Creation, science, and the Nicene creed

[TLK Valentine]

Correct.

And yet we seem no better or worse the wear for it... so going back to the original point, "God-energy" really isn't much of an explanation for anything, is it?

 

[Speedwell]

Being quite familiar with Scripture I can't think of anything in Scripture which should be contradictory to the theory of common descent. The only way I can see this being the case is by insisting that the creation narratives of Genesis 1 & 2 are to be taken literally, and I've already provided one major reason why they shouldn't. There are two creation stories, right next to each other, and if they are taken literally then they are irreconcilably different--and attempts at trying to reconcile them usually amounts to nothing more than adding to the text or engaging in massive eisegesis.

The creation narratives aren't there to give us a scientific-like explanation of material (or human) origins; they are there to communicate important points of theology which become increasingly relevant as the biblical narrative continues. And, if we are Christians, we understand that narrative as reaching its climax in the person of Jesus Christ. Origen makes a pretty solid point when he writes,

"For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally." - Origen of Alexandria, De Principiis, Book IV, ch. 16

-CryptoLutheran

I think that more notice should be taken of this quotation from Origen. Creationists frequently claim that all Christians everywhere believed what they believe about the Bible and the literal historicity of Genesis, until some of us were led astray by Darwinism. This extract from the writings of a respected father of the early church is just one more piece of evidence that such claims are self-serving hogwash.

 

[ViaCrucis]

You said it yourself.

His power.

By power I don't mean some kind of mystical energies, I mean God's authority. The Temple served as the central location of God's presence (that's what shekinah means, "dwelling", "habitation", or "presence"); in that sense the Temple was something akin to God's oval office.

At this point I'm not hearing much of a helpful explanation for what "God-energy" or "shekinah energy" is and how it relates to anything relevant here.

Are we just saying, "God is able" therefore "God is behind all things"? Because that's a very good theological statement.

It's not a statement that has any meaning in explaining the natural mechanisms behind natural phenomenon. God's ability is also behind lightning and snowfall, but that doesn't get us to the natural mechanisms of lightning or what snow is in the context of the natural world. And if we simply stop at "God done it" then we might as well just go ahead and hide in huts when it begins to storm, for the gods are angry and Thor will certainly strike us down.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

I think that more notice should be taken of this quotation from Origen. Creationists frequently claim that all Christians everywhere believed what they believe about the Bible and the literal historicity of Genesis, until some of us were led astray by Darwinism. This extract from the writings of a respected father of the early church is just one more piece of evidence that such claims are self-serving hogwash.

Though many would likely merely dismiss Origen, because many frequently dismiss the ancient fathers anyway; but in Origen's case there still exists a level of bias against him on account of the eccentricities of some later Origenists; or who largely just misunderstand Origen.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[AV1611VET]

At this point I'm not hearing much of a helpful explanation for what "God-energy" or "shekinah energy" is and how it relates to anything relevant here.

At least I tried.

Have you gotten an answer yet that satisfies you?

 

[Speedwell]

Though many would likely merely dismiss Origen, because many frequently dismiss the ancient fathers anyway; but in Origen's case there still exists a level of bias against him on account of the eccentricities of some later Origenists; or who largely just misunderstand Origen.

-CryptoLutheran

It doesn't matter; I was not attempting to argue ad verecundiam. The very fact that Origen existed and had that opinion is enough to refute the Creationist claim that no Christian prior to Darwin ever entertained such a notion, unless they can show that De Principiis was a post-1860 forgery.

 

[TLK Valentine]

At least I tried.

And your efforts are recognized.

What more do you want?

 

[Doveaman]

What is "God-energy"? That's not even a theological concept that has any meaning that I'm aware of

It's God's own divine energy which He used to bring time and space and the universe into existence.

it has even less meaning in any possible scientific context.

No less than dark energy.

Dark energy is a hypothetical something.

If it is hypothetical it is nothing more than an imaginary story.

 

[Doveaman]

That's an interesting opinion, which raises some equally interesting theological questions, don't you think?

Yes.

And you are free to ask them.

 

[Doveaman]

a statement which answers exactly none of the interesting theological questions raised -- namely, what was God doing before and during the "Gap"?

Why is that question even necessary to my theory?

 

[Doveaman]

.

 

[ViaCrucis]

It's God's own divine energy which He used to bring time and space and the universe into existence.

Again, I don't know what you mean. Are you talking about God's ability as God? Or are you referring to some sort of "energy" or "force"?

If the former, then there's nothing even remotely analogous to the notion of dark energy.

If the latter, then we have bizzaro theology going on, and it still doesn't amount to anything scientific.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Doveaman]

Again, I don't know what you mean. Are you talking about God's ability as God? Or are you referring to some sort of "energy" or "force"?

God's ability is empowered by God's energy.

If the former, then there's nothing even remotely analogous to the notion of dark energy.

If the latter, then we have bizzaro theology going on, and it still doesn't amount to anything scientific.

Even scientists tells us that energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change forms.

God-energy is the original form of energy from which both the visible and invisible aspects of the universe evolved:

"For by Him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible" -- (Colossians 1:16).

Even Martin Luther would agree.

There is more evidence for God-energy than there is for dark-energy, because billions of people throughout history have claimed to experience the effects of God-energy, including you and me, but dark-energy is only assumed to exists because scientists have no explanation for what really exists.

I am a dark-energy atheist, I lack belief in it for lack of evidence.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Why is that question even necessary to my theory?

I'm free to ask it. Any chance it'll ever get an answer?

 

[Doveaman]

I'm free to ask it. Any chance it'll ever get an answer?

Sure, why not?

what was God doing before and during the "Gap"?

Before the Gap God was governing the angels with their pet dinosaurs, both of whom God had created.
During the Gap God was preparing to govern Man with his pet monkeys, both of whom God was about to create.

"When you [God] take away their breath, they die and return to the dust. When you send your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the earth." -- (Psalms 104:29-30).

God took away the breath of prehistoric life that died and returned to dust (fossils).
God then sent His Spirit (Genesis 1:2) to create new life and renew the face of the earth.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Sure, why not?
Before the Gap God was governing the angels with their pet dinosaurs, both of whom God had created.
During the Gap God was preparing to govern Man with his pet monkeys, both of whom God was about to create.

"When you [God] take away their breath, they die and return to the dust. When you send your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the earth." -- (Psalms 104:29-30).

God took away the breath of prehistoric life that died and returned to dust (fossils).
God then sent His Spirit (Genesis 1:2) to create new life and renew the face of the earth.

The dinosaurs were the Angels pets? Interesting... let me guess: he drove the dinos to extinction to punish the angels who went rogue, amirite?

 

[dad]

Not a thing in there about how one is supposed to interpret Genesis.

Why interpret it? What we should view Adam as the first chevron station?

 

[dad]

Not a problem. Identifying a natural cause for a phenomenon does not rule out a simultaneous divine proximate cause, and God created the natural causality as well.

Our natural means unnatural to God.

 

[dad]

Only if you insist that it's literal.

If Adam and Eve were not literal, and the rivers not literal, and the garden, and the trees, and Cain and Abel, and the sacrifices ans sin..etc...the bible is a garbage text.

 

[dad]

No.

Not only did God say He created everything in six days, but the ORDER He created them in is also diametrically opposed to evolution.

Amen!