An atheist's experience with LC

Hello dear members of this forum.

I'm a German atheist who found this forum by following the link of a link of a ...
Please excuse my mediocre English.
After having read through some of the stories posted here I'm incredibly happy to finally have found a place to share and to ask questions.

I'm not sure about the "common believe" of the members of the forum. You are christians, but do you believe that the earth is 5000 years old? Is homosexuality morally wrong? Prematurial sex a sin? Is human made climate change a hoax? Evolution false?
These concepts sound very strange to me and would to 99% of christians in Germany.
I apologize in advance if my believes offend somebody.


Halfway through writing all this I realized that much of it is probably of little interest to you all. But seeing as it is past midnight and I have been writing for the last 4 hours I don't want to spend more time cutting it down to the point. Apologies.
Some parts of my story sound as if out of a bad tear-jerker movie. But everything is real.


About myself:
I'm male, 29 years old,
I grew up in a semi-religious (roman-catholic) family (parents + 2 brothers) in a small town in western Germany. I was baptised as an infant, went to church with my family every sunday, later became alter server and received the sacrament of confirmation. Even though I did the full program I never felt very religious. I never believed that god created the world in seven days, Adam out of mud etc. I also didn't believe that god actively intervenes in human life (or anything really). God was to me always more of a feeling. Love for one, but also respect, open mindedness and calamity. More the teaching of morality than anything "active".
When I was 19 I got my university-entrance diploma and changed city for studying. I stopped going to church and basically didn't think much about religion anymore. At some point I got curious again and for the first time read the bible as a whole (old + new testamony). To be blunt, I was very disappointed and unimpressed by it.
I like the idea of a "creator" who created the universe and the beginning of life on earth but everything that comes afterwards just sounds too far fetched for me to believe.
This marked the moment when I didn't see myself as a christian anymore and instead as an atheist. I guess I had always been one I just didn't know it yet.


Jump to March 2013.
I'm travelling through south-east asia and meet a chinese girl in Luang Prabang, Laos (we are both travelling alone). She calls herself Cici because her Chinese name is rather difficult to pronounce for westerners, comes from a city with 3 million inhabitants that even most Chinese have never heard of, and in short is the most amazing person I have ever had the pleasure to meet. She is funny, lovely, outgoing, kind, open-minded and to top it off beautiful.
I had been in love before, I have had other relationships before. But in just a few days I had gotten closer to Cici than to any other person in my life prior. We talked about absolutely everything without ever having to worry about being judged or ridiculed by the other. We didn't always share the same opinions but we always wanted to hear each other's. We cried together when she told me about her abusive father who often beat her mom and her and finally left them both for another woman because his child was a girl not a boy (one child policy...).
We spent whole days together wandering through the city, visiting waterfalls, watching the sunrise from Mount Phousi...
I don't want to bore you with details so just let me say that I had never felt as connected to another human being and had never felt as happy as I had with her. Even though I didn't tell her at that time I had fallen in love with her.

We planned to continue our trip together and possibly even continue the relationship afterwards. Unfortunatly life had other plans with us and after some unfortunate events she decided that we should rather split up. I continued north, she south. We stayed in contact afterwards, but the time between our emails grew longer and longer while both our lifes continued. I thought I would never see her again.


Jump to December 2014
Cici and I start to have more contact again. Even talking on Skype from time to time. In April I begin my master thesis. In early June my then-girlfriend and I break up for unrelated reasons.

In July Cici calls and tells me that she got a job as a flight attendant and will be flying the China-Germany routes with base in Frankfurt (meaning this is where she will be living). I'm thrilled to be seeing her again. Frankfurt is only 1,5h away from where i live.
When we meet it is as if we had never been seperated. We joke, we laugh, we cry, and we love again.

I help her finding a flat in Frankfurt, help with paperwork etc. In August we are officially a couple. My family (and even my very conservative grandmother) love her. She has a way of making the sun shine wherever she goes.
I have never been as happy in my life than I am at this point in time. Everything is better than I had could have imagined. I've finished my degree, I've found a job that I like in the city I studied in. The relationship with Cici goes great. We are in this "long" distance relationship until January '16. Everytime she's back in Frankfurt I go visit her or she comes visiting me.

One day in January though Cici is told that she won't be kept as a flight attendant after her probationary period. No reasons given. She has time until the end of March to get all paperwork done, find a next tenant for her flat etc. Then she has to leave Germany.
Her Visa is connected to her work permit which she got due to her job and therefore now lost. She can't apply for another job in Germany as she doesn't have a universal working Visa. She can't even apply for a studying or a holiday Visa while being inside of Germany.

We talk about marriage. I know that this is the woman I want to spend my life with, but I'm worried. Not so much that I might be wrong about her, rather that my family wouldn't approve of me marrying so soon after getting together with her. My oldest brother married his wife after 5 years of living together, 11 years after being a couple. What would they say about us marrying after just a few months?
Anyway. I make the biggest mistake of my life so far and don't ask her to marry me.
We talk about our future though: She wants to apply for studying in Germany as soon as she gets back to China (bachelor in another field). The process usually takes half a year. I will visit her and her family for vacation (we get 30 days paid vacation in Germany).

She moves in with me for the remaining two months. But as I have to go to work everyday she spends most of the time at home feeling miserable, making me miserable when coming home from work... We try to enjoy the remaining time together, but as the inevitable day of her departure comes closer and closer we feel more and more desperate.
And then the day is there and she's gone. More than 8000km and 6 timezones away.

We videochat everyday. We are both counting the days until we can see each other again.

Then doctors discover that her mom (whom she lives with at that moment) has cancer. She never remarried after her first husband and lives a quite poor and lonely life.
Cici obviously doesn't want to leave her like this and holds all visa efforts. Then her aunt (whom Cici is close to like a sister) also discovers cancer.
While Cici has to take care of both her relatives I'm in Germany and barely able to help. I have a flight booked for July but in the weeks until then Cici's world breaks apart. Ontop of her own problems and worries she has to worry about her closest family members and feeling the full weight of all responsibilities on her shoulders. To cope with this she starts praying and going to LC meetings.

... I forgot to mention that Cici was an exchange student in the US during her time in high-school. She lived with a family that was deep into LC for half a year and got in first contact with christianity there. She also got baptised during that time. Back in China she continued to believe in God ("Lord Jesus") but didn't attend meetings etc. and soon after religion was just one small aspect of her life.

