Announcement

Collapse

Christianity 201 Guidelines

orthodox Christians only.

Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.

The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

You Say You Want An Evolution!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    I don't see a meaningful difference between "appearance of age" and "appearance of history" because age implies history, and history implies age.
    Did you actually read my post covering that or just skim it? Because I provided a detailed explanation detailing the difference and included several examples to illustrate them.

    While an appearance of age may be necessary for something to function any features that are not necessary but provide an appearance of age also provide a false and misleading appearance of a nonexistent history. In the example of a tree I mentioned annual growth rings, woody knots (which exist at the site where a limb had previously broken off and was grown over) and signs of healed damage from insects, fire, lightning strikes etc. None of these features are necessary for a tree to function but a newly created fully grown tree with them would provide deceptive indicators for a fictitious history. One that never took place.

    IOW, there is a profound and undeniable difference between the two.

    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    You seem to have the mistaken impression that I necessarily hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis. I don't.
    My apologies then, but I think the view that Genesis 1 is meant as a polemic against the pagan beliefs of the peoples surrounding the ancient Hebrews constitutes a literal interpretation although one that does NOT view it in a woodenly literal and modern manner where the text is assumed to be teaching a science lesson.

    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    As for whether or not you're believing a delusion, you at least accept the first four words of the Bible, so you're in better shape than someone who approaches the question of origins from the opposite end.
    That's not what I asked. Unless you think the firmament is a solid, material structure that literally holds back waters and to which the sun, moon, planets and stars are physically affixed to, then you as well hold that at least a quarter of Genesis 1 is not scientifically binding and "literally" true.
    Last edited by rogue06; 02-17-2019, 02:19 AM. Reason: add "not"

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
      Interesting. Thanks. That video provides decent evidence against that speed-of-light-change theory.
      I was also examining the response to that video's proposal.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by seer View Post
        This is for my Christian brothers and sisters. Do you believe in evolution, that all species came about from a common ancestor? Is that belief consistent with Scripture?
        It depends on how one defines and understands the term evolution. For me, we see the practicality of evolution in several arenas. Take for instance the evolution of communication. More specifically, the evolution of telecommunications. We went from Morse Code telegrams to Telephones, and now have the Internet, Cell Phones, et al.

        Humanity and civilizations have evolved over time as well. Fashion and how we dress evolves over time.

        The question being asked is complex and quite ambiguous.

        Despite this, I actually hold to the idea that God created - through Jesus Christ - all things and those things evolved over time according to their own nature. This is found in the creation where we read:

        "And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation: seed-bearing plants, fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it." And it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation: seed-bearing plants of every kind, and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the seed in it." (The Jewish Study Bible - Tanakh Translation by the Jewish Publication Society

        Likewise, the creation of animals where they were to fill and replenish the earth. Interestingly enough, I do not subscribe to the Young Earth Creation idea, nor do I hold to a literal 24 hour - 7 day creation cycle. I actually hold to the understanding that each creative episode was fashioned in it's own time and season in order for that creative episode to be fully formed (over milieu of years and millenia). When people counter this and say the Bible teaches a 24 hour and 7 day creation cycle, they fail to understand that they are only resting on the Creation account in Genesis 1:1-2:3. Nowhere else, regarding the creation, does the Bible refer to an actual 7-day, 24-hour creation cycle. Consider this commentary from the Jewish Study Bible:

