Creation or Evolution?, Which do you believe in? Options

[sweetangel2128]

No, you're right. Catholics aren't the only ones that use Holy Water. But, alot of denominations that Protestant often still retain Catholic traditions. It could be very true that the exorcism was based on real events. I'm not saying a girl couldn't be possessed.

Pentacostal. Ha. That's all I can say about that. Pentacostals are very liberal in their faith. Speaking in tongues, slain in the spirit. I don't believe any of those things because of Cecassionism. That is the belief that those ideals are brought upon by demonic influences. Speaking in tongues was a practice that given up centeries upon centeries ago.

I believe in being anointed. Maybe Jessica got those confused. The use of Holy water is just a ridiculous practice.

Not all protestants. I guess I am sorta considered a Protestant cause that is a form of Christianity but I am falling more in the catagory of Pentacostal.

Demonic influences. Holy spirit and tongues are both brought up in the Bible, so are you denying God's word about tongues? I think they are FAR from demonic. I have a Question, are you a Christian? If so, what Faith are you? Because I don't know one Christian that believes that tongues is demonic. Heres some verses from the Bible:

Acts 2:4 - All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.

Acts 10:46 - For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.

1 Corinthians 14:39 - Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues.

If the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues are demonic why would God say to speak in tongues and not deny it. Did you know that denying the holy ghost is blasphemy and is unforgivable by God?

[Kontroll]

Not all protestants. I guess I am sorta considered a Protestant cause that is a form of Christianity but I am falling more in the catagory of Pentacostal.

Demonic influences. Holy spirit and tongues are both brought up in the Bible, so are you denying God's word about tongues? I think they are FAR from demonic. I have a Question, are you a Christian? If so, what Faith are you? Because I don't know one Christian that believes that tongues is demonic. Heres some verses from the Bible:

Acts 2:4 - All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.

Acts 10:46 - For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.

1 Corinthians 14:39 - Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues.

If the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues are demonic why would God say to speak in tongues and not deny it. Did you know that denying the holy ghost is blasphemy and is unforgivable by God?

I KNOW ITS LONG. BUT ITS INFORMATIVE.

NOTE: It's useful to know that the two main sects of Christianity are Catholic and Protestant. When I say Protestant I mean any denomination that falls under that category.

Now, onto the fun stuff.

I'm not saying in any way, shape or form that the Pentecostal denomination is incorrect. They believe that you must be saved by the grace of our Lord Jesus to enter into Heaven.

We both have that in common.

Now, what in my faith that is present in yours is the topic of charismatic beliefs. Such as what was discussed earlier.

http://www.bible-truth.org/tongues.htm
I will note what I am citing from outside sources.
- - -
For the many Charismatics, their prayer life is one of praying in ecstatic speech without their understanding. Prayer is thus reduced to an emotional experience instead of pouring out their hearts in thanksgiving and presenting their petitions and supplications to the Lord. Those "praying in tongues" do not even know what they are praying. The services of the tongues movement is completely opposite of what the Bible teaches concerning worshiping God. They come to "receive" a blessing from the service, instead of coming to lift up other believers and worship the Lord as the Bible teaches. The "worship" of these churches is little more than a form of entertainment with an emotional experience, not unlike what happens in a musical rock concert.

John 4:24 clearly states, those that worship the Lord must do so in "spirit and truth."

How Does the Modern Gift of Tongues Compare to the Examples in the Book of Acts?

1. Missing in the modern practice of tongues is the supernatural acts of God as the event being accompanied by the sound as of a mighty rushing wind which fills the whole house and the appearance of cloven tongues of fire.

2. The modern gift of tongues is used as a so called "prayer language." There is only one verse in the Bible that seems to associate tongues with prayer. In 1 Corinthians 14:14-15, Paul says, "For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful. What is the result then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit and will also sing with understanding. Otherwise, if you bless with the spirit how will he who occupies the place of the uninformed say, `Amen' at your giving of thanks, since he does not understand what you say? You indeed give thanks well, but the other is not edified. I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than you all, yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue."

