perhaps this has been discussed in the past, but i can't help noticing that on many posts creation vs evolution seems to equal theist vs atheist.
granted, a creationist by defination would have to believe in a creator.
on the other hand, believing in evolution doesn't automatically make one an atheist, a small point perhaps, but i think it would be more accurate to say believer vs nonbeliever.. just sayin'..
Many christians accept the fact of evolution.
They accept it as they know if they don't they will be increasingly marginalised as nutters.
The problem is then they struggle to square the circle as to why Jesus came to earth and had to die.
So I'm not sure you can be a (proper) Christian and believe in evolution.
perhaps this has been discussed in the past, but i can't help noticing that on many posts creation vs evolution seems to equal theist vs atheist.
granted, a creationist by defination would have to believe in a creator.
on the other hand, believing in evolution doesn't automatically make one an atheist, a small point perhaps, but i think it would be more accurate to say believer vs nonbeliever.. just sayin'..
If you believe in evolution then, while a deist type god is not out of the question, it pretty much negates the adam and eve story, original sin, the reason jesus came to the earth etc. It negates everything a christian believes in really.
so an old friend of mine from the congregation hit me up today.
the story goes like this when we were jw's:.
- this guy used to be madly in love with me but i didn't see him as anything more than a friend.
back in the early 60s the phrase .
"the new world society..." was used a lot to promote assemblies and even congregations.
of course no new world has come but that saying appears to have been quietly buried along with any hope of a new world..
Actually it was the other way around. "Joy Division" became "New Order", one of the greatest bands of the 80s, but one of the most boring, live.
That's what I said.....
And Lord Google says the name came from a Guardian article.
back in the early 60s the phrase .
"the new world society..." was used a lot to promote assemblies and even congregations.
of course no new world has come but that saying appears to have been quietly buried along with any hope of a new world..
it occurred to me while at today's wt study that over 100 people were wasting an hour of their life studiously examining the differences between two delusions, paradise earth and the heavenly hope.
everyone made it sound so serious when in reality it means nothing at all.
either choice is wrong and foolish nonsense.. it was mentioned that mark sanderson found his heavenly calling at very young age.
It occurred to me while at today's WT study that over 100 people were wasting an hour of their life studiously examining the differences between two delusions, paradise earth and the heavenly hope
101 if we include you!
l have a problem with this.lf adam and eve didnt sin the earth would eventually have been full to the brim with perfect human beings.then what every man gets the chop or no more sex?then on the other hand we have the jw's sayingresurrected ones will not be allowed to marry in the earthly new system.. married survivors of armageddon will remain married.
single survivors of armageddon may or may not be allowed to marry.so it seems that people reborn into new system wont be able to procreate.
and married survivors will stay married so l assume that means they can still hanky panky and have babys thats a bit unfair..the earth can only accommodate a maximum number of humans then what for the married couples.
If one begins with the assumption of a divine creator, evolution becomes much more difficult to prove.
I can't believe someone intelligent enough to turn a computer on and make his fingers work on a keyboard could actually type that sentence.
just wondering.
what do those who left wt, and still believe the bible, feel about matt.24:14?
You don't mean this Berwick do you?
just wondering.
what do those who left wt, and still believe the bible, feel about matt.24:14?
Was walking down Berwick town centre this morning and there was some guy limply holding a watchtower out wrapped in plastic - not sure that qualifies as preaching.
posted on friends :-) anyway i hope everyone agrees even in disagreement, the discussion can be fruitful.
personally i usually find the atheism views more compelling than the christian view point, however i value both insights and conversations when the comments are respectful.. as it's coming up to eater, could i therefore pose the question to christians can you offer compelling evidence for the resurrection of christ?
evidence is a fact or a set of facts, or maybe i should rephrase my question " the resurrection is reasonable to hold to because of reasonable evidence that can be submitted for that conclusion" .
There isn't any.
What you choose to believe however is totally up to you.
