Dawn,
I think you missed Coyotes point. I have made and agree with his
point that it is very difficult to debate Christians because each one has their own correct interpretation of all things Christian.
There is nothing to be resolved amoung Christians, since reality has done that for us
Seeing as though there is nothing to be resolved among Christians you should be able to let us all know who is right among the following issues. I am sure you will be able to use your "reality, logic and simple common sense" and sort these issues out.
Age of the Earth -
Biblical literalists -
6000 years old
Roman Catholics -
4.5 Billion years old
Creation -
Mormons -
Mormon teachings clearly deny the doctrine of creation ex nihilo (creation out of nothing). They claim this is a late development in the theology of the Christian church, believing that Joseph Smith's understanding of eternal matter has more in common with restored Christianity. What is found is a God who did not necessarily create the world and everything in it, but instead organized the world. God found himself in an arena of chaotic matter that had always existed. Realizing this, he chose to organize and order this matter into the world we have today.
Young Earth Evangelicals -
The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of creation. This occured about 6000 years ago.
The gap theory has no basis in Scripture.
Gap Creationism -
Gap creationists believe that science has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the Earth is far older than can be accounted for by, for instance, adding up the ages of Biblical patriarchs and comparing it with secular historical data, as James Ussher famously attempted in the 17th century when he developed the Ussher chronology.
To maintain that the Genesis creation account is inerrant in matters of scientific fact, Gap creationists suppose that certain facts about the past and the age of the Earth have been omitted from the Genesis account; specifically that there was a gap of time in the Biblical account that lasted an unknown number of years between a first creation in Genesis 1:1 and a second creation in Genesis 1:2-31. By positing such an event, various observations in a wide range of fields, including the age of the Earth, the age of the universe, dinosaurs, fossils, ice cores, ice ages, and geological formations are allowed by adherents to have occurred as outlined by science without contradicting their literal belief in Genesis.
Progressive Creationsim -
In contrast to young Earth creationists, progressive creationists accept the geological column, of the progressive appearance of plants and animals through time. To their viewpoint it reflects the order in which God sequentially created kinds, starting with simple, single-celled organisms and progressing through to complex multicellular organisms and the present day. They do not however accept the scientific consensus that these kinds evolved from each other, and believe that kinds are genetically limited, such that one cannot change into another. They are no more specific than YECs about what constitutes a kind.
Proponents of the Progressive creation theory include astronomer-turned-apologist Hugh Ross, whose organization, Reasons To Believe, accepts the scientifically determined age of the Earth but seeks to disprove Darwinian evolution. Answers in Creation is another organization, set up in 2003, which supports progressive creationism. The main focus of Answers In Creation is to provide rebuttals to the scientific claims of young earth creationism which are widely regarded as a pseudoscience.
Framework Interpretation -
The framework interpretation is an interpretation of the first chapter of the Book of Genesis which holds that the seven-day creation account found therein is not a literal or scientific description of the origins of the universe; rather, it is an ancient religious text which outlines a theology of creation. The seven day "framework" is therefore not meant to be chronological but is a literary or symbolic structure designed to reinforce the purposefulness of God in creation and the Sabbath commandment.
Day-Age Creationism -
Day-Age creationism, a type of Old Earth creationism, is an interpretation of the creation accounts found in Genesis. It holds that the six days referred to in the Genesis account of creation are not ordinary 24-hour days, but rather are much longer periods (of thousands or millions of years). The Genesis account is then reconciled with the age of the Earth, providing a broad base on which any number of theories and interpretations are built. Proponents of the Day-Age Theory can be found among both theistic evolutionists (who accept the scientific consensus on evolution) and progressive creationists (who reject it). The theories are said to be built on the understanding that the Hebrew word yom is used to refer to a time period, with a beginning and an end, and not necessarily that of a 24-hour day.
Dawn Bertot version - ID as far as I can tell
Evolution -
Roman Catholic Church - (this statement covers the Big Bang Theory too)
According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5—4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.
Evangelicals and any denomination who follow a literal interpretation of the Bible
Evolution has not and cannot occur. Regardless of any evidence to the contrary. No amount of evidence will ever be able to support this theory.
Dawn Bertot version - not really sure but seems pretty anti evolution.
Homosexuality -
Baptists -
The Southern Baptist Convention, the largest of the Baptist denominations and the largest Protestant group in the U.S., considers same-gender sexual behavior to be sinful, stating clearly that its members "affirm God's plan for marriage and sexual intimacy — one man, and one woman, for life. Homosexuality is not a 'valid alternative lifestyle.' The Bible condemns it as sin. It is not, however, an unforgivable sin. The same redemption available to all sinners is available to homosexuals. They, too, may become new creations in Christ.
Eastern Orthodoxy -
The Orthodox Church holds the opinion that sexuality, as we understand it, is part of the fallen world only. In Orthodox theology both monasticism and marriage are paths to Salvation (sotiriain Greek; literally meaning, "becoming whole"). Celibacy is the ideal path, exemplified in monasticism, while marriage is blessed under the context of true love ("Man must love his wife as Jesus loved his Church": this phrase is part of the Orthodox Marriage Ritual). This context can be interpreted by the non-Orthodox as not being exclusive of homosexuality; whereas it is seen as exclusive of homosexuality by the vast majority of the Orthodox. Traditionally, the church has adopted a non-legalistic view of sin (see above), in which homosexuality is a sin. Although some members of the church may have assumed an active role in encouraging negative social stereotypes against gay individuals who do not repent, they misrepresent the stance of the Orthodox Church, which does not promote judgment of people but judgment of actions. However, several prominent members of the clergy have made statements condemning homosexuality.
All jurisdictions, such as the Orthodox Church in America, have taken the approach of welcoming people with "homosexual feelings and emotions," while encouraging them to work towards "overcoming its harmful effects in their lives," while not allowing the sacraments to people who seek to justify homosexual activity
Lutherans -
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the largest Lutheran church body in the United States, as of 21 August 2009, voted 559 to 451 in favor of allowing non-celibate gays to become ordained ministers. During the national meeting in 2005, delegates voted against a measure that would have allowed non-celibate gay ordination and the blessing of same-sex unions by 503 against to 490 in favor. ELCA Lutheran policy states that LGBT individuals are welcome and encouraged to become members and participate in the life of the congregation. The ELCA does not yet have a rite for blessing same-sex unions, but another motion passed at the 2009 Assembly directed its leaders to develop one. ELCA congregations that specifically embrace LGBT persons are called Reconciling in Christ congregations. The group Lutherans Concerned supports the inclusion of LGBT members in Lutheran churches in the ELCA and ELCIC. All other Lutheran churches in the United States oppose ordination and marriage of homosexuals.
I am glad you will be able to point out the correct interpretation of the Christian Faith. It should not take you too long to let all of the 2 billion or so Christians know which of them are in error and they will all be able to have 1 unified interpretation.
One thing I am not sure of. As you do not believe that evolution is occuring, how are you going to convince the Roman Catholics?
Disclaimer **I plagarised my arse off throughout this post. If you want to find out where the info came from, just cut and paste the sentence into google and you should find it.**
Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add one more blank line which I found to be marring an otherwise wonderful message -Besides, it was in the section I was most interested in.
™ Version 4.2