Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
First, you are applying the law of Moses to Christianity, it doesn't apply, different law, different dispensation. Second, as a civil penalty, for crimes breaking the civil law, the position for Christians is clearly outlined in the 13th chapter of Romans. Break a civil law that calls for the death penalty, justifiably you are executed
No, not hardly, micro evolutionists believe in adaption by the evolutionary process of organisms within a species,or perhaps a genus.Darwin's finches for example. They do not believe one species or genus can morph into another , dogs to cats, or snakes to birds
No, we are not discussing identified sin as relates to the faith. All are guilty. We are talking about the application of civil law, before God, I am a sinner, before the civil law I am not a murderer. The two cannot be conflated, God enumerates sin, the civil authorities enumerate the civil law
We, as in the consensus of scientists, the collective of our knowledge, the facts and evidence we have revealed.
Had you taken the time to read your own source, you would have read that it clearly indicates, and I quote (directly), "there is little evidence that it's actually the Biblical Sodom."
Good thing science is about more than beliefs.
That is one view. I have read another review from a prominent archaeologist who believes strongly that the evidence is very persuasive. This is Biblical Archaeology, a volatile discipline if there ever was one. As an example, the James ossury, after 10 years of testing, labeled a fake, and the alleged maker arrested. Now, labeled genuine, till it is again labeled fake. There are hundreds of sources. BTW I did read it, as well as the published paper
Well of course I agree, he was making his point quite clearly, we are all sinners. Does that mean sin is an acceptable state to live in ?, no. You must understand the atonement and sanctification for the reason for the no. Further, habitual, cherished, continually practiced sin is never acceptable. He did say, "go and sin no more"
LOL, I know the theory as well as most who have had college level biology. Ever heard of the term hyperbole ? It applies to my examples. No fun in an example like millions of years required for the ancestors of whales to slowly adapt to a land enviroment, then millions of years later to readapt to the sea
There are actually many scientists, including some high-profile ones (I think even Richard Dawkins, though I'm going to have to let my Nook recharge so I can double-check the authorship of the article I am thinking of), who think the idea of singularity needs to go. They think it's a hangover from the days when the church of your god controlled everything. Never mind the fact you brought this "singularities" up concerning evolution when you wrongly attached evolution to biogenesis and both to the Big Bang. And, just for your information, the Big Bang has been challenged a few times recently, and I don't foresee it standing as the scientific model for long, mostly because we still don't know much about the universe.
"College level biology" barely touches the subject, and hardly goes into enough details to defend or refute the theory. "College level biology" is kingdoms and phylums, cells and organelles, DNA and RNA, a bit of evolution, a bit of ecology, a bit of anatomy, a bit of chemistry, and a bit of physiology.
You may be right, but people seem to like discussing and/or debating subjects as these. Besides, sometimes people can and do change their minds.
Goodness,. I clearly stated I used the term singularities as a name for the members of the cabal posting on this thread, a joke. Cosmology has not rejected the term when referring to the center of a black hole or the alleged state before the bang. I stated that you and your pals, the singularities, and your views on evolution and the spontaneous generation of life, were all the same, not a cosmological singularity. Absolutely, my approach to religion is static and non changing, no problem there, data is data, is data, unless it leads to conclusive proofs. Yes, the big bang has been challenged, the steady staters and the closed universe believers still exist, but the bang is still the overwhelming predominant theory. Many many millions hold views exactly like mine, as do many biologists, and geneticists. Science is not the final arbiter of reality, it is one, along with philosophy and theology and other disciplines. And unlike some who pretend otherwise, it is not a single monolithic support for any view, it is malleable and sometimes fractured. I suggest your view on Darwin and his theory is ignorant, meaning lacking information. There are a plethora of books and papers written by highly educated and qualified scientists that explore many failings and shortcomings of the theory based upon sound scientific principle. I am willing to bet you have made no effort to explore these. Your very own Richard Dawkins has expressed discomfort with it. Science, as practiced by many, is as dogmatic as any religion, as are their conclusions.
sometimes, but not always
This makes no sense. Can you explain what you mean? Are you contending that only those couples who are fertile and physically able to have healthy children should be able to have sex?
And as I've tried to explain to you, spontaneous generation was discarded, entirely and wholly, about 150 years ago, and also that evolution, biogensis, and the Big Bang are not the same things and are all three entirely separate theories.
You haven't been keeping up.
While that is true, there does come a point where denying the findings of science is denying hard facts and clear data. Such as, science has confirmed the Earth revolves around the sun and that microscopic organisms cause infections. To deny these findings of science is just foolish, and it is apparent and obvious as to why.