Her mother and aunt have operations. Everything goes ok.
Even though most of her worries are dealt with I can sense that Cici is getting... weird. Sometimes she links me videos with christian messages or quotes the Bible. A few days before my flight she tells me that she would rather not have sex with me anymore before we marry. If I mind? I tell her that yes I do mind, but (with a heavy heart) tell her that if this is how she feels we can wait until after marriage.
When I meet her in China she is the personification of lust for life again. She is over the moon happy. Her mother and grandparents accept me like their son. I get along great with everybody even though we can not communicate without Cici translating.
Cici and I have a blast. We spend 2 of my 4 weeks of holiday hitchhiking through the mountains, sleeping in small hostels, hiking up mountains to watch the sun rise... Everything is as if we had never been seperated (again...). She is also as physical as she had always been. All worries I had before coming to China are forgotten.

And then the day is there and I have to go back to Germany... See the pattern? :/

And again Cici falls into unhappiness. The videos she sends me get more and more concerning/crazy. "Prophecies in the Bible", "10 Marks For Why The End Is Near", "How to PREPARE YOURSELF For The Second Coming of Christ"... It is happening so fast, that I don't even know what is going on. First I'm worried where Cici got herself into and try to brush it off but then I'm getting scared. And the more we talk and the more I learn the more I'm getting actually terrified of what is happening to this person that looks but doesn't talk and think like the person I fell in love with.
I beg her to stop going to these meetings. To come back to sanity. I try reasoning with her, try to explain why these videos are bull****. But of course she doesn't listen. She tells me without these meetings, without the people there she would have killed herself in the spring, during the time when she was under constant stress. Without her believe she has nothing.
I tell her that she has me! That she has me with all my heart. But she says that I'm too far away. I tell Cici I will quit my job and come see her. I apply for Visa tomorrow and will be there in 2 weeks. But she knows that she has to decide between me and her newly-found believe in Christ (or whatever catchy theories it is she is believing). Around that time she has a big fight with her mother who also disapproves her changes and who knows that our relationship is falling apart. Cici moves out from her mother and in with somebody from LC. She tells me that she doesn't want me to come see her until she has herself figured out. Nobody knows where she is living. I would never find her.
Cici knows that I don't belive in "Lord Jesus" and she also knows that she won't be able to change my believes. Just 4 weeks after me getting back to Germany, after having our happiest time of our lifes together Cici breaks up with me by text message and blocks me from all ways of contact.

I want to contact her family because I know they are as terrified as I am as what is going on with Cici. But all I have is their home address. No phone number, no email address, no wechat contact (the chinese facebook). I ask a good chinese friend of mine (who also got to know Cici when she stayed with me) to translate a letter for me, send it by email to a friend in China and have him send a letter from there. But no reply. We try two more times but don't get answers.

______
It is 1am here right now, I have been writing for the last 5 hours and didn't even have dinner. I cut it short.
Many things happened to me during fall 2016 and spring 2017 that made it impossible for me to go to China in person. My 4th letter in May 2017 finally reached her mother. She also tried finding me the whole time but didn't know where to start looking. We videotalked on wechat with my chinese friend sitting next to me translating.
It is basically all three of us bawling our eyes out. Both her mom and I thought we could find some answers but all we get are more questions. Cici moved back in with her mother, caught and destroyed one letter, the other 2 might have gotten lost (letters get lost very often in China). 1st of February 2017 Cici took a flight to New Zealand without telling her mom in advance. She is doing a 2 year "full time training" course in Auckland right now.
Reading the same biased crap, talking only to people who are just as brainwashed as herself and generally living in an echo chamber.

This could be the end of my story here . I could say that I have tried all I could and try to move on.
For you it might even sound better the way it is now. "At least she isn't in a relationship with an atheist anymore who leads her away from God."
But I can't move on. Cici and her mom still talk from time to time and a few weeks ago her mom told me that Cici still cries whenever they talk about me. She still loves me just like I love her. I hope that some day we can meet again. And who knows what will happen.


Well... That's my story. I don't know where I'm going with it or even why I posted. It felt good to write it all down though. If anybody read this far: Thank you for reading. I can get into more detail about what happened since the breakup tomorrow but for now it is enough.

Good night, and God bless if He is there

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Hello dear members of this forum.

I'm a German atheist who found this forum by following the link of a link of a ...
Please excuse my mediocre English.
After having read through some of the stories posted here I'm incredibly happy to finally have found a place to share and to ask questions.

I'm not sure about the "common believe" of the members of the forum. You are christians, but do you believe that the earth is 5000 years old?

Welcome to the forum, and UntoHim was correct, this is the side of the forum you want to ask these questions.

I cannot speak for the forum as a whole, but as for me I am a geologist. I do not believe the Earth is 5,000 years old, neither do I believe that the Bible teaches that it is. I assume this is based on the analysis of the Bible that Adam lived 6,000 years ago. That I do think is probably pretty close, plus or minus a few thousand years.

However, the account in Genesis 1 of the "creation" I believe is a misreading. Instead the account of everything that took place after "and the Earth became waste and void" I consider to refer to the restoration of the Earth after the last ice age. One key tipoff is the appearance of grass. In the evolutionary record it is one of the last things to appear, yet in the account in Genesis it pops up very quickly.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Is homosexuality morally wrong?

According to the Bible the purpose of sex is procreation. That being said the New Testament condemns everyone, not just homosexuals, for having sex that is not for this purpose saying that those who condemn others do the same thing themselves (have sex without the purpose of procreation).

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Prematurial sex a sin?

Once again, according to the Bible sex without responsibility is sin. 85% of abortions in New York are by unwed mothers. Marriage is a way in which you can have sex responsibly. BTW, in NYC 39-41% of pregnancies end in abortion.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Is human made climate change a hoax?

Climate change is prophesied very clearly and specifically in the book of Revelation. I was at Rice University in the 70s and 80s. One of my professors was going to Antarctica before Climate change had been generally accepted. It was reading Revelation that helped me understand how serious this would be.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Evolution false?

According to Genesis "God formed man from the dust of the ground". Look at dust under a microscope and you will see that this states the theory of evolution much more elegantly than anyone else has. Darwin should have quoted Genesis instead pretending that his plagiarism of the Bible somehow contradicted the Bible.

[ZNPaaneah]

I think everyone on this forum has been in similar situations where our relationship with the LC caused us to sever or cut ties with our friends and family. However, it is never that simple. She didn't cut ties with you, she sent you videos, said she is trying to figure this out, and instead of helping her you just said "it was bullish**t". You referred to her faith as "a theory". If you care about her it seems you would be more willing to help her understand these issues.

1. Real religion is concerned with orphans and widows. If the LC is telling her to cut her relationship with orphans and widows then that is not a real religion.

2. You should not have the faith of our Lord with respect of persons. If the LC is telling her to cut ties with different ones for various reasons, that is "respect of persons", another example of cult behavior.