        "The organization of the process of creation into a sequence of seven days is familiar to most readers not only from the opening of the Tanakh but also from the Sabbath commandment of the Decalogue in Exodus 20:8-11. But, we must not forget that this connection is far from universal in the Tanakh. In fact, most biblical descriptions of creation know nothing of a seven-day sequence (e.g. Ps. 104; Prov. 8:22-31), and most texts about the Sabbath (including the version of the Decalogue in Deut. 5:12-15) make no reference to creation. The suspicion arises that 1.1-2.3 derives from a distinct school of thought, one that dates to a relatively late period in the history of Israelite religion. On the basis of these considerations, and multitude of others, critical scholars attribute the passage to the P (for "Priestly") source. And God does function here in ways reminiscent of a "kohen" (priest), giving blessings ... and consecrating the Sabbath... . The concern shown in this story for order and clear boundaries typifies the Priestly corpus. More importantly, the creation of the world in .1-2.3 bears several striking resemblances to the construction of the Tabernacle mandated in Exod chs 25-31 and executed in Exod. chs 35-40 ... the prototype of the Jerusalem Temple and the focus of the priestly service of the Lord. Not that other ancient Near Eastern creation stories conclude with the construction of a temple for the creation god. In teh Tanakh, the world is sometimes seen as the Lord's temple, and the Temple as a microcosm (e.g. Isa. 66:1-2). "

        Therefore, I personally do not hold to a young earth creation ex nihilio; and, neither do I hold to a literal 24-hour, 7-day creation cycle.
        For a Christ-Centric Recovery and Mindful Christian Living - Damascus Way Recovery

        For Latter-day Saint Christian, Political, and Social Commentary and Apologetics - Mormon Apologia

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          My apologies then, but I think the view that Genesis 1 is meant as a polemic against the pagan beliefs of the peoples surrounding the ancient Hebrews constitutes a literal interpretation although one that does NOT view it in a woodenly literal and modern manner where the text is assumed to be teaching a science lesson.
          I agree that nothing in the Bible should be interpreted with wooden literalism.

          But on the subject of deception, there are a lot of people who reject Genesis 1:1 and are convinced that everything in the universe was the result of unguided natural processes because the evidence appears to lend itself to that interpretation, and they present many sophisticated arguments to that end "so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect." Couldn't it be argued, then, that God is being deceptive because he didn't make it impossible for the evidence to be interpreted in a way that doesn't lead to knowledge of him?
          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
          Than a fool in the eyes of God


          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Mountain Man
            Couldn't it be argued, then, that God is being deceptive because he didn't make it impossible for the evidence to be interpreted in a way that doesn't lead to knowledge of him?
            Rberman on this forum used to argue that God intentionally makes the world in such a way to decieve unbelievers, so they would become even more worthy of punishment in Hell. I disagree, I believe God is Truth; God can neither decieve, nor be decieved.

            Furthermore I don't think you understand. Something can be mature, without implying history. Say if God had created a world without fossils, without geological strata, without a lot of geological and archeological features. There would be stalachites, but they would be almost sculpted. There would be mountains, but they'd show no sign of having been pushed up by hundred of million of years of tectonic activity. This world would even more clearly show the hand of a creator. The existence of God would likely be considered much more of a natural fact. In secular countries most people would be theists of some sort, with atheists a tiny odd curiosity.

            There is a nearly infinite number of fantasy worlds we can imagine where the world would in fact be mature, and fully grown, but would not have all the multiple overlapping and mutually affirming pieces of history.

            And Christians would not ever object to that. Because that's how nature was considered to be until natural philosophy (science in its infancy) relatively recently made made powerful arguments the Earth was both older than was considered, and that new species of animals arrived over time.

            I can't be a creationist, because I'd basically be forced to believe that God actively and maliciously decieves humans. I think to have this feeling you really have to have studied some of this stuff. And I agree with you Mountain Man that no interpretation should be wooden. I have plenty of evangelical Christian friends (many on tweb), some in my country, even a few Catholics who used to be evangelicals who didn't change their mind. I've reassured them that if they believe the earth is young, they don't have to defend believing that, as that's a matter of private interpretation.

            I have some respect for those people who just out of a humble piety and devotion to the scripture and the church fathers can only be comfortable with the young earth interpretation.

            Back to prepping for my new job. Ta.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
              Rberman on this forum used to argue that God intentionally makes the world in such a way to decieve unbelievers, so they would become even more worthy of punishment in Hell. I disagree, I believe God is Truth; God can neither decieve, nor be decieved.
              Maybe he was thinking of this?