Paul goes on to say, "Brethren, do not be children in understanding: however, in malice babes, but in understanding be mature." Clearly Paul is condemning the misuse of tongues among the Corinthians as a prayer language. His rebuke is plain and establishes clearly that the gift of biblical tongues was not a prayer language. I says he would rather speak five word with his understanding that ten thousand words in tongues. Could God be make it any clearer that tongues is not given as a prayer language.

Is tongues a valid prayer language? The answer is no. At Pentecost it was a sign to unbelieving Jews, in which they heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In Acts 2:11, it says that those present testified, ". . . we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God." (Acts 2:11) Paul in 1 Corinthians 14: 14, is correcting the error of using tongues as prayer language. He says, in verse 15, that he would pray and sing both with his understanding, because to do otherwise is unfruitful. Plainly Paul is condemning those that had perverted the gift of tongues by teaching it was a prayer language. Earlier in verse 2, he concluded that when men spoke in tongues no one understood but God. He points out the singing and praying in a language that no one else knows does not help that person by teaching those present the truth. This is always in view in the Biblical and correct use of tongues. Paul emphatically states that tongues is not for believers, but a sign for unbelievers who hear the Gospel truth in their own language. The whole thesis of Paul addressing "tongues" in 1 Corinthians is that no one should be speaking tongues in the presence of others hearers who could not understand what was being said. (1 Cor. 14:33-40)

Using tongues as prayer language clearly violates 1 Corinthians 14:22, and this condemns the modern tongues movement as false, because it teaches in error it is special prayer language.

I believe in a movement called Cessationism. "In Christian theology, cessationism is the view that the charismatic gifts of the Holy Spirit, such as tongues, prophecy and healing, ceased being practiced early on in Church history.

Cessationists usually believe the miraculous gifts were given only for the foundation of the Church, during the time between the coming of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, c. AD 33 (see Acts 2) and the fulfillment of God's purposes in history, usually identified as either the completion of the last book of the New Testament or the death of the last Apostle. Its counterpart is continuationism."

Words in quotes are from www.wikipedia.org

That's my two cents. Alright, I'm seriously going to make a new topic because this is getting way too off topic.

[sweetangel2128]

I KNOW ITS LONG. BUT ITS INFORMATIVE.

NOTE: It's useful to know that the two main sects of Christianity are Catholic and Protestant. When I say Protestant I mean any denomination that falls under that category.

Now, onto the fun stuff.

I'm not saying in any way, shape or form that the Pentecostal denomination is incorrect. They believe that you must be saved by the grace of our Lord Jesus to enter into Heaven.

We both have that in common.

Now, what in my faith that is present in yours is the topic of charismatic beliefs. Such as what was discussed earlier.
John 4:24 clearly states, those that worship the Lord must do so in "spirit and truth."
I believe in a movement called Cessationism. "In Christian theology, cessationism is the view that the charismatic gifts of the Holy Spirit, such as tongues, prophecy and healing, ceased being practiced early on in Church history.

Cessationists usually believe the miraculous gifts were given only for the foundation of the Church, during the time between the coming of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, c. AD 33 (see Acts 2) and the fulfillment of God's purposes in history, usually identified as either the completion of the last book of the New Testament or the death of the last Apostle. Its counterpart is continuationism."

Words in quotes are from www.wikipedia.org

That's my two cents. Alright, I'm seriously going to make a new topic because this is getting way too off topic.

I wont make this long I promise so you believe in tongues though right? Well, pentacostals believe in speaking in tongues and healing given by God which is the holy spirit - presence of God. But you were saying something about believers not receiving the holy spirit or unbelievers or others not seeing it? That part didn't make sense to me.

[Kontroll]

I wont make this long I promise so you believe in tongues though right? Well, pentacostals believe in speaking in tongues and healing given by God which is the holy spirit - presence of God. But you were saying something about believers not receiving the holy spirit or unbelievers or others not seeing it? That part didn't make sense to me.

I believe in tongues in the sense of a certain language or dialect. I don't believe they are used as they were in Christianity. I don't believe that people can heal each other. That's a right reserved for God.