3. You can learn what kind of group it is by their tongue. Think about Hitler, first he was like a wild horse, then he took over the country like the captain of the ship steering the rudder, finally he set fire to all of Europe. That is what a cult does. The proper speaking is like a fountain of living water, like a fig tree bearing good fruit and an olive tree whose fruit is pressed into oil.

4. Genuine brothers and sisters do not speak evil of one another, to speak evil of a brother or sister is to be a judge of the law and not a doer of the law (Christians have been given a command to love one another even as Jesus loved us).

Perhaps if you share these points with her as fellowship you will help her see the situation more clearly. The goal of the book of James is to rescue those who are caught up in a cult:

20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

[Evangelical]

Lol @ ZNP using Hitler to explain what a cult is to a German. A little faux pas maybe.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Lol @ ZNP using Hitler to explain what a cult is to a German. A little faux pas maybe.

The truth shall set you free.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Darwin should have quoted Genesis instead pretending that his plagiarism of the Bible somehow contradicted the Bible.

That's the silliest thing I've read today.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

That's the silliest thing I've read today.

So I assume you are familiar with Alexander Von Humboldt, one of the preeminent scientists of the last 2,000 years and the most influential voice to Darwin who called him "the greatest scientific traveler who ever lived", as well as to Whitman, Thoreau and Poe. John Muir saw him as his spiritual ancestor. Humboldt, unlike Darwin, did quote Genesis 1.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So I assume you are familiar with Alexander Von Humboldt, one of the preeminent scientists of the last 2,000 years and the most influential voice to Darwin who called him "the greatest scientific traveler who ever lived", as well as to Whitman, Thoreau and Poe. John Muir saw him as his spiritual ancestor. Humboldt, unlike Darwin, did quote Genesis 1.

Show me where Darwin plagiarized the Bible.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So I assume you are familiar with Alexander Von Humboldt, one of the preeminent scientists of the last 2,000 years and the most influential voice to Darwin who called him "the greatest scientific traveler who ever lived", as well as to Whitman, Thoreau and Poe. John Muir saw him as his spiritual ancestor. Humboldt, unlike Darwin, did quote Genesis 1.

I really like this conversation and would like to add to it. But can we find someplace else for it?

I'd like this thread to stay as true to the OP as possible. After all Unregistered poured his heart and soul out ... and wishes to understand the local church. So far there's been some good responses. Let's keep those going.

So where can we take this Darwin/Bible thing?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

I really like this conversation and would like to add to it. But can we find someplace else for it?

I'd like this thread to stay as true to the OP as possible. After all Unregistered poured his heart and soul out ... and wishes to understand the local church. So far there's been some good responses. Let's keep those going.

So where can we take this Darwin/Bible thing?

This discussion was in response to the OP question "Evolution false?" So, it's "as true to the OP as possible".

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Show me where Darwin plagiarized the Bible.

Darwin -- Every species is fertile enough that if all offspring survived to reproduce, the population would grow (fact). — “Be fruitful and multiply”

Darwin -- Despite periodic fluctuations, populations remain roughly the same size (fact). — numerous direct and indirect references in the Bible that God has set a line and a place for each creature.

Darwin -- Individuals less suited to the environment are less likely to survive and less likely to reproduce; individuals more suited to the environment are more likely to survive and more likely to reproduce and leave their heritable traits to future generations, which produces the process of natural selection (fact). — spelled out in Deuteronomy that there are laws God gives us, if we keep them we will be blessed, if not we will be cursed until we are driven from the land.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by awareness

I really like this conversation and would like to add to it. But can we find someplace else for it?

I'd like this thread to stay as true to the OP as possible. After all Unregistered poured his heart and soul out ... and wishes to understand the local church. So far there's been some good responses. Let's keep those going.

Bravo Mr. Moderator!

I Have have split the thread in two (not usually a good idea, but in this case I think it is warranted) So let's keep the issues not directly related to the Local Church over here, and those who want to address issues directly related to the Local Church over on the main page.

Tank U!
-

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Bravo Mr. Moderator!

I Have have split the thread in two (not usually a good idea, but in this case I think it is warranted) So let's keep the issues not directly related to the Local Church over here, and those who want to address issues directly related to the Local Church over on the main page.

Tank U!
-

Amen to that ... Tanks

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

This discussion was in response to the OP question "Evolution false?" So, it's "as true to the OP as possible".

Yes, but the answer for the local church would likely be "Yes." Maybe Unregistered would like to get into a Biblical debate about evolution, if it proves to help him free the love of his life from a mind control cult.

Don't get me wrong, I'd just love to see bro ZNP jump thru hoops and loops, and twist it all like a pretzel, to tie evolution to the Bible. That would be cool and fun.

It just sounds like something that belongs on its own thread. Unregistered could read it there.

And to the two Unregistered out here ... if I'm not mistaken you can put a name where it says Unregistered ... that way SA could put his initials on his post, to distinguish him/her self.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Darwin -- Every species is fertile enough that if all offspring survived to reproduce, the population would grow (fact). — “Be fruitful and multiply”

That species are fertile is empirically observable without a need for the Bible. In addition to that, Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace both acknowledged the role played by Thomas Malthus not the Bible in the development of their own ideas. Darwin said:

"This is the doctrine of Malthus, applied with manifold force to the animal and vegetable kingdoms, for in this case there can be no artificial increase of food, and no prudential restraint from marriage". Darwin also wrote:
"In October 1838 ... I happened to read for amusement Malthus on Population ... it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result of this would be the formation of new species."
— Barlow, Nora 1958. The autobiography of Charles Darwin. p128 [WIKIPEDIA]

Wallace stated:

"But perhaps the most important book I read was Malthus's Principles of Population ... It was the first great work I had yet read treating of any of the problems of philosophical biology, and its main principles remained with me as a permanent possession, and twenty years later gave me the long-sought clue to the effective agent in the evolution of organic species.
— Wallace, Alfred Russel 1908. My life: a record of events and opinions.[WIKIPEDIA]

The Bible attributes fertility to the command of a personal agent [God] whereas Darwin's theory attributes it to an impersonal natural process. That isn't a Biblical idea.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Darwin -- Despite periodic fluctuations, populations remain roughly the same size (fact). — numerous direct and indirect references in the Bible that God has set a line and a place for each creature.

You'll have to show me. I'm not aware of any such observation about population size in the Bible.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Darwin -- Individuals less suited to the environment are less likely to survive and less likely to reproduce; individuals more suited to the environment are more likely to survive and more likely to reproduce and leave their heritable traits to future generations, which produces the process of natural selection (fact). — spelled out in Deuteronomy that there are laws God gives us, if we keep them we will be blessed, if not we will be cursed until we are driven from the land.