              The coming of the lawless one will be accompanied by the working of Satan, with every kind of power, sign, and false wonder, and with every wicked deception directed against those who are perishing, because they refused the love of the truth that would have saved them. For this reason, God will send them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie, in order that judgment will come upon all who have disbelieved the truth and delighted in wickedness.…

              I have some respect for those people who just out of a humble piety and devotion to the scripture and the church fathers can only be comfortable with the young earth interpretation.
              I agree...

              Back to prepping for my new job. Ta.
              Good to see ya bro...
              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                I agree that nothing in the Bible should be interpreted with wooden literalism.

                But on the subject of deception, there are a lot of people who reject Genesis 1:1 and are convinced that everything in the universe was the result of unguided natural processes because the evidence appears to lend itself to that interpretation, and they present many sophisticated arguments to that end "so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect." Couldn't it be argued, then, that God is being deceptive because he didn't make it impossible for the evidence to be interpreted in a way that doesn't lead to knowledge of him?
                IMHBAO, those who believe that everything in the universe was the result of unguided natural processes is erroneous. I hold that things like evolution are nothing more (or less) than yet another mechanism or process (in the same manner that things like gravity, atomic structure and photosynthesis are) established by God when He created everything.

                While God may possibly allow unbelievers and scoffers to, as you put it, "believe the lies they so desperately want to believe" I reject that He would design things so as to snare Christians who are merely examining His creation and seeking answers to be so deluded.

                I'm always still in trouble again

                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Leonhard View Post

                  I can't be a creationist...
                  All Christians are creationists in that they believe that God is responsible for creating the universe and everything in it.


                  Yes. I understand that you are using a much narrower definition.

                  I'm always still in trouble again

                  "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                  "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                  "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                    While God may possibly allow unbelievers and scoffers to, as you put it, "believe the lies they so desperately want to believe" I reject that He would design things so as to snare Christians who are merely examining His creation and seeking answers to be so deluded.
                    Fair point. So not deluded, but perhaps simply wrong?
                    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                    Than a fool in the eyes of God


                    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                      Fair point. So not deluded, but perhaps simply wrong?
                      It is always possible to be wrong. When it comes to science one should always be open to the possibility that some new data might come along and upset the apple cart. This is one reason that the concept of "settled science" oughta be anathema to anyone that holds any respect for the scientific disciplines.

                      But the same goes for interpretations of Scripture. Just as scientists need to be humble in their claims of what science has uncovered, we as Christians also need to be humble in claiming that we understand what Scripture is saying, especially when we are using it to promote what is in effect a scientific point-of-view.

                      St. Augustine had something to say about this and if I may I'll provide a few quotes.

                      In his Confessiones ("Confessions") he castigates Manichćus (the founder of Manichaeism) and some of his followers (particularly one of their bishops Faustus of Mileve) for "impudently dar[ing] to teach" on things he knew nothing about and their utter ignorance of scientific matters saying:

                      For their books are full of lengthy fables concerning the heaven and stars, the sun and moon, and I had ceased to think him able to decide in a satisfactory manner what I ardently desired—whether, on comparing these things with the calculations I had read elsewhere, the explanations contained in the works of Manichćus were preferable, or at any rate equally sound? But when I proposed that these subjects should be deliberated upon and reasoned out, he very modestly did not dare to endure the burden. For he was aware that he had no knowledge of these things, and was not ashamed to confess it.


                      It was for these reasons that Augustine ended up abandoning Manichaeism and embracing Christianity.

                      In Contra Felicem Manichaeum ("Reply to Faustus the Manichaean"):

                      In the Gospel we do not read that the Lord said: I send you the Holy Spirit so that He might teach you all about the course of the sun and the moon. The Lord wanted to make Christians, not astronomers. You learn at school all the useful things you need to know about nature. It is true that Christ said that the Holy Spirit will come to lead us into all truth, but He is not speaking there about the course of the sun and the moon. If you think that knowledge about these things belongs to the truth that Christ promised through the Holy Spirit, then I ask you: how many stars are there? I say that such things do not belong to Christian teaching...whereas you affirm that this teaching includes knowledge about how the world was made and what takes place in the world.


