How can you say you believe in god?

[laconicstudent]

If you agree that God does not lie, and consequently His Word does not lie, what "pillars" was His Word speaking of?

Its poetical allegory, clearly. There are no literal "pillars" any more then the Earth is literally "hung" upon "nothingness" or literal storehouses in which God stores the snow.

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny
If you agree that God does not lie, and consequently His Word does not lie, what "pillars" was His Word speaking of?

Its poetical allegory, clearly. There are no literal "pillars" any more then the Earth is literally "hung" upon "nothingness" or literal storehouses in which God stores the snow.

how do you know any of this? Have you been to His storehouse? Do you understand everything there is to know about God? Does not everything depend upon Him? To what extent does it or to what extent does it not?

Have you discussed any of this with Him, the Author of the Word of God, and the Creator of the universe?

 

[laconicstudent]

how do you know any of this?

No pillars.

Have you been to His storehouse?

No, because snow develops in clouds due to meteorological concepts. This storehouse doesn't exist.

Do you understand everything there is to know about God?

Nope. Good thing I never said anything remotely like that. Your attempts to twist my words into claims of omniscience are really getting tiresome. Please stop now.

Does not everything depend upon Him? To what extent does it or to what extent does it not?

I wasn't aware that I had disputed this. Forgive me if I decline to defend a position I never claimed.

Have you discussed with Him, the Author of the Word of God, and the Creator of the universe?

Any particular reason why I would have to in this instance?

 

[Aeyamar]

Brinny, you seem to be misunderstanding a fundamental part of the argument here. God is not a liar. Nothing can prove God is a liar. Ever. But just because something is not literally true does not make it a lie either. Jesus's parables were not actual events, they were stories meant to prove a point or teach the people receiving them even though they were told as if they actually happened. You know and accept this, yet you seem to have such a hard time accepting that the first part of Genesis isn't?
In the same way you criticize laconicstudent of being unable to declare a particular verse is figurative instead of literal because he is not omniscient, I could say who are you to tell everyone reading this that it is the other way round. Unless your pride or self-righteousness tells you that your interpretation is somehow better than his.

Edit: If you really believe you cannot know whether to take the creation literally without being omniscient, wouldn't it make sense then to consider that the overwhelming scientific evidence provides some indication of which interpretation is more correct?

 

[gluadys]

i am willing to say that and in fact am if they argue with anything written within the bible.. or say it is something other than what it implicitely states

I expect you mean what the bible explicitly states. And I didn't say any of those people argued with anything written in the bible. They simply didn't insist the literal meaning was the important meaning and they offered allegorical meanings as the significant spiritual meaning of the text.

 

[gluadys]

Actually it does. The point of evolution is that there should be no need for a creator,

Incorrect. Natural selection doesn't eliminate a creator. It simply means that God did not make every single species in a fixed and unchangeable form, but instituted a means for species to change over time.

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by help_the_lord
i am willing to say that and in fact am if they argue with anything written within the bible.. or say it is something other than what it implicitely states

I expect you mean what the bible explicitly states. And I didn't say any of those people argued with anything written in the bible. They simply didn't insist the literal meaning was the important meaning and they offered allegorical meanings as the significant spiritual meaning of the text.

based on their own wisdom and understanding?

 

[gluadys]

based on their own wisdom and understanding?

And that of the Holy Spirit who guided them into truth. At least if Jesus was telling the truth when he made this promise to the apostles.

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny
based on their own wisdom and understanding?

And that of the Holy Spirit who guided them into truth. At least if Jesus was telling the truth when he made this promise to the apostles.

i fear we may not be communicating...whom are you speaking of?

 

[Znex]

Jesus said "A man shall not live by bread alone but by every word of God"

This is not literall. Its obvious that a man can not follow every word of God all the time. Jesus is correct though.
What I think is that Jesus Christ said "every word of God" so we will try to live by it. He wanted to help us. If Jesus Christ said " live by most of the words of God" then we would have an excuse to sin.
Jesus Christ was 100% correct in what he said. The Bible is not written in black and white and it is hard to interpret. The Bible if understood correctly is 100% correct. What I think this verse means is that Jesus Christ wants you to live by every word of God.