Again, Darwin is describing a natural process, the Bible is talking about obedience to a personal agency. Since the concepts are different, the charge of plagiarism is totally off base. It's possible that the Deteronomist was actually observing a natural phenomenon which he mistakenly attributed to a divine agent. But, that wasn't his understanding of what was going on according to the text. So, your accusation of plagiarism is unfounded and ludicrous.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

That species are fertile is empirically observable without a need for the Bible. In addition to that, Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace both acknowledged the role played by Thomas Malthus not the Bible in the development of their own ideas. Darwin said:

Wallace stated:


The Bible attributes fertility to the command of a personal agent [God] whereas Darwin's theory attributes it to an impersonal natural process. That isn't a Biblical idea.





You'll have to show me. I'm not aware of any such observation about population size in the Bible.




Again, Darwin is describing a natural process, the Bible is talking about obedience to a personal agency. Since the concepts are different, the charge of plagiarism is totally off base. It's possible that the Deteronomist was actually observing a natural phenomenon which he mistakenly attributed to a divine agent. But, that wasn't his understanding of what was going on according to the text. So, your accusation of plagiarism is unfounded and ludicrous.

1. "Charles Darwin had a non-conformist Unitarian background, but attended a Church of England school.[1] With the aim of becoming a clergyman he went to the University of Cambridge for the required BA degree, which included studies of Anglican theology. He took great interest in natural history and became filled with zeal for science as defined by John Herschel, based on the natural theology of William Paley which presented the argument from divine design in nature to explain adaptation as God acting through laws of nature."

Based on this I think it is a safe assumption that Darwin knew the Bible and was influenced by it.

2. His theory that man evolved from single celled organisms is eloquently expressed in Genesis -- "God formed man from the dust of the ground".

3. There was a major debate going on concerning species, evolution, and how man was formed at the time of Darwin. A debate that he participated in with his letters and private conversations.

Based on these three reasons I think it would have been prudent and wise on his part to tie as much of his theory to a Biblical basis as that would have reduced a lot of the vitriol that exploded over this theory during his life. He even had to answer charges that he was an atheist.

If George Harrison was guilty of plagiarism in his song "My sweet Lord" then by the same reasoning I think it is fair to say the same of Darwin.

What is really outrageous to me is that this theory was presented as a counterpoint to the Bible, even Darwin supported this interpretation in his private correspondence. That is adding insult to injury.

Plagiarism -- the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as your own.

The fundamental truths or "facts" that Darwin used to build his theory are clearly stated in the Bible, prior to his writing. The theory itself is clearly stated in the Bible, explaining how man was formed. This is all the evidence that they had against George Harrison when he was found to have "subconsciously plagiarized" the tune.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

1. "Charles Darwin had a non-conformist Unitarian background, but attended a Church of England school.[1] With the aim of becoming a clergyman he went to the University of Cambridge for the required BA degree, which included studies of Anglican theology. He took great interest in natural history and became filled with zeal for science as defined by John Herschel, based on the natural theology of William Paley which presented the argument from divine design in nature to explain adaptation as God acting through laws of nature."

My goodness, my goodness, my goodness. Bro ZNP has made me realize. Something Witness Lee completely failed to see about the Lord's Recovery.

That, Darwin revealed undiscovered truths in the Bible, and revealed them in his seminal truth revealing work, entitled, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"

I don't remember Lee's rundown of the Lord's Recovery from Martin Luther on down, but I know Lee missed one very important groundbreaking step in The Recovery.

And that is : Charles Darwin. I think he's bigger than Luther. And bigger than Nee and Lee.

What a revelation bro ZNP! Wow! and more Wow's!. Thanks. And I said that you'd just be twisting the Bible and evolution into a pretzel. That'll learn me.

For this reason, I'm voting you, bro ZNP, as this age's new MOTA ... Somebody contact Ron Kangas ASAP. The age of the Blended Brothers is over. They weren't ever part of The Recovery doctrine anyway.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

My goodness, my goodness, my goodness. Bro ZNP has made me realize. Something Witness Lee completely failed to see about the Lord's Recovery.

That, Darwin revealed undiscovered truths in the Bible, and revealed them in his seminal truth revealing work, entitled, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"

I don't remember Lee's rundown of the Lord's Recovery from Martin Luther on down, but I know Lee missed one very important groundbreaking step in The Recovery.

And that is : Charles Darwin. I think he's bigger than Luther. And bigger than Nee and Lee.

What a revelation bro ZNP! Wow! and more Wow's!. Thanks. And I said that you'd just be twisting the Bible and evolution into a pretzel. That'll learn me.

For this reason, I'm voting you, bro ZNP, as this age's new MOTA ... Somebody contact Ron Kangas ASAP. The age of the Blended Brothers is over. They weren't ever part of The Recovery doctrine anyway.

Don't you mean POTA?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

1. "Charles Darwin had a non-conformist Unitarian background, but attended a Church of England school.[1] With the aim of becoming a clergyman he went to the University of Cambridge for the required BA degree, which included studies of Anglican theology. He took great interest in natural history and became filled with zeal for science as defined by John Herschel, based on the natural theology of William Paley which presented the argument from divine design in nature to explain adaptation as God acting through laws of nature."

Based on this I think it is a safe assumption that Darwin knew the Bible and was influenced by it.

It doesn't follow from that that he plagiarized the Bible as you have alleged.

2. His theory that man evolved from single celled organisms is eloquently expressed in Genesis -- "God formed man from the dust of the ground".

You're reading that into the verse which says nothing about species of organisms arising and developing through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce which is what Darwin's theory entails. Show me any one who interpreted the verse the way you do before Darwin produced his theory based on first hand biological research.

If George Harrison was guilty of plagiarism in his song "My sweet Lord" then by the same reasoning I think it is fair to say the same of Darwin.

I don't see the relevance.

The fundamental truths or "facts" that Darwin used to build his theory are clearly stated in the Bible, prior to his writing. The theory itself is clearly stated in the Bible, explaining how man was formed. This is all the evidence that they had against George Harrison when he was found to have "subconsciously plagiarized" the tune.

You haven't shown that the facts of Darwinism are clearly stated in the Bible. George Harrison doesn't help your case. Your claim that Darwin plagiarized the Bible looks sillier and sillier the more you talk about it.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

My goodness, my goodness, my goodness. Bro ZNP has made me realize. Something Witness Lee completely failed to see about the Lord's Recovery.

That, Darwin revealed undiscovered truths in the Bible, and revealed them in his seminal truth revealing work, entitled, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"

I don't remember Lee's rundown of the Lord's Recovery from Martin Luther on down, but I know Lee missed one very important groundbreaking step in The Recovery.

And that is : Charles Darwin. I think he's bigger than Luther. And bigger than Nee and Lee.

