Understand, my statement does not equate creationism with legalism. I would think the text was clear about that? Both are mutually exclusive; you can be one without being the other. Although I probably would argue that it's more likely a legalist would be creationist rather than a TE.
I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Mutually exclusive means that the two ideas do not share with one another. I can't be a Christian and reject the faith, the two views are mutually exclusive.
I was trying to avoid mentioning specific theologies here because I don't want open up any other cans of worms. I will point out one in particular: I belong to the church of Christ where many don't believe that using musical instruments is pleasing to God. That is hardly essential doctrine, although many of them argue otherwise. Most denominations have one or two of these issues where the legalistic members demand beliefs that are not essential.
Creationism is often criticized for being to literal in it's interpretation of Genesis, I have never heard them accused of legalism. I was a member of the Church of Christ for several years and left over a permissive attitude they had about liberal theology.
As to whether Paul is a creationist or not, I would say that question falls into the same realm as "was Jesus a Republican"? In other words, totally irrelevant, since the word would have no meaning in that time. Without counter-evidence, there is no reason to put your faith against the accepted norms of the time. It is only modern evidence that forces the question.
The New Testament writers that spoke on the subject were creationists, that is not even a question. Now at one time it had about as much meaning for me as whether or not Adam had a belly button but over time I have found TE to be a gross heresy. I have debated and discussed this in great detail and I do not compromise on doctrinal issues.
Believe it or not, I'm not trying to get into any particular discussion here. I am no scientist so I have to trust in my ability to discern the truth from others. My simple method is this: I listen to the argument (from creationist or scientific data), I read the critiques from the opposing side, and I then read the critiques of the critiques. You can judge the honestly of a critique by seeing how completely it deals with all the details of what it is critiquing. Admitting that something your opponent says has merit and you have no answer is a plus; avoiding it or misrepresenting it is a minus. Pushing data that has been proven false, or pushing data as fact that is not, is also a minus. That is how I read most of the arguments on this board, and how I read yours.
Evolution as natural history has grossly misrepresented the evidence, there is no doubt about that. You want the particulars I will be happy to help you with them.
I'm not trying to dismiss you offhand or to belittle your efforts.
I appreciate that and your welcome to ask your questions and make your thoughts known in this forum. These discussions can be contentious, the truth is we fight like cats and dogs. Still, it's an important subject and should be pursued with the intent of coming to a better understanding of the truth regarding human history. God willing, this we will do.
Grace and peace,
Mark
__________________
“Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.” (G. Mendel)
I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Mutually exclusive means that the two ideas do not share with one another. I can't be a Christian and reject the faith, the two views are mutually exclusive.
Granted, I made a mistake there. I simply meant that they were independent from each other.
Creationism is often criticized for being to literal in it's interpretation of Genesis, I have never heard them accused of legalism. I was a member of the Church of Christ for several years and left over a permissive attitude they had about liberal theology.
Depending on the Church of Christ you attended, that might be a remarkable statement. Each congregation is autonomous, so some exist on nearly every part of the spectrum. The mainstream CofC is, on average, far more conservative that most of the other groups out there. If you were a member of one of those...oh, wow.
The New Testament writers that spoke on the subject were creationists, that is not even a question. Now at one time it had about as much meaning for me as whether or not Adam had a belly button but over time I have found TE to be a gross heresy. I have debated and discussed this in great detail and I do not compromise on doctrinal issues.
Again, "creationist" has no meaning in describing someone from the first century. They were likely all geocentrists and flat earthers as well. They built none of that into their theology of God's grace, though, and that is what is important.
Evolution as natural history has grossly misrepresented the evidence, there is no doubt about that. You want the particulars I will be happy to help you with them.
I have plenty of your posts to read (and have read them), no need to do anything further.
I appreciate that and your welcome to ask your questions and make your thoughts known in this forum. These discussions can be contentious, the truth is we fight like cats and dogs. Still, it's an important subject and should be pursued with the intent of coming to a better understanding of the truth regarding human history. God willing, this we will do.
