Answering questions on Evolution

[Freodin]

If I were to hazard a guess I'd say Bush. Possibly Quayle or Palin though they are not from Texas. *googles*

Ah... Well, google says what google says.

Further back in history, if I remember correctly. Couldn´t give a name though.

 

[TheOutsider]

You know, AVET... the more I learn about the way you interpret scripture the more convinced I become of the following:

1. Your interpretation is riddles with incorrect assumptions and errors.

2. You are not being guided by any higher being in your interpretation (at least not a benevalent one).

3. You will never learn of your errors as long as you continue to assume you are incapable of making mistakes in your interpretation of scripture.

4. You are no authority on interpreting the Bible correctly.

5. He's a troll that has been playing you guys like a fiddle for years.

I'm somewhat staggered no-one has laughed yet.

My jaw was on the floor for a bit but then I remembered the source.

You too? i have come to a similar conclusion. He is not a very good theologists. Actually he is a very bad one.

Is there such a thing as a good theologist?

 

[AV1611VET]

Further back in history, if I remember correctly. Couldn´t give a name though.

Ma and Pa Ferguson are alleged to have said it.

"If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for Texas schoolchildren."

 

[Freodin]

Let me guess --- the difference is whether or not we embrace evolution --- correct?

Here's a simple little exercise for you.

Without naming names, can you find a "good theologian" and tell me where he/she stands on:

1. creation
2. evolution
3. the flood
4. where the flood water went
5. the Bible
6. inspiration, preservation, and translation

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that you guys know (or think you know) exactly where I stand on everything from where Adam came from to where the entire universe is going --- and the more you know, the less you like.

In short, in you guys eyes, the only good theologian is one you don't know.

That's why Theistic Evolutionists are right at home here; you can't tell them apart from atheists.

No, it is the way you approach your (only) source, the Bible.

You have an oppinion. You scan the Bible for statements that you think fit your opinion. You interprete these statements based on your opinion and counter any opposition with the suggestion that you, your church, your pastor, your nation, your language is somehow "chosen by God".

 

[AV1611VET]

No, it is the way you approach your (only) source, the Bible.

You have an oppinion. You scan the Bible for statements that you think fit your opinion. You interprete these statements based on your opinion and counter any opposition with the suggestion that you, your church, your pastor, your nation, your language is somehow "chosen by God".

I respectfully disagree.

Find one TE here and put them through the 3rd degree, like you guys do me, and see if they can pass your Litmus Tests.

(Be sure and ask the same questions over and over, and don't answer any of theirs.)

I'll even give you a good first question to ask them: Would you have gotten aboard the Ark?

 

[Cabal]

Let me guess --- the difference is whether or not we embrace evolution --- correct?

Depends on how much of a lynchpin of faith your creation method is for you or not.

Here's a simple little exercise for you.

Without naming names, can you find a "good theologian" and tell me where he/she stands on:

1. creation
2. evolution
3. the flood
4. where the flood water went
5. the Bible
6. inspiration, preservation, and translation

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that you guys know (or think you know) exactly where I stand on everything from where Adam came from to where the entire universe is going --- and the more you know, the less you like.

In short, in you guys eyes, the only good theologian is one you don't know.

No, there are plenty of good theologians who are able to make well-reasoned arguments for their beliefs with resorting to ad hoccery and self-inconsistency. You aren't one of them.

That's why Theistic Evolutionists are right at home here; you can't tell them apart from atheists.

Yeah, apart from that whole belief in God aspect.

 

[Freodin]

I respectfully disagree.

Find one TE here and put them through the 3rd degree, like you guys do me, and see if they can pass your Litmus Tests.

(Be sure and ask the same questions over and over, and don't answer any of theirs.)

I'll even give you a good first question to ask them: Would you have gotten aboard the Ark?

Sorry, I don´t know ANY TE here who believes that nothing but the Bible can be used to establish the truth of something, and tops that with believing that God speaks English as his first language.

So I would not know whom to ask.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, there are plenty of good theologians...