What a revelation bro ZNP! Wow! and more Wow's!. Thanks. And I said that you'd just be twisting the Bible and evolution into a pretzel. That'll learn me.

For this reason, I'm voting you, bro ZNP, as this age's new MOTA ... Somebody contact Ron Kangas ASAP. The age of the Blended Brothers is over. They weren't ever part of The Recovery doctrine anyway.

Yeah. That didn't happen and he isn't.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Yeah. That didn't happen and he isn't.

Oh stop being so stodgy. Or stop looking thru fundamentalist optics.

And get the vision. Darwin revealed truths almost as much as Newton. Are you telling me that truth has nothing to do with God? The truth will set us free. Darwin's Recovery is greater than all recovery's so far, or right up there.

Can't you see it? You just don't want to give bro ZNP any credit for seeing something valid. Get on board. Become evolved.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

You're reading that into the verse which says nothing about species of organisms arising and developing through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce which is what Darwin's theory entails. Show me any one who interpreted the verse the way you do before Darwin produced his theory based on first hand biological research.

Verse 7. - And the Lord God (Jehovah Elohim) formed man of the dust of the ground. Literally, dust from the ground. Here, again, Bleek, Kalisch, and the theologians of their school discover contrariety between this account of man's creation and that which has been given in the preceding chapter. In that man is represented as having been created by the Divine word, in the Divine image, and male and female simultaneously; whereas in this his creation is exhibited as a painful process of elaboration from the clay by the hand of God, who works it like a potter (asah; LXX., πλάσσω), and, after having first constructed man, by a subsequent operation forms woman. But the first account does not assert that Adam and Eve were created together, and gives no details of the formation of either. These are supplied by the present narrative, which, beginning with the construction of his body from the fine dust of the ground, designedly represents it as an evolution or development of the material universe, and ends by setting it before us as animated by the breath of God, reserving for later treatment the mode of Eve's production, when the circumstances that led to it have been described. (Pulpit commentary)

(7) And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground.—Literally, formed the man (adam) dust from the ground. In this section the prominent idea is not that of producing out of nothing, but of forming, that is, shaping and moulding. So in Genesis 2:19 Jehovah forms the animals, and in Genesis 2:8 He plants a garden. As Elohim is almighty power, so Jehovah is wisdom and skill, and His works are full of contrivance and design. (Ellicot commentary)

The word ייצר, jitzer, here rendered he formed, is not used concerning any other creature, and implies a gradual process in the work, with great accuracy and exactness. It is properly used of potters forming vessels on the wheel; and Rabbi D. Kimchi says, that, when used concerning the creation of man, it signifies the formation of his members. (Benson commentary)

7. Here the sacred writer supplies a few more particulars about the first pair.
formed—had FORMED MAN OUT OF THE DUST OF THE GROUND. Science has proved that the substance of his flesh, sinews, and bones, consists of the very same elements as the soil which forms the crust of the earth and the limestone that lies embedded in its bowels. But from that mean material what an admirable structure has been reared in the human body (Ps 139:14). (Jameson-Fausset-Brown Bible commentary)

There is nothing silly about viewing this verse as referring to an evolution in contrast to creating out of nothing. Many have noted that this verse has been proven to be scientifically accurate.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Verse 7. - And the Lord God (Jehovah Elohim) formed man of the dust of the ground. Literally, dust from the ground. Here, again, Bleek, Kalisch, and the theologians of their school discover contrariety between this account of man's creation and that which has been given in the preceding chapter. In that man is represented as having been created by the Divine word, in the Divine image, and male and female simultaneously; whereas in this his creation is exhibited as a painful process of elaboration from the clay by the hand of God, who works it like a potter (asah; LXX., πλάσσω), and, after having first constructed man, by a subsequent operation forms woman. But the first account does not assert that Adam and Eve were created together, and gives no details of the formation of either. These are supplied by the present narrative, which, beginning with the construction of his body from the fine dust of the ground, designedly represents it as an evolution or development of the material universe, and ends by setting it before us as animated by the breath of God, reserving for later treatment the mode of Eve's production, when the circumstances that led to it have been described. (Pulpit commentary)

(7) And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground.—Literally, formed the man (adam) dust from the ground. In this section the prominent idea is not that of producing out of nothing, but of forming, that is, shaping and moulding. So in Genesis 2:19 Jehovah forms the animals, and in Genesis 2:8 He plants a garden. As Elohim is almighty power, so Jehovah is wisdom and skill, and His works are full of contrivance and design. (Ellicot commentary)

The word ייצר, jitzer, here rendered he formed, is not used concerning any other creature, and implies a gradual process in the work, with great accuracy and exactness. It is properly used of potters forming vessels on the wheel; and Rabbi D. Kimchi says, that, when used concerning the creation of man, it signifies the formation of his members. (Benson commentary)

7. Here the sacred writer supplies a few more particulars about the first pair.
formed—had FORMED MAN OUT OF THE DUST OF THE GROUND. Science has proved that the substance of his flesh, sinews, and bones, consists of the very same elements as the soil which forms the crust of the earth and the limestone that lies embedded in its bowels. But from that mean material what an admirable structure has been reared in the human body (Ps 139:14). (Jameson-Fausset-Brown Bible commentary)

There is nothing silly about viewing this verse as referring to an evolution in contrast to creating out of nothing. Many have noted that this verse has been proven to be scientifically accurate.

Ha ha ha ... and more than 2000 years before Genesis was written, in the Sumerian mythological system, the god Enki created humankind out of clay. And all that is scientifically proven too ... because that wasn't the bronze age, it was the peak of the age of science. Ha ha.

ZNP: "Literally, dust from the ground." bahahahaha. Surely you are just pulling our leg with this silliness.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Ha ha ha ... and more than 2000 years before Genesis was written, in the Sumerian mythological system, the god Enki created humankind out of clay. And all that is scientifically proven too ... because that wasn't the bronze age, it was the peak of the age of science. Ha ha.

ZNP: "Literally, dust from the ground." bahahahaha. Surely you are just pulling our leg with this silliness.

Why is it considered "mythology"?

If we found a planet in the goldilocks zone we would seed it (plant a garden) and might want to make someone to "tend" the garden. We would form them from the "dust" of the ground using genetic modification.

What I think is completely silly is the idea that "bronze age" man built buildings using stones that weight 1,000 tons.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Oh stop being so stodgy. Or stop looking thru fundamentalist optics.

And get the vision. Darwin revealed truths almost as much as Newton. Are you telling me that truth has nothing to do with God? The truth will set us free. Darwin's Recovery is greater than all recovery's so far, or right up there.

Can't you see it? You just don't want to give bro ZNP any credit for seeing something valid. Get on board. Become evolved.