It's an argument of truth, no doubt. I hope you believe, as I do, that God's grace is sufficient to cover such things.
Granted, I made a mistake there. I simply meant that they were independent from each other.
Ok, thanks for clarifying that.
Depending on the Church of Christ you attended, that might be a remarkable statement. Each congregation is autonomous, so some exist on nearly every part of the spectrum. The mainstream CofC is, on average, far more conservative that most of the other groups out there. If you were a member of one of those...oh, wow.
Well that's true and their sister denominations (Disciples of Christ, Christian Church) are very diverse as well. The Disciples of Christ tend to be liberal while Christian churches tend to be conservative and many are evangelical. I was teaching a Bible study on Danial with my Pastor when the subject of Nebuchadnezzar's madness came up and he said God did not strike people with insanity. In short I found that many of the things in the Bible like Nadab and Abihu, Annainias and Saphira were unthinkable to him. Some time after that he went back to the Disciple's of Christ and that was my first encounter with Liberal Theology.
Again, "creationist" has no meaning in describing someone from the first century. They were likely all geocentrists and flat earthers as well. They built none of that into their theology of God's grace, though, and that is what is important.
They were creationists in every way the word has any meaning at all. They clearly believed Adam was the first man and without parents. Astronomers were geocentrists right up until the invention of the telescope in the early seventeenth century and whether the earth is flat or not is not a Biblical question.
Now you mentioned the theology of God's grace, Paul mentions Adam as the reason for our need for it in Romans. I made this argument in my formal debate with shernen, he simply had no answer for it:
The Scriptures are crystal clear, in Adam all sinned and there is no orthodox Christian doctrine to the contrary.
The book of Romans tells us that God's invisible attributes and eternal nature have been clearly seen but we exchanged the truth of God for a lie (Rom 1:21,22). As a result the Law of Moses and the law of our own conscience bears witness against us, sometimes accusing, sometimes defending (Rom 2:15). We all sinned but now the righteousness of God has been revealed to be by faith through Christ (Rom 3:21). Abraham became the father of many nations by faith and the supernatural work of God (Rom 4:17). Through one man sin entered the world and through one man righteousness was revealed (Rom 5:12) or as shernen said it, Adam’s dragging everyone down into sin. It looks something like this:
1) Exchanging the truth of God for a lie, the creature for the Creator.
2) Both the Law and our conscience make our sin evident and obvious.
3) All sinned, but now the righteousness of God is revealed in Christ.
4) Abraham's lineage produced by a promise and a miracle through faith.
5) Through one man sin entered the world and death through sin.
6) Just as Christ was raised from the dead we walk in newness of life.
7) The law could not save but instead empowered sin to convict.
8) Freed from the law of sin and death (Adamic nature) we're saved.
The Scriptures offer an explanation for man's fallen nature, how we inherited it exactly is not important but when Adam and Eve sinned we did not fast. This is affirmed in the New Testament in no uncertain terms by Luke in his genealogy, in Paul's exposition of the Gospel in Romans and even Jesus called the marriage of Adam and Eve 'the beginning'.
I have plenty of your posts to read (and have read them), no need to do anything further.
Ok fine.
It's an argument of truth, no doubt. I hope you believe, as I do, that God's grace is sufficient to cover such things.
Absolutely.
Grace and peace,
Mark
__________________
“Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.” (G. Mendel)
[quote=mark kennedy;50725073]
Well that's true and their sister denominations (Disciples of Christ, Christian Church) are very diverse as well. The Disciples of Christ tend to be liberal while Christian churches tend to be conservative and many are evangelical. I was teaching a Bible study on Danial with my Pastor when the subject of Nebuchadnezzar's madness came up and he said God did not strike people with insanity. In short I found that many of the things in the Bible like Nadab and Abihu, Annainias and Saphira were unthinkable to him. Some time after that he went back to the Disciple's of Christ and that was my first encounter with Liberal Theology. [/quote
My CoC is regarded as a liberal one because we have instruments. However, we are overall pretty conservative. You might be concerned that they take no official stance on Origins Theology, but there is a small group that teaches creation science. A few of us complained and the church officially backed off direct support of that group. I have considered teaching a TE group because I have spoken to plenty who have expressed interest in it, but unfortunately it would probably just cause contention in the church, and that is something I'm only willing to do online.