[sweetangel2128]

I believe in tongues in the sense of a certain language or dialect. I don't believe they are used as they were in Christianity. I don't believe that people can heal each other. That's a right reserved for God.

Oh okay, I get you now. So you believe in the language but not the healing. I believe that God gives certain people different gifts, such as healing, speaking in tongues among other things. I've never seen any of them done but have been told by people who experienced them. But if you think about it, if you can get the Holy Spirit - the presence of God inside of you, then healing should be a possiblity too not just tongues.

[Kontroll]

No, no no. I don't believe in speaking tongues period. I believe in the literal sense of the word tongues which is language or dialect.

So, originally we don't have the presence of the Holy Spirit within us?

God says that He will always be in our hearts.

The only beings that can do miracles are God and prophets. Considering we don't have any prophets anymore, God is the only one that can perform miracles.

[sweetangel2128]

No, no no. I don't believe in speaking tongues period. I believe in the literal sense of the word tongues which is language or dialect.

So, originally we don't have the presence of the Holy Spirit within us?

God says that He will always be in our hearts.

The only beings that can do miracles are God and prophets. Considering we don't have any prophets anymore, God is the only one that can perform miracles.

Oh okay I see you now but it's a bit confusing because that is what tongues is, a language. Which is what I believe. But I believe in the holy spirit which is the presence of God I believe that once you have the Holy Ghost you can receive certain gifts such as healing or speaking in tongues. Yes, God is in our hearts, but it says in the Bible once we have the holy spirit it's hard for us to be possessed by the Devil and if you deny the Holy Spirit once you've felt it, it's blasphemy of the Holy Spirit which is unforgivable by God.

I kinda disagree with God being the only one to perform miracles because if he wanted he could pass those powers down to you for a short time.

[Kontroll]

Oh okay I see you now but it's a bit confusing because that is what tongues is, a language. Which is what I believe. But I believe in the holy spirit which is the presence of God I believe that once you have the Holy Ghost you can receive certain gifts such as healing or speaking in tongues. Yes, God is in our hearts, but it says in the Bible once we have the holy spirit it's hard for us to be possessed by the Devil and if you deny the Holy Spirit once you've felt it, it's blasphemy of the Holy Spirit which is unforgivable by God.

I kinda disagree with God being the only one to perform miracles because if he wanted he could pass those powers down to you for a short time.

Tongues is a created language where the person performing said act cannot understand. So, is it really uplifting to God? You don't even know what you're saying. How do you know its edifying to God?

I just threw a bunch of evidence in your face about Charismatic teachings and you still believe.

You're weird.

[sweetangel2128]

Tongues is a created language where the person performing said act cannot understand. So, is it really uplifting to God? You don't even know what you're saying. How do you know its edifying to God?

I just threw a bunch of evidence in your face about Charismatic teachings and you still believe.

You're weird.

I don't believe it because I go by what the Bible says as my Evidence

If it doesn't edify God then why did Jesus/God say to be filled with the Holy Spirit and to not deny it. Denying the Holy Spirit is blasphemy and unforgivable by God. If you don't believe in what the Bible says about the Holy Spirit, you are denying God's Word (therefore calling God a liar) because God's people wrote the Bible and it is God's Word.

[Kontroll]

I don't believe it because I go by what the Bible says as my Evidence

If it doesn't edify God then why did Jesus/God say to be filled with the Holy Spirit and to not deny it. Denying the Holy Spirit is blasphemy and unforgivable by God. If you don't believe in what the Bible says about the Holy Spirit, you are denying God's Word (therefore calling God a liar) because God's people wrote the Bible and it is God's Word.

I'm not saying to deny the Holy Spirit. That wasn't my arguement. My arguement was that those acts of 'Gaining the Holy Spirit' are not God inspired.

I mean, what ever you have to do to be closer to God. I'm not going to tell you how to have a better relationship with God.

[sweetangel2128]

I'm not saying to deny the Holy Spirit. That wasn't my arguement. My arguement was that those acts of 'Gaining the Holy Spirit' are not God inspired.

