darwin's beliefs

[Deamiter]

But, we should I suppose hit those raw nerves, but not without the salt of humility and recognizing the body of Christ.

So... you're saying when we cut into somebody and poke an exposed nerve, we should add salt (humility) and that will somehow HELP?

Sorry, I couldn't resist but I think you could have come up with a better symbol for humility when suggesting that it be applied to a raw nerve.

 

[archaeologist]

Jesus taught the crowds in parables

so thenyou are claiming that the sermon on the mount is a parable?

please provide proof that your statement is true as many of the parables were taught to the disciples when they were alone:

The principles for the interpretation of the parables, which are all intended
primarily and in the first place for the disciples, are furnished by the nature
of the parable itself and by Christ’s own method of interpreting some of​

them.

granted we know He used a few parables for the multitudes BUT that doesn't mean He used them all the time. nor does it mean He refered to parables or allegory when He was talking about the Old Testament.

here is some information from the I.S.B.E., as was the above quote:

It is evident from such passages as​

<401310>Matthew 13:10 ff (compare​

<410410>​

​

​

Mark 4:10; <420809>Luke 8:9) that Christ did not in the beginning of His
career employ the parable as a method of teaching, but introduced it later.
This took place evidently during the 2nd year of His public ministry, and is
closely connected with the changes which about that time He made in His
attitude toward the people in general. It evidently was Christ’s purpose at
the outset to win over, if possible, the nation as a whole to His cause and
to the gospel; when it appeared that the leaders and the great bulk of the
people would not accept Him for what He wanted to be and clung
tenaciously to their carnal Messianic ideas and ideals, Christ ceased largely
to appeal to the masses, and, by confining His instructions chiefly to His
disciples and special friends, saw the necessity of organizing an ecclesiola
in ecclesia, which was eventually to develop into the world-conquering
church. One part of this general withdrawal of Christ from a proclamation
of His gospel to the whole nation was this change in His method of
teaching and the adoption of the parable. On that subject He leaves no
doubt, according to <401311>Matthew 13:11 ff; <410412>Mark 4:12; <420810>Luke 8:10.
The purpose of the parable is both to reveal and to conceal the truth. It
was to serve the first purpose in the case of the disciples, the second in the​

114​

case of the uncleserving Jews. Psychologically this difference,
notwithstanding the acknowledged inferiority in the training and education
of the disciples, especially as compared with the scribes and lawyers, is not
hard to understand. A simple-minded Christian, who has some
understanding of the truth, can readily understand figurative illustrations of
this truth, which would be absolute enigmas even to an educated Hindu or
Chinaman. The theological problem involved is more difficult. Yet it is
evident that we are not dealing with those who have committed the sin
against the Holy Ghost, for whom there is no possibility of a return to
grace, according to​

<580604>Hebrews 6:4-10; 10:26 (compare <401231>Matthew
12:31,32; <410328>Mark 3:28-30), and who accordingly could no longer be
influenced by an appeal of the gospel, and we have rather before us those
from whom Christ has determined to withdraw the offer of redemption —
whether temporarily or definitely and finally, remaining an open question
— according to His policy of not casting pearls before the swine. The
proper sense of these passages can be ascertained only when we remember
that in <410412>Mark 4:12 and <420810>Luke 8:10, the [I[na, hina], need not express
purpose, but that this particle is used here to express mere result only, as is
clear too from the passage in <401313>Matthew 13:13, where the [o[ti, hoti], is
found. The word is to be withheld from these people, so that this preaching
would not bring about the ordinary results of conversion and forgiveness of
sins. Hence, Christ now adopts a method of teaching that will hide the
truth from all those who have not yet been imbued by it, and this new​

method is that of the parable.

The one and only teacher of parables in the New Testament is Christ
Himself. The Epistles, although they often employ rhetorical allegories and
similes, make absolutely no use of the parable, so common in Christ’s
pedagogical methods. The distribution of these in the Canonical Gospels is
unequal, and they are strictly confined to the three Synoptic Gospels. Mark
again has only one peculiar to this book, namely, the Seed Growing in
Secret (​

<410426>Mark 4:26), and he gives only three others that are found also
in Matthew and Luke, namely the Sower, the Mustard Seed, and the​

113​

Wicked Husbandman, so that the bulk of the parables are found in the First
and the Third Gospels. Two are common to Matthew and Luke, namely
the Leaven (​

<401333>Matthew 13:33; <421321>Luke 13:21) and the Lost Sheep
(<401812>Matthew 18:12; <421503>Luke 15:3 ff). Of the remaining parables, 18 are
found only in Luke and 10 only in Matthew. Luke’s 18 include some of the
finest, namely, the Two Debtors, the Good Samaritan, the Friend at
Midnight, the Rich Fool, the Watchful Servants, the Barren Fig Tree, the
Chief Seats, the Great Supper, the Rash Builder, the Rash King, the Lost
Coin, the Lost Son, the Unrighteous Steward, the Rich Man and Lazarus,
the Unprofitable Servants, the Unrighteous Judge, the Pharisee and
Publican, and the Pounds. The 10 peculiar to Matthew are the Tares, the
Hidden Treasure, the Pearl of Great Price, the Draw Net, the Unmerciful
Servant, the Laborers in the Vineyard, the Two Sons, the Marriage of the
King’s Son, the Ten Virgins, and the Talents. There is some uncertainty as
to the exact number of parables we have from Christ, as the Marriage of
the King’s Son is sometimes regarded as a different recension of the Great
Supper, and the Talents of the Pounds. Other numberings are suggested by​

Trench, Julicher and others.

oh, before i forget, please provide proof fromscripture that God used parables and that they extrapolate to creation, the flood and other events you wish to change.