They were creationists in every way the word has any meaning at all. They clearly believed Adam was the first man and without parents. Astronomers were geocentrists right up until the invention of the telescope in the early seventeenth century and whether the earth is flat or not is not a Biblical question.
You think nobody was worried that a round earth would cast doubt on Jesus seeing "all the kindgoms of the earth" from a high mountain?
Now you mentioned the theology of God's grace, Paul mentions Adam as the reason for our need for it in Romans. I made this argument in my formal debate with shernen, he simply had no answer for it:
He just did not have an answer you accepted. However, we probably don't need to get into that.
My CoC is regarded as a liberal one because we have instruments. However, we are overall pretty conservative. You might be concerned that they take no official stance on Origins Theology, but there is a small group that teaches creation science. A few of us complained and the church officially backed off direct support of that group. I have considered teaching a TE group because I have spoken to plenty who have expressed interest in it, but unfortunately it would probably just cause contention in the church, and that is something I'm only willing to do online.
I could be contentious but it need not be and it could be surprisingly brief. I was attending an Assemblies of God Church (Pentecostal) and I don't happen to believe that tongues are evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. We discussed it on occasion but you talking about maybe 5 proof texts and another half a dozen or so supporting cross references. I think if you focus on the texts and central points it can be brief.
You could make a point that Francis Collins (leader of the Human Genome Project) is an evangelical who believes in all the miracles of the New Testament but is still a TE. The key to the whole thing is to preach and practice tolerance and encourage an interest in the Life Sciences. That would be my advice.
You think nobody was worried that a round earth would cast doubt on Jesus seeing "all the kindgoms of the earth" from a high mountain?
Galileo said it best, 'the Bible tells us how to get to heaven, not how the heavens work'. Jesus 'seeing' all the kingdoms of the earth was most likely some kind of a vision he would certainly not have been able to see all the way to Rome even if the earth was flat.
He just did not have an answer you accepted. However, we probably don't need to get into that.
I suppose you are right but the New Testament is clearly being written from a literal understanding of Genesis. For the most part the Church (Protestant and Catholic alike) has not dwelled on the subject of origins that much. Originally I was interested in Bible study and Christian Apologetics but the creation/evolution thing was a hot topic. For the most part it's an intellectual exercise in evidential apologetics that lead me into some really interesting scientific literature.
__________________
“Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.” (G. Mendel)
I used to be one of the people that would flame (or at least try to flame) creationist christians, especially YEC's. But now I realise there is no point.
The reason? It is impossible to prove a negative. The great atheist philosopher Bertrand Russel once said that if he said there was a chocolate teapot orbiting the earth, then nobody could prove him wrong, but nobody could prove him right, either.
This is how I view religion. It is not my place to try and prove christianity wrong, nor is it your place to try and prove evolution wrong, as much as you'd like to. It is my place to try and prove the theory of evolution correct (and there are many, many works doing this for me), and your place to try and prove creationism right.
With the exception of the USA, it seems to me that the more developed a country gets, the less religion there is around. For this, I point to the UK, France, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Japan... all of these have relatively high rates of atheism and agnosticism, around 50%, I think. My belief is that this is because as we grow more advanced, we do not have need for religion as much any more, to explain why bad things happen or how we got here (though I do not denounce you if you do this).
So overall, more and more people around the world are taking up logical and rational views of the world, and loosing blind faith and circular belief systems. You may all think that this is a bad thing, personally I see it as a positive.
But my point? Evidence for evolution grows day by day. We as humans are related to every other animal in some way. And we are finding the genes that make us unique, too - just recently a human gene that gives us the power of speech was spliced into a mice genome, and different patterns of behavior were observed. I find this to be amazing, a miracle if you will. But not something that necesitates a creator.