What I am objecting to is the notion that Darwin plagiarized the Bible. That proposition is preposterous on its face. But, I am giving ZNP every opportunity to prove it. He hasn't presented a single good argument for it yet.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Verse 7. - And the Lord God (Jehovah Elohim) formed man of the dust of the ground. Literally, dust from the ground. Here, again, Bleek, Kalisch, and the theologians of their school discover contrariety between this account of man's creation and that which has been given in the preceding chapter. In that man is represented as having been created by the Divine word, in the Divine image, and male and female simultaneously; whereas in this his creation is exhibited as a painful process of elaboration from the clay by the hand of God, who works it like a potter (asah; LXX., πλάσσω), and, after having first constructed man, by a subsequent operation forms woman. But the first account does not assert that Adam and Eve were created together, and gives no details of the formation of either. These are supplied by the present narrative, which, beginning with the construction of his body from the fine dust of the ground, designedly represents it as an evolution or development of the material universe, and ends by setting it before us as animated by the breath of God, reserving for later treatment the mode of Eve's production, when the circumstances that led to it have been described. (Pulpit commentary)

(7) And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground.—Literally, formed the man (adam) dust from the ground. In this section the prominent idea is not that of producing out of nothing, but of forming, that is, shaping and moulding. So in Genesis 2:19 Jehovah forms the animals, and in Genesis 2:8 He plants a garden. As Elohim is almighty power, so Jehovah is wisdom and skill, and His works are full of contrivance and design. (Ellicot commentary)

The word ייצר, jitzer, here rendered he formed, is not used concerning any other creature, and implies a gradual process in the work, with great accuracy and exactness. It is properly used of potters forming vessels on the wheel; and Rabbi D. Kimchi says, that, when used concerning the creation of man, it signifies the formation of his members. (Benson commentary)

7. Here the sacred writer supplies a few more particulars about the first pair.
formed—had FORMED MAN OUT OF THE DUST OF THE GROUND. Science has proved that the substance of his flesh, sinews, and bones, consists of the very same elements as the soil which forms the crust of the earth and the limestone that lies embedded in its bowels. But from that mean material what an admirable structure has been reared in the human body (Ps 139:14). (Jameson-Fausset-Brown Bible commentary)

There is nothing silly about viewing this verse as referring to an evolution in contrast to creating out of nothing. Many have noted that this verse has been proven to be scientifically accurate.

Darwin's theory is about natural selection not about forming human beings like a potter. The fact that the human organism contains the same elements as the soil doesn't explain how the process works which is what Darwin did. Darwin's theory didn't plagiarize the Bible, it contradicted it. That's what the hubbub was about. According to Darwin's theory, the Bible gets the process wrong. You haven't produced a single credible shred of evidence that Darwin plagiarized the Bible yet. Your position on this looks ever more like what it seemed at first---a baseless, false accusation. Admit it-- you were wrong.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Darwin's theory is about natural selection not about forming human beings like a potter. The fact that the human organism contains the same elements as the soil says nothing about the how the process works. According to Darwin's theory, the Bible gets the process wrong. You haven't produced a single credible shred of evidence that Darwin plagiarized the Bible yet. Darwin's theory didn't plagiarize the Bible, it contradicted it. That's what the hubbub was about. Your position on this looks ever more like what it seemed at first---a stupid and pernicious accusation. Admit it-- you were wrong.

What those four quotes prove is that the Bible expositors were dancing around the issue without being too plain.

1. This verse, unlike the standard understanding of creation, describes a long, careful process.

2. This verse could describe the creation of man as an "evolution".

3. This verse is scientifically accurate.

Yes, you can describe Darwin's theory as "survival of the fittest" but that is far too simplistic, nor did I ever say that was what was plagiarized.

His theory was answering the question of how we get different species. The religious view that prevailed during the day was that each species was created by God and was distinct from the next.

Darwin came out and said that one species can and does evolve into another. The mechanism that he theorized was that mutations could be advantageous, like hitting the lottery.

Unlike Darwin the Bible says that it was God's hand that operated, like a potter. So on that point the two are different, no plagiarism.

But what Gen 2:7 says, and what other expositors as well as myself have pointed out is:

1. The formation of Man's body was not spoken into being out of nothing, but rather was a long and careful process of being formed from dust. Other expositors have described this process as an "evolution".

2. Being formed from dust is in complete agreement with all current scientific theories, both the theory of evolution that we evolved from single cell organisms, and the chemical composition of man.

Therefore there was no reason to suggest that Darwin's theory contradicted the Bible, on the contrary, based on Darwin's study and familiarity with the Bible it can be argued that he was subconsciously influenced by the Bible.

The only reason that the charge of plagiarism is "silly" is because you are allowed to take the Bible's ideas without charge, they have been given to you freely.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

What I am objecting to is the notion that Darwin plagiarized the Bible. That proposition is preposterous on its face.

It's too absurd to bother with.

But Darwin introducing truths of God is no small matter.

So let's go with ZNP's equating Darwin with the Bible.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

What those four quotes prove is that the Bible expositors were dancing around the issue without being too plain.

1. This verse, unlike the standard understanding of creation, describes a long, careful process.

The verse says nothing about the process being long. This is just you seeing what you want to see.

2. This verse could describe the creation of man as an "evolution".

The verse could say that there are pancakes on Mars but it doesn't. Neither does it mention evolution.

3. This verse is scientifically accurate.

No it isn't. Modern science is based on the idea that nature's workings, like those of a machine, are best be understood without reference to gods or spirits.

Yes, you can describe Darwin's theory as "survival of the fittest" but that is far too simplistic, nor did I ever say that was what was plagiarized.

"Survival of the fittest" was coined by Herbert Spencer not Darwin.

His theory was answering the question of how we get different species. The religious view that prevailed during the day was that each species was created by God and was distinct from the next.

What you're calling "the religious view" is what it says in the first chapter of Genesis.

Darwin came out and said that one species can and does evolve into another. The mechanism that he theorized was that mutations could be advantageous, like hitting the lottery.

Thus, did Darwin contradict the Genesis account. It's stupid to say he plagiarized what he plainly refuted.

Unlike Darwin the Bible says that it was God's hand that operated, like a potter. So on that point the two are different, no plagiarism.
But what Gen 2:7 says, and what other expositors as well as myself have pointed out is:

1. The formation of Man's body was not spoken into being out of nothing, but rather was a long and careful process of being formed from dust. Other expositors have described this process as an "evolution".

According to Genesis 2:7 it was a personal act of God, not a natural process. And the verse says nothing about it taking a long time. Your just making that up.

2. Being formed from dust is in complete agreement with all current scientific theories, both the theory of evolution that we evolved from single cell organisms, and the chemical composition of man.

Verse 2:7 says nothing to indicate that dust contains living organisms. Again you're just making that up. They didn't have microscopes.

