Rant Every non-Christian spends their life leading everyone to eternal damnation.
- Thread starter James
- Start date
Weebhunter3000
The Bee W Sea
We get it, you like men. Time to move on.
Liquid Chud
:D
Would your ideal Christian religious state be multiracial?
James
Seventh-day Adventist
Yes, but racial segregation and eugenics would take place there.
Otto Ernst Remer
Bring back White Excellence.
I know I am going to get hate for this, but I don't care
According to Ussher chronology (using the bible), the Earth was created at about 4,188 BCE. You can back this claim up with bible verses, If you want I can list them.
To suggest that the earth is older than 6,000 years (which is obviously is), is to deny bible and thus Christianity. There's other aspects regarding the Bible which suggest it being the truth is contradictory to reality, If you want I can list those too, but this one is pretty hard to disprove from a Christian standpoint.
1Based Frog1
Well-known member
Ussher’s chronology is based on a literalist reading of genealogies, which isn’t how the Church Fathers or most serious theologians interpreted them. Even St. Augustine warned against clinging to rigid timelines when they contradict observable reality. Christianity doesn’t stand or fall on Young Earth Creationism.
Otto Ernst Remer
Bring back White Excellence.
So what about the bible shouldn't be considered literal, I distinctly remember being told all the ages of the old testament were truth, furthermore let's say those 7 days weren't days but rather increments of time, which is something you hear often, The bible still then assumes that Humanity's history only spans 6 thousand years. If not creationism, then what did you think the Ancient Near Eastern Religion was preaching? I feel like as science as developed overtime Christians tend to make each verse more and more metaphorical, ignoring how these passages are clearly meant to be taken literally.
Liquid Chud
:D
Really nigga?
1Based Frog1
Well-known member
The problem with a strict literal interpretation is that it completely ignores the context and intent of scripture. The six days in Genesis could easily be a poetic or theological framework, not some scientific account. Ancient Near Eastern texts weren’t even written with modern science in mind. And Genesis isn’t about giving a literal timeline of creation; it’s about showcasing God’s sovereignty and His creative power by creating the universe without difficulty.
Otto Ernst Remer
Bring back White Excellence.
potato poTATo
Otto Ernst Remer
Bring back White Excellence.
I mention this in my reply to your original comment, perhaps you didn't read it so I'll repeat what I said on the whole "6 days of creation thing", "furthermore let's say those 7 days weren't days but rather increments of time, which is something you hear often, The bible still then assumes that Humanity's history only spans 6 thousand years" This 6 thousand years comes from the various lists of the patriarchs, and their ages.
James
Seventh-day Adventist
No, the Earth was created on October 23, 4004 B.C.
Undermining the Holy Scriptures as allegorical and figurative creates subjectivity, which leads to unnecessary fragmentation.
Otto Ernst Remer
Bring back White Excellence.
Young earth creationism was the position of every church father and every Orthodox saint who spoke up about this subject. To suggest that you can just throw that out of the window "because muh science" is heresy.
This is also wrong. Saint Basil explicitly defends a literalist reading of Genesis and so does St. Ephraim the Syrian.
Do you even know what Augustine actually wrote about the age of the earth?
1Based Frog1
Well-known member
De Genesi ad Litteram shows he saw the creation days as allegorical.
But that doesn't mean every part of Genesis was meant as a strict historical record.
Genealogies in the Bible weren’t written to provide a historical timeline. They skip generations and use symbolic numbers rather than modern historical record-keeping. Even Jewish scholars before Christ didn’t treat them as exact chronological data. If you treat the Bible as some history textbook you're missing the point of why it was written.
He was still a young earth creationist, meaning that opinion has no relation to the age of the earth. So he disagreed with the general consensus of the fathers on one thing (I'm assuming what you said is true). That doesn't mean you should follow Augustine instead of the general consensus.
Also, Augustine still said the following:
"So then, this whole text must first be discussed in terms of history, and then in terms of prophecy. In terms of history deeds and events are being related, in terms of prophecy future events are being foretold. One should not look with a jaundiced eye, to be sure, on anyone who wants to take everything that is said here absolutely literally, and who can avoid blasphemy in doing so, and present everything as in accordance with Catholic faith; on the contrary one should hold up such a person as an outstanding and holy admirable understander of the text." -St. Augustine, On Genesis: The Refutation of the Manichees 2.3
"Let us omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race...They are deceived by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousands of years, though reckoning by the sacred writings we find that not 6,000 years have passed." -City of God 12:10
As you can see, he's not defending an old earth at all.
Well that's what the fathers of the church say. They say it was a historical record and that the events in it are very real and very literal. And they defend a young earth. You can either choose your own logic (pride) or you can choose the teaching of the church. But you cannot choose both.
1Based Frog1
Well-known member
I guess I should've mentioned I was responding from an Russian Orthodox perspective. We don’t necessarily have a single, unified stance on the age of the Earth.
I'm under the Moscow Patriarchate myself. We do have a stance.
The impasse of “Orthodox” evolutionism. Priest George Maximov
If we open the Hexaemeron of St. Basil the Great or the Hexaemeron of St. Ambrose of Milan, we will see there apologetic passages, aimed at defending the biblical teaching against the criticisms of “outsiders.” Why did it need to be defended? Because for the secular intellectuals of the time...
There also exists a consensus among the saints as I have said. And not only ancient saints but also the more modern ones. Take for example Saint Paisios. You should look into 'Genesis, Creation and Early Man' by Fr. Seraphim Rose. You cannot find a single Orthodox saint who defended an old earth or evolution. And I'm more inclined to follow them rather than modern "scientists".
Spas
Well-known member
>human race is 300k years old even doe the oldest recorded writing is like 5 thousand years old
>trust me, it took us 295k years of cavemen to figure out how to write and only 5k from that point to go to the moon
>trust me, it took us 295k years of cavemen to figure out how to write and only 5k from that point to go to the moon
I had a friend who justified this by saying it took us 295k years to get out of africa and as soon as we stopped being niggers we started advancing
panchito
forum's best member
would be kekful if he actually meant we had to denegrify ourselves to evolve
Similar threads