Do whatever you want to do, believe what you want to believe, but please don't try to argue with us. There is far too much evidence in favor of evolution, and far too little against it. We have actually managed to achieve a KiloSteve (that is, 1000 scientists named Steve have said that they agree with evolution).
So keep yourselves to yourself, and we will too. But don't get resentful if we try to prove you wrong, when that is exactly what preachers try and do to us.
I used to be one of the people that would flame (or at least try to flame) creationist christians, especially YEC's. But now I realise there is no point.
The reason? It is impossible to prove a negative. The great atheist philosopher Bertrand Russel once said that if he said there was a chocolate teapot orbiting the earth, then nobody could prove him wrong, but nobody could prove him right, either.
This is how I view religion. It is not my place to try and prove christianity wrong, nor is it your place to try and prove evolution wrong, as much as you'd like to. It is my place to try and prove the theory of evolution correct (and there are many, many works doing this for me), and your place to try and prove creationism right.
With the exception of the USA, it seems to me that the more developed a country gets, the less religion there is around. For this, I point to the UK, France, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Japan... all of these have relatively high rates of atheism and agnosticism, around 50%, I think. My belief is that this is because as we grow more advanced, we do not have need for religion as much any more, to explain why bad things happen or how we got here (though I do not denounce you if you do this).
So overall, more and more people around the world are taking up logical and rational views of the world, and loosing blind faith and circular belief systems. You may all think that this is a bad thing, personally I see it as a positive.
But my point? Evidence for evolution grows day by day. We as humans are related to every other animal in some way. And we are finding the genes that make us unique, too - just recently a human gene that gives us the power of speech was spliced into a mice genome, and different patterns of behavior were observed. I find this to be amazing, a miracle if you will. But not something that necesitates a creator.
Do whatever you want to do, believe what you want to believe, but please don't try to argue with us. There is far too much evidence in favor of evolution, and far too little against it. We have actually managed to achieve a KiloSteve (that is, 1000 scientists named Steve have said that they agree with evolution).
So keep yourselves to yourself, and we will too. But don't get resentful if we try to prove you wrong, when that is exactly what preachers try and do to us.
I know how to defend the evolutionist position. I can find the reason and elegance in it. I think there are more creationists who can do that than evolutionists capable of the opposite. How is that for something to prove?
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (as it is written, "I have made you a father of many nations") To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. in the presence of Him whom he believed--God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did;
I know how to defend the evolutionist position. I can find the reason and elegance in it. I think there are more creationists who can do that than evolutionists capable of the opposite. How is that for something to prove?
Umm, what? The number of creationists that can argue for their position is irrelevant, the ammount of scientific evidence is what is important. What are you really saying here? You kind of contradict yourself twice in the same paragraph.
Proof has nothing to do with belief, or faith. It has to do with evidence and logic. Computer modeling, chemical tests. These are the tools which we use to find out what what we know.
Umm, what? The number of creationists that can argue for their position is irrelevant, the ammount of scientific evidence is what is important. What are you really saying here? You kind of contradict yourself twice in the same paragraph.
Proof has nothing to do with belief, or faith. It has to do with evidence and logic. Computer modeling, chemical tests. These are the tools which we use to find out what what we know.
Very simple. I can understand and present the defense of atheism or evolution better than you can understand and present theism or creationism. Generally, I think that is a representative pattern.
I think it is important to be able to do this.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (as it is written, "I have made you a father of many nations") To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. in the presence of Him whom he believed--God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did;
Last edited by busterdog; 9th June 2009 at 05:05 PM.
First of all I think you are self deceived to conclude there is no God:
since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
More importantly I find your opinion of YEC distasteful and grossly inappropriate for a subforum set aside for Creationists. No matter, it doesn't matter what I think, you guys pretty much do what ever you like regardless.
I used to be one of the people that would flame (or at least try to flame) creationist christians, especially YEC's. But now I realise there is no point.
Gee I'm glad you are not going around flaming religious views anymore. I hope you don't backslide into actually trying to gain an insight into why they have the views they hold, that would be unthinkable.