I mean, what ever you have to do to be closer to God. I'm not going to tell you how to have a better relationship with God.

Yeah, I know what your saying, you were saying you believe the holy spirit is not from God when I believe it is as I said before, why would God say to accept the Holy Spirit and not deny it if it wasn't from him? If it is in fact demonic, I don't think it would say - "be filled with the holy spirit"...seems like it would be the opposite. Do you understand what I mean?

Well yeah of course not. And I am not doing that either. Just trying to explain to you that it is in the Bible for us to have the Holy Spirit because it's the presence of God, I don't want you to be deceived by false teachings which is exactly why your trying to prove that the holy spirit is in fact not of God. But as I said before I go off of God's Word - the Bible and it says to have the holy spirit:

Acts 4:31 - "After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly."

That tells you right there, that it is from God.

The Holy Spirit is all over the Bible, you just have to look and in every single verse, it is a good thing sent from God not the Devil.

[Kontroll]

Yeah, I know what your saying, you were saying you believe the holy spirit is not from God when I believe it is as I said before, why would God say to accept the Holy Spirit and not deny it if it wasn't from him? If it is in fact demonic, I don't think it would say - "be filled with the holy spirit"...seems like it would be the opposite. Do you understand what I mean?

Well yeah of course not. And I am not doing that either. Just trying to explain to you that it is in the Bible for us to have the Holy Spirit because it's the presence of God, I don't want you to be deceived by false teachings which is exactly why your trying to prove that the holy spirit is in fact not of God. But as I said before I go off of God's Word - the Bible and it says to have the holy spirit:

Acts 4:31 - "After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly."

That tells you right there, that it is from God.

The Holy Spirit is all over the Bible, you just have to look and in every single verse, it is a good thing sent from God not the Devil.

Listen, you're rreally not understanding anything I'm saying. Whether you know it or not. Period. I'm done. I can't argue with you anymore. This is just pointless. You just keep changing my words around and it's driving me crazy.

I believe in the Holy Spirit. I don't feel that you need to do certain things to have Him come into your heart. I feel that He is already there.

About the demonic part. It's called being unfocused from why you're there. You can try to do things for the right reason, but it's not always because of the right reason.

I can do something in the name of God, but it might not glorify Him. Hitler thought he was doing God's work. You understand my connection?

If not. whatever.

[sweetangel2128]

Listen, you're rreally not understanding anything I'm saying. Whether you know it or not. Period. I'm done. I can't argue with you anymore. This is just pointless. You just keep changing my words around and it's driving me crazy.

I believe in the Holy Spirit. I don't feel that you need to do certain things to have Him come into your heart. I feel that He is already there.

About the demonic part. It's called being unfocused from why you're there. You can try to do things for the right reason, but it's not always because of the right reason.

I can do something in the name of God, but it might not glorify Him. Hitler thought he was doing God's work. You understand my connection?

If not. whatever.

Yes, I do understand that. It's just that you confused me when you said you believed it wasn't from God and that it was demonic-related. so I apologise if that's not what you were getting at.

[Kontroll]

Lack of Transitional Fossils. Charles Darwin wrote, "Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" (Origin of Species, 1859). Since Darwin put forth his theory, scientists have sought fossil evidence indicating past organic transitions. Nearly 150 years later, there has been no evidence of transition found thus far in the fossil record.
Lack of a Natural Mechanism. Charles Darwin, in his Origin of Species, proposed Natural Selection to be the mechanism by which an original simple-celled organism could have evolved gradually into all species observed today, both plant and animal. Darwin defines evolution as "descent with modification." However, Natural Selection is known to be a conservative process, not a means of developing complexity from simplicity. Later, with our increased understanding of genetics, it was thought perhaps Natural Selection in conjunction with genetic mutation allowed for the development of all species from a common ancestor. However, this is theoretical and controversial, since "beneficial" mutations have yet to be observed. In fact, scientists have only observed harmful, "downward" mutations thus far.

http://www.allaboutcreation.org/creation-evidence.htm

[sweetangel2128]