No, I think it does mean live by every word of God, but you're thinking about it the wrong way. Think of it in the previous context of bread. Therefore, it basically means that God will provide for us, and that we should trust in his word.

If there were nothing created, then there'd be nothing to evolve. So evolution or not, you still need a Creator. I think you're thinking of abiogenesis, or hopefully, some kind of quantum fluctuation creation of matter and energy for which science hasn't thought of a name yet.

This is true, but most evolutionists think about it in the terms of abiogenesis. My point is that evolutionists often see the process of evolution as having eliminated the need for God interfering in the natural history of our world. Therefore, evolution and Christianity is incompatible.

Darwin attributed evolution to God. I don't know how you can say that the "point" of evolution is to deny Him. God, of course, is perfectly capable of acting via natural -- even seemingly random -- processes, including evolution.

Darwin himself, however, recognised the presence of a being like God would effectively undermine the theory of evolution; if we admit God into the process, Darwin argued, then God would ensure that only the right variations occured, and natural selection would be redundant. The whole point of evolution is that the need for a creator was unnecessary, because nature would create itself.

 

[laconicstudent]

Darwin himself, however, recognised the presence of a being like God would effectively undermine the theory of evolution; if we admit God into the process, Darwin argued, then God would ensure that only the right variations occured, and natural selection would be redundant. The whole point of evolution is that the need for a creator was unnecessary, because nature would create itself.

Why should we care about what Darwin's personal opinions on the matter are? Fact is, today, plenty of theologians and scientists consider Evolution and Christianity to be compatible beliefs. I'm not sure why you are bringing up what Darwin thought. It doesn't seem relevant.

 

[Mallon]

Darwin himself, however, recognised the presence of a being like God would effectively undermine the theory of evolution; if we admit God into the process, Darwin argued, then God would ensure that only the right variations occured, and natural selection would be redundant. The whole point of evolution is that the need for a creator was unnecessary, because nature would create itself.

So you believe, then, that natural processes occur apart from God's providence and sustaining? Are you a deist?

 

[Znex]

Why should we care about what Darwin's personal opinions on the matter are? Fact is, today, plenty of theologians and scientists consider Evolution and Christianity to be compatible beliefs. I'm not sure why you are bringing up what Darwin thought. It doesn't seem relevant.

Because Darwin thought up the evolution theory?

Besides, he isn't the only one who believes that. Several other theologians and scientists believe that you can't believe both evolution and Christianity without downsizing one of them.

So you believe, then, that natural processes occur apart from God's providence and sustaining? Are you a deist?

No, you don't understand. That is what the majority of the evolutionist group believe. As for me, I don't believe in evolution the slightest.

 

[laconicstudent]

Because Darwin thought up the evolution theory?

Yes.... And so what?

Besides, he isn't the only one who believes that. Several other theologians and scientists believe that you can't believe both evolution and Christianity without downsizing one of them.

Ok. Good for them. I still have my own theologians and scientists that say the exact opposite. I also have, just as an aside, a Pope saying Evolution and Christianity are compatible.

No, you don't understand. That is what the majority of the evolutionist group believe.

Really? Can you back that up with some sort of evidence?

 

[Znex]

Ok. Good for them. I still have my own theologians and scientists that say the exact opposite. I also have, just as an aside, a Pope saying Evolution and Christianity are compatible.

So they're right and the others are wrong? Or are they wrong and the others are right? Your line of argument isn't going anywhere.

Really? Can you back that up with some sort of evidence?

Ask a few evolutionists what they think on the subject (and not just the ones you're referring to).

 

[laconicstudent]

So they're right and the others are wrong? Or are they wrong and the others are right? Your line of argument isn't going anywhere.

I'm not sure either, to be honest..... :o

Ask a few evolutionists what they think on the subject (and not just the ones you're referring to).

Um, I meant like an objective, cross-sectional survey.....

 

[Assyrian]

Darwin himself, however, recognised the presence of a being like God would effectively undermine the theory of evolution; if we admit God into the process, Darwin argued, then God would ensure that only the right variations occured, and natural selection would be redundant. The whole point of evolution is that the need for a creator was unnecessary, because nature would create itself.