The reason? It is impossible to prove a negative. The great atheist philosopher Bertrand Russel once said that if he said there was a chocolate teapot orbiting the earth, then nobody could prove him wrong, but nobody could prove him right, either.
Since you decided to intrude into a place where you will obviously not be welcome let me clue you in. God is the ultimate positive and the Bible has been tested and proven as history again and again. What really gets me about the absent minded skeptic is that they no very little about the Bible and could care less.
BTW, I don't believe for a minute that you are an intellectually satisfied atheist, otherwise you wouldn't be playing this game in a subforum that is set aside for people who you consider the proponents of a false negative.
This is how I view religion. It is not my place to try and prove christianity wrong, nor is it your place to try and prove evolution wrong, as much as you'd like to. It is my place to try and prove the theory of evolution correct (and there are many, many works doing this for me), and your place to try and prove creationism right.
Evolution is defined as the change of alleles in populations over time, no one in their right mind would try to disprove it. What you are calling evolution is an a priori (without prior) assumption of universal common descent by purely naturalistic causes. It is a pagan mythology without merit intellectually and scientifically and I am appalled at the lack of intellectual vigor that atheists argue their worldview from.
With the exception of the USA, it seems to me that the more developed a country gets, the less religion there is around. For this, I point to the UK, France, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Japan... all of these have relatively high rates of atheism and agnosticism, around 50%, I think. My belief is that this is because as we grow more advanced, we do not have need for religion as much any more, to explain why bad things happen or how we got here (though I do not denounce you if you do this).
Let me enlighten you just a bit, Europe was in chaos before the advent of Christian theism. There would have been no Scientific Revolution if it were not for the Protestant Reformation and Japan would be famous for opium were it not for the scientific innovation that came from the west.
Atheism and agnosticism is a parasite on humanity and I find it repulsive that they have so much disdain for theistic reasoning that gave so much to humanity. Even if you are what you pretend to be, an atheist, you should at least have the common courtesy not to ridicule things you know nothing about.
So overall, more and more people around the world are taking up logical and rational views of the world, and loosing blind faith and circular belief systems. You may all think that this is a bad thing, personally I see it as a positive.
Like this is something new, I think it is always a bad thing when the world loses God in their thinking. Christian theism is very rational and there is a reason why Christianity has thrived in the United States. It's because people like you are not allowed to manipulate and micromanage other peoples belief systems. In Europe atheism has led to two world wars and it sickens me that you propagate this disturbed philosophy someplace where you are clearly not welcome.
But my point? Evidence for evolution grows day by day. We as humans are related to every other animal in some way. And we are finding the genes that make us unique, too - just recently a human gene that gives us the power of speech was spliced into a mice genome, and different patterns of behavior were observed. I find this to be amazing, a miracle if you will. But not something that necesitates a creator.
Evidence that comes in must be subject to the a priori assumption of naturalistic causes, the actual evidence comes after that assumption. I doubt seriously that these mice will learn to talk and I find the rest of this statement to be based on bias rather then a well reasoned conclusion.
Do whatever you want to do, believe what you want to believe, but please don't try to argue with us. There is far too much evidence in favor of evolution, and far too little against it. We have actually managed to achieve a KiloSteve (that is, 1000 scientists named Steve have said that they agree with evolution).
Thanks but I will argue with whatever I find objectionable or wrong, including you. The evidence against what you are calling evolution is overwhelming and I have found time and time again that evolution is ripe with disingenuous misinformation and pedantic satire.
So keep yourselves to yourself, and we will too. But don't get resentful if we try to prove you wrong, when that is exactly what preachers try and do to us.
Right, as long as we leave you alone you won't invade every place you think there might be a creationist lurking. If you are so convinced that evolution is true and creationism is false maybe you would like a formal debate on the subject.
Try the Creation/Evolution forum in the Physical and Life Sciences section. My unanswered invitation stands waiting, you need not bother the gentle natured Creationists who come here. There has been entirely too much of that on here.
Have a nice day
Mark
Last edited by mark kennedy; 13th June 2009 at 09:43 AM.
Linear Mode