Therefore there was no reason to suggest that Darwin's theory contradicted the Bible, on the contrary, based on Darwin's study and familiarity with the Bible it can be argued that he was subconsciously influenced by the Bible.

The Bible says God personally created man. Darwin said that humans evolved through an impersonal process from ape-like ancestors. I don't know how the contradiction could be any plainer. Darwin was consciously influenced by observing nature scientifically and carefully for many years.

The only reason that the charge of plagiarism is "silly" is because you are allowed to take the Bible's ideas without charge, they have been given to you freely.

That's another reason it's silly but not by any means the only one or the most flagrant as I have repeatedly shown.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

The verse says nothing about the process being long. This is just you seeing what you want to see.

As well as Benson commentary, Ellicot commentary and Pulpit commentary. The process of a potter making something from dust, to clay, to fired, etc. is a much lengthier process than the one described in chapter 1 of "God said it, and it was so".

Originally Posted by zeek

The verse could say that there are pancakes on Mars but it doesn't. Neither does it mention evolution.

Depends on how God formed man from the dust. If he took those organisms in that dust and by using genetics slowly modified the genetics until He had formed a human body then it certainly does speak of evolution. When evolutionary biologists speak of evolution that is precisely what they are speaking of.

Originally Posted by zeek

No it isn't. Modern science is based on the idea that nature's workings, like those of a machine, are best be understood without reference to gods or spirits.

That is ridiculous. There is no such prerequisite to scientific exploration. It primarily refers to a process by which we can test hypothesis to get replicable results.

Originally Posted by zeek

"Survival of the fittest" was coined by Herbert Spencer not Darwin.

What you're calling "the religious view" is what it says in the first chapter of Genesis.

Well, since Genesis has a chapter 2 as well that should be taken into account. Any explanation that is based on chapter 1 while ignoring chapter 2 is obviously flawed.

Originally Posted by zeek

Thus, did Darwin contradict the Genesis account. It's stupid to say he plagiarized what he plainly refuted.

You cannot say that chapter 1 of Genesis is the "Genesis account" if this ignores chapter 2. The Genesis account has to include both chapters 1 and 2.

Originally Posted by zeek

According to Genesis 2:7 it was a personal act of God, not a natural process. And the verse says nothing about it taking a long time. Your just making that up.

Once again we are being "comparative". In chapter 1 the creative act is described as God speaking the word and it was so. In chapter 2 the formation of man's body is described as a potter, taking dust, making clay, forming it into some vessel, perhaps glazing it, and then firing it. Anyone familiar with pottery knows that this is a lengthy process. Once the clay is made it will generally take at least three weeks if not an entire month to make a glazed pot.

Originally Posted by zeek

Verse 2:7 says nothing to indicate that dust contains living organisms. Again you're just making that up. They didn't have microscopes.

How is that significant? The Bible tells you what God did in making man and what we are made of. That is fully consistent with Darwin, chemists and other scientists understanding.

Originally Posted by zeek

The Bible says God personally created man. Darwin said that humans evolved through an impersonal process from ape-like ancestors. I don't know how the contradiction could be any plainer. Darwin was consciously influenced by observing nature scientifically and carefully for many years.

Darwin, like all other scientists created a theory based on observations. The observation was that one species can and does evolve into another species. The implication of this is that all creatures on this planet could have evolved from single cell organisms. That is the key part of the theory that aligns with the Bible.

The Bible says it was a creative process of God that formed man, Darwin says it was the result of chance.

Mathematicians have analyzed the odds of man evolving based on pure chance. They have determined that the data does not support this.

It is time to wake up. Many people are investigating the theory of evolution and we are trying to fill in the multitude of gaps in the theory, the "missing links" that the theory predicts. They are honest scientists just trying to understand the mechanism. (Obviously in this topic there are a whole lot of people with an agenda who are not honest).

Now we have proven that different species share genetic information, so the idea that man could evolve from a single cell, IMHO has been demonstrated.

What has not been explained is a whole host of questions that come along with that when you study the fossil record (like Lazarus taxa, etc)

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Darwin, like all other scientists created a theory based on observations. The observation was that one species can and does evolve into another species.

How would Darwin observe such a thing? And please show me where Darwin makes such a claim.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

How would Darwin observe such a thing? And please show me where Darwin makes such a claim.

Darwin claimed that bears evolved into Whales in his first edition of the Origin of Species but due to ridicule removed this from later editions.

However, you can observe such a thing in the fossil record (not bears but another mammal).

[awareness]

I've been meaning to share this for awhile. This book is for you bro ZNP :

"Thank God for Evolution: How the Marriage of Science and Religion Will Transform Your Life and Our World"
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B001BAGWH8...ng=UTF8&btkr=1

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

I've been meaning to share this for awhile. This book is for you bro ZNP :

"Thank God for Evolution: How the Marriage of Science and Religion Will Transform Your Life and Our World"
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B001BAGWH8...ng=UTF8&btkr=1

Thanks, I'll enjoy reading this.

To me it is like climbing a mountain. Different routes up a large mountain can begin 15 miles apart, but the closer you get to the top the closer you get.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

As well as Benson commentary, Ellicot commentary and Pulpit commentary. The process of a potter making something from dust, to clay, to fired, etc. is a much lengthier process than the one described in chapter 1 of "God said it, and it was so".

Genesis 2:7 is about the putative creation of man only. The other creatures are called into being separately and independently according to Genesis 1. They do not evolve from a common ancestor according to the text. Nor is man said to have evolved from other species in 2:7. How long it would take for God to sculpt a man depends on how fast he is or how fast he chooses to work which is not stated in the text. You're just reading in time span based on knowledge that the writer of Genesis shows no evidence of having.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Genesis 2:7 is about the putative creation of man only. The other creatures are called into being separately and independently according to Genesis 1. They do not evolve from a common ancestor according to the text. Nor is man said to have evolved from other species in 2:7. How long it would take for God to sculpt a man depends on how fast he is or how fast he chooses to work which is not stated in the text. You're just reading in time span based on knowledge that the writer of Genesis shows no evidence of having.

The other creatures are separate and independent of man? How many creations are "commonly understood" to be described in Genesis 1?

I thought there was 1 creation. How many do you think there were? Millions? Billions?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The other creatures are separate and independent of man? How many creations are "commonly understood" to be described in Genesis 1?

I thought there was 1 creation. How many do you think there were? Millions? Billions?

No. Just four.

11 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 So the evening and the morning were the third day.

That's numero uno.

20 Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.” 21 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 So the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

There's number two.

24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

There's the third.

26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all[b] the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

There's the fourth.