Lack of Transitional Fossils. Charles Darwin wrote, "Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" (Origin of Species, 1859). Since Darwin put forth his theory, scientists have sought fossil evidence indicating past organic transitions. Nearly 150 years later, there has been no evidence of transition found thus far in the fossil record.
Lack of a Natural Mechanism. Charles Darwin, in his Origin of Species, proposed Natural Selection to be the mechanism by which an original simple-celled organism could have evolved gradually into all species observed today, both plant and animal. Darwin defines evolution as "descent with modification." However, Natural Selection is known to be a conservative process, not a means of developing complexity from simplicity. Later, with our increased understanding of genetics, it was thought perhaps Natural Selection in conjunction with genetic mutation allowed for the development of all species from a common ancestor. However, this is theoretical and controversial, since "beneficial" mutations have yet to be observed. In fact, scientists have only observed harmful, "downward" mutations thus far.

http://www.allaboutcreation.org/creation-evidence.htm

Wasn't Darwins findings proven wrong and that he even didn't believe his own stuff and believed to have accepted Jesus upon his death? At least that's what I heard.

[Kontroll]

Wasn't Darwins findings proven wrong and that he even didn't believe his own stuff and believed to have accepted Jesus upon his death? At least that's what I heard.

again. Back up your thoughts. It's pointless just stating your view.

[sweetangel2128]

again. Back up your thoughts. It's pointless just stating your view.

How is it my views, if you would of read the whole sentence, it's a Question and as I have said I "heard" from other people but didn't know if it was true so I am asking you.

[jennyt13]

i go with both. first evolution. we all go through evolution it might not be the best thing in the world it might actually be the worst thing in the world but we all go through it. the evolution of mankind. sometimes we wish that we never evolved into the beings that we are today. and creation. the world was created for us to live in it wasn't created for us to destroy it!!! and its exactly what we are doing. we are destroying the world. there's more radioactivity in the world than it was 60 years ago. radiation increased in 33% over the past 60 years. and you might wonder how we're still living?

[sweetangel2128]

i go with both. first evolution. we all go through evolution it might not be the best thing in the world it might actually be the worst thing in the world but we all go through it. the evolution of mankind. sometimes we wish that we never evolved into the beings that we are today. and creation. the world was created for us to live in it wasn't created for us to destroy it!!! and its exactly what we are doing. we are destroying the world. there's more radioactivity in the world than it was 60 years ago. radiation increased in 33% over the past 60 years. and you might wonder how we're still living?

So do you believe that when it comes to creation that God did the creation? Or you saying that Evolution created our planet but also created lots of other things? In my opinion I believe God created everything around us but evolution took into affect afterwords, meaning the creation of new species over time.

[jennyt13]

yes. i agree that God created everything. but i also believe that he created evolution and everything afterwards. god is the creator of everything.

[sweetangel2128]

yes. i agree that God created everything. but i also believe that he created evolution and everything afterwards. god is the creator of everything.

Oh okay I feel you. That's what I think also.

[Kontroll]

yes. i agree that God created everything. but i also believe that he created evolution and everything afterwards. god is the creator of everything.

You either believe in one or the other, you can't mix them because they've already been proven incorrect. And I've stated a few reasons earlier in the debate.

[sweetangel2128]

You either believe in one or the other, you can't mix them because they've already been proven incorrect. And I've stated a few reasons earlier in the debate.

Incorrect. Evolution is a theory (has not been proven wrong or right). Creation is in the same sense it hasn't been proven wrong. You can believe in both of them because there are more than one type of Evolution. Micro and Macro.

[Kontroll]

Incorrect. Evolution is a theory (has not been proven wrong or right). Creation is in the same sense it hasn't been proven wrong. You can believe in both of them because there are more than one type of Evolution. Micro and Macro.

Those have nothing to do with Theistic evolution. I'm saying theistic evolution is wrong because it's already been proven wrong.

[sweetangel2128]

Those have nothing to do with Theistic evolution. I'm saying theistic evolution is wrong because it's already been proven wrong.

By whom?