings, and view Jesus as a good man or a wise teacher but nothing more -- the Bible is just one of many books of wisdom to them, and Jesus one of many teachers to be learned from.

Christians believe that the Bible is the God-breathed Word of God, and that Jesus was Deity incarnate, and the only begotten Son of God. My only point.

[GeezUS]

Who's to say that the world hasn't been 'recreated' more than once ?

Hence the nick "crazycatwoman" eh?

[localyokel123]

I wish more Christians like this letter's author would take the time to smackdown their fringe nutters. Well done, Mr. Wolf, well done.