And you know where they stand on all six of my points?

(Which is what I specifically asked.)

 

[Cabal]

I respectfully disagree.

Find one TE here and put them through the 3rd degree, like you guys do me, and see if they can pass your Litmus Tests.

(Be sure and ask the same questions over and over, and don't answer any of theirs.)

You mean like being consistent with your own assumptions, acknowledging when you make a mistake, and being upfront about what you're saying instead of dodging behind semantics and whining and /threading when people don't play along?

Who could ever hope to pass such a staggering array of litmus tests!

Maybe you wouldn't have such a hard time if you didn't act like you were the one in the right all the time on the basis of sod-all evidence and a personal interpretation of a book half the people don't even accept as true.

I'll even give you a good first question to ask them: Would you have gotten aboard the Ark?

Would God have let me? It's not like he told Noah to make extra space for people.

 

[VirOptimus]

And you know where they stand on all six of my points?

(Which is what I specifically asked.)

A good theologian dont mix metaphysics with physics and certainly dont play semantic games.

 

[Cabal]

And you know where they stand on all six of my points?

(Which is what I specifically asked.)

They wouldn't be the same as your answers.

Which probably means they aren't good theologians in your eyes either.

This works both ways, AV. I suspect the only good theologian in your book is one who marches in goosestep with your "literalist" viewpoint.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sorry, I don´t know ANY TE here who believes that nothing but the Bible can be used to establish the truth of something, and tops that with believing that God speaks English as his first language.

So I would not know whom to ask.

Don't have them use the Bible --- they don't, anyway; unless they're cornered into it.

Just find one and ask them if they would have gotten aboard Noah's unfloatable, overcrowded, no-way-in-Helsinki-could-have-survived, Ark.

 

[AV1611VET]

A good theologian dont mix metaphysics with physics and certainly dont play semantic games.

And you know a good theologian when you see one?

 

[Freodin]

Don't have them use the Bible --- they don't, anyway; unless they're cornered into it.

Just find one and ask them if they would have gotten aboard Noah's unfloatable, overcrowded, no-way-in-Helsinki-could-have-survived, Ark.

Everything to divert from your own failing, AV.

No, I won´t play your game.

 

[Cabal]

Don't have them use the Bible --- they don't, anyway; unless they're cornered into it.

Hmm, funny that, yeah....

This is a discussion about a scientific topic, half the people here don't accept a book which isn't really a science book and was written during a less scientific time, but they will accept a discussion based on scientific literature.

What should I go for, hmmm? Which is the best method of engaging with these people where they're currently at, eh?

Just find one and ask them if they would have gotten aboard Noah's unfloatable, overcrowded, no-way-in-Helsinki-could-have-survived, Ark.

Demonstrate that it existed first

 

[Freodin]

And you know a good theologian when you see one?

While this was not adressed to me...

... I know a good theologican when I see him present his theology without mixing metaphsics with physics and without playing semantic games.

(That was almost too easy.)

 

[VirOptimus]

And you know a good theologian when you see one?

I know good theology when I read it.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

5. He's a troll that has been playing you guys like a fiddle for years.

This has been my opinion for quite some time. I mean, someone who is so entrenched in their point of view, so much so that they are unable to admit where they're wrong... EVER, has got to be a troll, right?

In fact, what capped it for me, was when he posted a link to his church a while back. I knew right then and there he was a Poe.

Hey, AV, would you mind posting a link to your church again?

 

[AV1611VET]

Everything to divert from your own failing, AV.

No, I won´t play your game.

I didn't think you would.

No one puts their beliefs up in the storefront window like dad and I do --- no one.

That's why we're disliked.

We won't sweep the Bible under the carpet, and we're not afraid to answer ad hoc questions with ad lib answers.

We give you guys just what you ask for, and we don't care about winning any popularity contests.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

The problem is this; The reason that the teachings of Jesus and the O.T. have EVOLVED into thousands of denominations and sects worldwide, is because there are too many 'good' theologians out there.