While I agree with the other TEs here that Darwin's theological views are his personal opinion and do not tell us how we have to understand God and evolution ourselves. Evolution stands on its own scientific merit while Darwin's theology speaks more of 19th century Anglicanism and his own struggles with the death of his daughter. However I am interested in the man himself, and while I have only read sections of Origin and Descent of Man, and the odd letter of his, this does not sound like the Darwin I have read, though his theological views do change throughout his life. Do you have a reference for the claim?

 

[brinny]

Because Darwin thought up the evolution theory?

Besides, he isn't the only one who believes that. Several other theologians and scientists believe that you can't believe both evolution and Christianity without downsizing one of them.


No, you don't understand. That is what the majority of the evolutionist group believe. As for me, I don't believe in evolution the slightest.

neither do i.

 

[shernren]

Ok. Good for them. I still have my own theologians and scientists that say the exact opposite. I also have, just as an aside, a Pope saying Evolution and Christianity are compatible.

I see your Pope and raise you one accommodationist Calvin. Hooray boys and girls, it's Texas-Quote-'Em Poker! I believe everyone has called their authorities, now it's time to show your hand and see what they actually say.

In the meantime, Znex:

... most evolutionists think about it in the terms of abiogenesis. My point is that evolutionists often see the process of evolution as having eliminated the need for God interfering in the natural history of our world. Therefore, evolution and Christianity is incompatible.

Brace yourself, because I am about to reveal to you that another theory of nature is incompatible with Christianity.

This "theory" replaced the wonderfully religious idea that the planets of the solar system were pushed about on great crystal spheres by angels.

When asked by Napoleon of how God fitted into celestial mechanics, Laplace, the great French mathematician, replied simply "I have no need of that hypothesis". Yes, this "theory" has made many great minds accept atheism.

This "theory" has enabled many heathen space missions to be carried out, one of which returned a stunning image that convinced Carl Sagan to label our planet simply a "pale blue dot" instead of being the centerpiece of all God's plans for the universe.

Behold, many gravitationists often see the theory of gravity as having eliminated the need for God interfering in the natural order of our universe. Therefore, gravity and Christianity are incompatible! (Happy birthday today, Sir Isaac Newton, that thankfully-dead godless liberal.)

And yet we see no Ben Stein mockumentaries lamenting how Newtonians have bullied science for centuries. We see no cries for "equal time" from avid Christian proponents of intelligent falling. This is the theory that caused our worldview of the universe to shift from a great domain of God's governance to a soulless mechanistic engine, centuries before Darwin was even born. And yet people claiming to defend the sovereignty of God walk by with nary a whimper. Why?

Firstly, because many modern Christians are unread amnesiacs unaware that the Church of which they are the latest part has a grand and sobering history that far outweighs the concerns of the day.

More importantly, there is an error in your syllogism:

Yes, evolutionists often see the process of evolution as having eliminated the need for God interfering in the natural history of our world.

But does that then imply that evolution and Christianity are incompatible, or (implicitly) that evolution is therefore false?

Gravitationists often see the theory of gravity as having eliminated the need for God interfering in the natural order of the universe, but most Christians (by hook, by crook, or by most cleverly concealed cognitive dissonance) have convinced themselves that those gravitationists are just not right.

Or consider the many people (I know some; I'm sure you do) who, because they have suffered some tragedy or another, have rejected the possibility of a loving, all-powerful God. So how should Christians respond? Should they just say, "Because you think event X has eliminated the possibility of a loving, all-powerful God, it must be incompatible with Christianity and therefore it cannot possibly have happened"? Gee, it would be nice to wish World War II out of existence just like that.

The fact of the matter is that events require interpretation. The most wealthy and blessed person in the world might not acknowledge that God is the source of their riches; the most poor and troubled person might have faith in God's love in the midst of great trials. Similarly, there are atheists out there who are convinced that evolution isn't true (notably the late Fred Hoyle), but still don't believe that there was ever a need for any kind of god.

On the other hand, there are plenty of Christian evolutionists who are convinced that evolution and Christianity can play well together. And you could do worse than to listen to what they have to say, even if at the end of the day you choose to disagree.

 

[Dark_Lite]

This is true, but most evolutionists think about it in the terms of abiogenesis. My point is that evolutionists often see the process of evolution as having eliminated the need for God interfering in the natural history of our world. Therefore, evolution and Christianity is incompatible.

"Often see" does not mean evolution equals atheism. In fact, evolution does not equal atheism.