                      In his De doctrina christiana ("On Christian Doctrine"):

                      At the outset, you must be very careful lest you take figurative expression literally. What the apostle says pertains to this problem: "for the letter killeth, but the spirit quikeneth." That is, when that which is said figuratively is taken as though it were literal, it is understood carnally [carnalia]. Nor can anything more appropriately be called the death of the soul than that condition in which the thing which distinguishes us from beasts, which is understanding, is subjected to the flesh in the passing of the letter [hoc est, intelligentia carni subjicitur sequndo litteram]


                      And finally he warned in his De Genesi ad Litteram ("The Literal Meaning of Genesis"):

                      Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.

                      Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.

                      The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.

                      If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?

                      Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although "they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."

                      I'm always still in trouble again

                      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        Again, it is not rejecting the Genesis account but rather rejecting a particular woodenly literal interpretation of it.
                        The particularly wooden interpretation of the account of creation in Genesis 1 leads to the conclusion that, with regard to what happened in the universe and on Earth, and when ... that account is wholly silent. Further, literally wooden readings of the creation accounts in Gen 1 and Gen 2 result in no conflict between the creation account of Genesis 1 and that of Genesis 2.

                        After all, nearly a quarter of the verses of Genesis 1 describe the firmament in a fashion, that if taken literally, make it out to be a physical structure.
                        That may indeed be so, but I am not satisfied that it IS so.

                        As to the rest - Insofar as I can tell, it's spot on.
                        1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                        .
                        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                        Scripture before Tradition:
                        but that won't prevent others from
                        taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                        of the right to call yourself Christian.

                        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          This is for my Christian brothers and sisters. Do you believe in evolution, that all species came about from a common ancestor? Is that belief consistent with Scripture?
                          I do not believe so, no.
                          For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by The Remonstrant View Post
                            I do not believe so, no.
                            Then you would disagree with science? On what grounds?
                            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              Then you would disagree with science? On what grounds?
                              A loaded question* if there ever was one.

                              I believe the scriptures to be ultimately determinative with regard to the nature of sin, the redemption of humankind, and the origin of the species. ‘Science’, properly understood, cannot be at variance with the truth of the word of God. I would not pit the two against each other. When the interpretations of scientists (many of whom are naturalistic in orientation, and hence do not subscribe to any form of theism [let alone Christian theism]) are at odds with a straightforward reading of the creation account in scripture, their interpretations of the data must be in error.


                              * <https://www.collinsdictionary.com/di...oaded-question>
                              For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by The Remonstrant View Post
                                A loaded question* if there ever was one.

                                I believe the scriptures to be ultimately determinative with regard to the nature of sin, the redemption of humankind, and the origin of the species. ‘Science’, properly understood, cannot be at variance with the truth of the word of God. I would not pit the two against each other. When the interpretations of scientists (many of whom are naturalistic in orientation, and hence do not subscribe to any form of theism [let alone Christian theism]) are at odds with a straightforward reading of the creation account in scripture, their interpretations of the data must be in error.


                                * <https://www.collinsdictionary.com/di...oaded-question>
                                I didn't mean for it to be loaded, so you believe that Science (or evolutionary theory) is at odds with Scripture. I suspect that you are correct, but I haven't come to a firm conclusion on this issue yet.
                                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Thoughtful Monk, 03-15-2024, 06:19 PM
                                35 responses
                                166 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by KingsGambit, 03-15-2024, 02:12 PM
                                4 responses
                                49 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Thoughtful Monk  
                                Started by Chaotic Void, 03-08-2024, 07:36 AM
                                10 responses
                                120 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post mikewhitney  
                                Started by Cow Poke, 02-29-2024, 07:55 AM
                                14 responses
                                72 views
                                3 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by Cow Poke, 02-28-2024, 11:56 AM
                                13 responses
                                61 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Working...
                                X