Answering questions on Evolution

[AV1611VET]

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.)

In other words, his theology goes to the back of the bus when science gets aboard, right?

We'll, consider some of us the Rosa Parks of the Science Express.

 

[Freodin]

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.

I´d say the reason why you are "disliked" - rather, constantly corrected on the things you claim - is that you are almost unable to admit being wrong, execpt when there is absolutely no room for you to wiggle out.

I have to give you that - in this regard you are at least more honest than our good old sadly missed JohnR7, who even managed to deny he was wrong when I quoted his directly contradicting statements.

 

[Freodin]

In other words, his theology goes to the back of the bus when science gets aboard, right?

We'll, consider some of us the Rosa Parks of the Science Express.

No, in other words, he knows where his limits are and does not try to extend them by making stuff up.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

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.

So, you admit it's a bit of a game?

Why do you continue to post at CF then? I mean, why subject yourself to being disliked and losing popularity contests? Seriously.

 

[AV1611VET]

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

My church?

You must have me mixed up with someone else.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

My church?

You must have me mixed up with someone else.

Nope. Pretty sure it was you who posted a link to a fundamental Baptist church in Fresno, CA.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, in other words, he knows where his limits are and does not try to extend them by making stuff up.

Ah --- I see.

He automatically goes to the back of the bus, whether a scientist boards or not.

Got it ---

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Ah --- I see.

He automatically goes to the back of the bus, whether a scientist boards or not.

Got it ---

IOW, the TE's cognitive dissonance is less than yours, AV.

 

[Cabal]

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.

No, you're disliked because of your semantics games, total inability to admit the flaws in your own positions honestly, and frankly, are both utterly disagreeable as soon as anyone disagrees with you.

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.

We most definitely did not ask for inconsistency, bad temper and needless wordplay to win an argument - particularly from people so supremely confident they have the right answers, based on nothing.

 

[Cabal]

In other words, his theology goes to the back of the bus when science gets aboard, right?

We'll, consider some of us the Rosa Parks of the Science Express.

In other words, if he doesn't get in line with the Bible, sorry, I mean AV's take on the Bible, he's seen as going with the flow?

Exactly as I thought - you don't rate theologians who disagree with you as good theologians - so maybe cut the whining when people apply the same treatment to you? Don't dish it out if you can't take it.

Ah --- I see.

He automatically goes to the back of the bus, whether a scientist boards or not.

Got it ---

Tread very carefully, AV. Don't assume that how another Christian responds to science is how his whole theology operates.

I realise creation(ism) is a big deal to you, but to some of us it's a fringe issue only brought to the fore because of a small group of ignorant loudmouth malcontents, mmkay?

 

[MoonLancer]

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.

well i hate to brag but i know quite a few individuals with doctorate and masters in theology. And not from a diplomacy mill ether. I may disagree with them on theology, but i know what i good theologian is. you are not one of them. your too much of a zealot to have the discipline and courage to accurately and properly study theology. You think you have all the answers and that stops you from learning about your own religion. its really a pity.

 

[AV1611VET]

IOW, the TE's cognitive dissonance is less than yours, AV.

That's a heck of a price to pay for cognitive dissonance.

 

[AV1611VET]

Tread very carefully, AV. Don't assume that how another Christian responds to science is how his whole theology operates.

Here comes the Telephone Game now.

This is going to too many posts to maintain accuracy.

I thought we were talking about TEs specifically?

 

[AV1611VET]

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

well i hate to brag but i know quite a few individuals with doctorate and masters in theology.

So, in other words, you can name quite a few individuals with doctorates and masters in theology, but you can't tell me, as I asked, where they stand on the six issues above?

Maybe that's why you like them.

You just might be surprised, for example, that if given the 3rd degree, you'll find they will refuse to budge on verbal plenary inspiration as well.

 

[Cabal]

Here comes the Telephone Game now.

This is going to too many posts to maintain accuracy.

I thought we were talking about TEs specifically?

We are.

Oh right, OK, you're singling out TEs specifically, gotcha. And here was me giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Mind quitting the games now and responding properly?

 

[MoonLancer]

So, in other words, you can name quite a few individuals with doctorates and masters in theology, but you can't tell me, as I asked, where they stand on the six issues above?

Maybe that's why you like them.

You just might be surprised, for example, that if given the 3rd degree, you'll find they will refuse to budge on verbal plenary inspiration as well.

I can tell you they don't think the water was transported to Neptune to ward of angles.

 

[AV1611VET]

I can tell you they don't think the water was transported to Neptune to ward of angles.

Is that because you can tell me where they think it did go, or you're just guessing?

Maybe they believe it went to Saturn?

The fact that you don't know what they stand for,* is probably why you like them.

* And I mean "stand for" --- I don't mean take a weak stance.

 

[MoonLancer]

As a good theologian you must be able to keep your personal religious beliefs separate from your scholarly learning of theology. If you don't, you might end up thinking the flood water was transported to Neptune to ward off angels, and actually believe somehow that this is good theology.

A good theologist knows there is no well supported answer to where the flood waters went

 

[AV1611VET]

A good theologist knows there is no well supported answer to where the flood waters went

Keep going, MoonLancer --- don't stop now --- you're on a roll.

A good theologian knows there is no well-supported answer to where the Flood waters went, and therefore [does or does not] believe in the Flood?

I could be wrong, but I honestly don't think you know any "good theologians."

 

[Split Rock]

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

Not exactly. A good theologian would not have a professional opinion on evolution, since it deals with the physical world, not the spiritual world.

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

1. 
   God created the universe and everything in it. How He did that is not explained by scripture. Probably because the writers did not know the answer.
   
   

   [*]evolution

   Either he/she supports the teaching of evolution (as with any good science) or has no opinion.
   
   

   [*]the flood

   The flood story teaches about the consequences of sin. Whether it happened or not, or was world-wide or not, is irrelevant.
   
   

   [*]where the flood water went

   See above.
   
   
   

   [*]the Bible

   
   The Bible was written by many different people who were inspired by God. Inspired does not mean written as if by God's own hand.
   
   

   [*]inspiration, preservation, and translation

Inspiration is covered above. A good theologican would go to the very earliest texts he/she could find if there was any question about a particular translation. The intent of the writers is best understood from the original writings in the original language.

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.

I think we understand as much theology as you have shared with us. I agree with the last statement.

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

Not at all, I have met and attended talks from theolgians and history professors who I would consider good.

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

Utter nonsense. A T.E. is different from an atheist in that a T.E. believes in God and that Jesus of Nazarath was/is the Christ (ie the savior).