Nothing about how any of the earlier organism evolved into later ones. The evolutionary information you have lighting up in your neural network came from a different source. You could have read the bible over and for 1900 years and you wouldn't have come up with the interpretation you now think you are reading in it.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

No. Just four.



That's numero uno.



There's number two.



There's the third.



There's the fourth.

Nothing about how any of the earlier organism evolved into later ones. The evolutionary information you have lighting up in your neural network came from a different source. You could have read the bible over and for 1900 years and you wouldn't have come up with the interpretation you now think you are reading in it.

Why is "let the Earth bring forth" = a creation?

God created the heavens and the Earth = 1 creation.

Let the Earth bring forth -- still part of the Earth God created.

Let the waters bring forth -- still part of the Earth God created.

However, when he gets to man He "makes man" and then says "He created man". That is why this needs a little more clarification in chapter 2.

Formed from the dust -- part of the Earth God created.

But this time God breathed into him and he became a living soul -- that is somewhat unique from the initial creation.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Why is "let the Earth bring forth" = a creation?

God created the heavens and the Earth = 1 creation.

Let the Earth bring forth -- still part of the Earth God created.

Let the waters bring forth -- still part of the Earth God created.

However, when he gets to man He "makes man" and then says "He created man". That is why this needs a little more clarification in chapter 2.

Formed from the dust -- part of the Earth God created.

But this time God breathed into him and he became a living soul -- that is somewhat unique from the initial creation.

So what. It doesn't add up to natural selection which required observation of nature and couldn't be plagiarized from the Bible because the Bible doesn't explain it. Your thesis is bull****.

[awareness]

To the two z's :

Hey bro ZNP, don't fret. Bro zeek just doesn't cotton much to Biblical Science Fiction. He's still hung up on taking the Bible as written. He lacks any measure of imagination. Shame, shame.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

To the two z's :

Hey bro ZNP, don't fret. Bro zeek just doesn't cotton much to Biblical Science Fiction. He's still hung up on taking the Bible as written. He lacks any measure of imagination. Shame, shame.

...LOL....Imagination is cool but it does not constitute empirical evidence.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

...LOL....Imagination is cool but it does not constitute empirical evidence.

Once again changing the topic. The Poster in Post #1 asked if we (Bible believing Christians) believe "Evolution is false". (I suppose these questions were a basis for his decision to be an atheist though that is merely my assumption).

My response is that there is no reason that believing the Bible would require me to believe that evolution is false.

Now I suppose if you define evolution as "purely random" without the hand of God in any way forming man, then yes, that would be contrary to the Bible. But if that is your definition please show me the empirical evidence that the scientist have unearthed that proves God's hand did not participate in "forming man from the dust of the ground".

Hello everybody

It's me again, OP. It has been a long time and many things have happened in the 10 months since I last posted on here.

The day after my post I discovered that the original thread was moved to another section, and trying to follow the link sent me to a page that made it seem like I had to create an account to view and participate.
I haven't been back until today.

To be honest I'm quite disappointed with your responses. You lost yourself in arguments about details that in no way would have helped me in my despair. I don't care about your opinion about Darvin, if you believe the whole world, humanity or whatever was created 6000 years ago.
I wanted to understand what the Local Church really is and how a life is affected by it.

But I'm not here to argue. I found the answers to my questions and I'm here to give an update.

On December 27 2017 I board a plane to China. Cici's mom told me that Cici planned to come back to China for her summer holiday. A few days before my flight (and several weeks after booking) I get the news that she will in fact come home and arrive on December 28.
The days prior to my flight (and on the plane) I read the bible again. I had read it when I was much younger (probably too young) but never in one go. And nobody could have been more surprised than I when I realize that I start to believe. I didn't think that was possible but I realize that I WANT to believe. I want to believe that Jesus died on the cross to forgive us sinful humans our sins. To forgive my own sins.
On December 29 Cici and I meet for the first time. Her mom told me that when she first told Cici that I was here to see her she got exhilerated. When we meet though Cici is very cold and keeps her distance.
That night after long and emotional talks with her mother (through translator-app) I decide that for my own sanity I must stop loving the person Cici used to be... and book my flight back home. At that point I believed that I had forever lost her.

Miracles happen somtimes.
Cici and I meet again the next day for dinner and the sentiment changes. The talking goes easier, the topics go deeper. When I tell Cici that my flight back is scheduled for the next day I can see disappointment in her eyes. More talking and she admits that she'd like me to stay longer. With her help we reschedule my flight to mid January.
We meet nearly every day after. We read the bible together, we sing songs together, we go hiking together, we laugh and we cry together. We discuss bible passages and while not always sharing the same opinions we respect each others views.

She apologizes for what she had put me through in the year prior. Through her studies in the school she now knows that the videos she shared were not christian but heretic.
She is a much more balanced person now, still firmly believes in Christ but all of her "craziness" is gone. She tells me how much she enjoys the community of the Local Church and the studies in her school and how happy she is to believe in Christ. I can tell that she's telling the truth.

What I thought - the LC kept Cici from contacting her family, the "crazy videos" are what the LC believes in,... - turns out to not be true. The LC might have some worldviews that I can't share but it isn't the brainwashing cult I believed it to be.

I feel empty when I board the plane back home. Cici will spend one more year in her school in New Zealand but even though we still love each other (and even more so because of it) Cici doesn't want to stay in contact with me. Not during the year, not ever.
We are one heart and one soul, but in her words "not one spirit". I'm heartbroken but also glad that I made the decision to try and meet her. For the last year and a half I have been in constant worry about her wellbeing and that weight has finally been lifted from me. I know she's happy the way she is now and that she finds comfort in her faith.
Who am I to judge?

I don't believe everything the LC and many christians believe in, but I believe in a creator and in Jesus Christ now. My travel turned out to also have been a spiritual one.

I don't know if I can take it and never see you again, Cici. Every time we meet we fall in love. I know it means something to you, too.

Therefore I'd like to end this update with:
Until we meet again may God hold you in the palm of his hands.

Love,
小兔兔

[awareness]

Brother Unregistered, you're still young, with the idealism that goes with youth, and perhaps naive. There's likely a lot of changes coming in your future.

Good luck with it bro ... blessings.

And stay away from Eastern Lightning ( “Lord Changshou” )

H-awareness.

[Intothewind]

As perhaps the only active atheist on this forum...I give my condolences, and agree this thread was shamefully derailed. I can only note one thing.


You know well that people are far from rational beings. I'd love to claim I thought my way out of it. The truth is that without some social/personal turmoil that made being with the community unpleasant, I may have never left.


I don't have any particular advice, I can only wish you the best of luck.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Intothewind

As perhaps the only active atheist on this forum...

Thanks for being active on this forum. That's cool. But if you're out here it makes me wonder if you are a Christian atheist.