In this widest sense of the term there is practically no
difference between parable and simile (see Thayer, Dictionary of New
Testament Greek, under the word). This is also what substantially some of
Christ’s parables amount to, which consist of only one comparison and in a
single verse (compare​

<401333>Matthew 13:33,44-46). In the more usual and
technical sense of the word, “parable” ordinarily signifies an imaginary
story, yet one that in its details could have actually transpired, the purpose
of the story being to illustrate and inculcate some higher spiritual truth.
These features differentiate it from other and similar figurative narratives as
also from actual history. The similarity between the last-mentioned and a
parable is sometimes so small that exegetes have differed in the
interpretation of certain pericopes. A characteristic example of this
uncertainty is the story of Dives and Lazarus in <421619>Luke 16:19-31. The
problem is of a serious nature, as those who regard this as actual history
are compelled to interpret each and every statement, including too the
close proximity of heaven and hell and the possibility of speaking from one
place to the other, while those who regard it as a parable can restrict their​

112​

interpretation to the features that constitute the substance of the story. It
differs again from the fable, in so far as the latter is a story that could not
actually have occurred (e.g.​

<070908>Judges 9:8 ff; <121409>2 Kings 14:9; <261702>Ezekiel
17:2 f). The parable is often described as an extended metaphor. The
etymological features of the word, as well as the relation of parables to
other and kindred devices of style, are discussed more fully by Ed. Koenig,
in HDB, III, 660 ff.​

this information is provided for clarity and is not making any points​

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

...
this information is provided ... and is not making any points ...

Agreed.

 

[archaeologist]

GETTING BACK TO TOPIC:

this thread is about darwin's and other evolutionary originators' beliefs.

seeing that the foundation of evolution is not of God is very important for those who say they believe in God must know what is or isn't of Him so that they can remove it from their belief systems.

all science is not of God nor does it lead to Him even though it studies what God created. to think otherwise is being very naive.

evolution is not of God and if those who hold to such a belief are courageous enough then we can have a good discussion without the usual derailments. we shall see.

those who want to continue the parable/allegorical/metaphor discussion please start another thread.

 

[metherion]

Yes, Darwin did not believe in God his whole life. However, he DID believe while we was on the voyage making his observations.

You still must show exactly how his belief system turned something that has no relevance for or against God evil.

Also, you MUST ask the question if God used this to glorify Himself.

The Bible is littered with times God hardened the hearts of people to glorify Himself. Like the Pharoah, whose heart was hardened so that his letting the Hebrews go would attest to His power. Ditto with the charioteers.

How do we know that evolution is not a God-concieved scheme to glorify Himself through the observations of an unbeliever about His world?

all science is not of God nor does it lead to Him even though it studies what God created.

Then how do you justify using any technology yourself, as it is not of God? Does that not make your life "not of God"? How are fields that have nothing to do with the whole origins controversy -like electronics- against God? And why would God give us the ability to understand th world around us if all it could do is distance us from Him?

Metherion

 

[random_guy]

GETTING BACK TO TOPIC:
seeing that the foundation of gravity is not of God is very important for those who say they believe in God must know what is or isn't of Him so that they can remove it from their belief systems.

all science is not of God nor does it lead to Him even though it studies what God created. to think otherwise is being very naive.

gravity is not of God and if those who hold to such a belief are courageous enough then we can have a good discussion without the usual derailments. we shall see.

those who want to continue the parable/allegorical/metaphor discussion please start another thread.

See, replacing gravity with evolution and your post sounds just as silly. I don't see any problem with gravity excluding God from explanations just like I see no problem of evolution excluding God from explanations. Perhaps you'd prefer to have angels push the planets in their elliptical orbits, but I prefer Kepler's Laws.

 

[Assyrian]

Generally the text seems to discriminate between metaphorical use and literal use.

Similes are clear from the language used the kingdom of heaven is like... So are parables when they are stated as parable. Then again we have a lot of references where the gospel writer says parable for the reader but Jesus did not do the same for his hearers. And this is how God speaks in person. The Gospels are full of metaphors Jesus uses that simply are not tagged, you must be born again, I am the bread of life, beware the yeast of the Pharisees.

At times, we YECs admittedly struggle. The text doesn't always seem to do what I think it should do in that respect.

And I think a lot of time YEC operate happily in the metaphorical realm without even realising they are using metaphors, one body, washed in the blood, born again, baptised in the Spirit.

That being said, I do think the context provides evidence for the position Archie is taking.

What position is that? That if people taking things metaphorically that he doesn't take metaphorically they are not following God or believing his word?

Is it 'following the world' to look for evidence for a metaphorical interpretation when the literal is contradicted by science? But there is much less scriptural basis for interpreting the pillars and corners of the earth, the earth does not move, or the sun hurries around the earth, metaphorically, than there is for the days of creation and God making Adam from clay. Yet YECs happily interpret the flat earth and geocentrist passage metaphorically because they believe the science. Is this not following God? Is it looking for excuses even to mention this fact?

I understand the counterarguments, which are not without some reason. But some use of metaphor elsewhere isn't definitive, nor would lots of such use elsewhere.

The bible if full of metaphor. Is there a scriptural basis for literalism as the default interpretation?

Whether we are dealing with one's level of irrationality, in terms of rejecting scientific consensus, or dealing with unbelief in terms of rejecting literal scripture, we are going to be hitting those nerves. But, we should I suppose hit those raw nerves, but not without the salt of humility and recognizing the body of Christ. If one believes like Archie, I think such a man should pretty much proceed as he has. I don't always understand him, though. And I think recognizing the Body (even where it includes those who reject a literal Genesis) is pretty important thing to do and perhaps he should do it more. My point is that these conflicts are in part, intractible.

How can we even learn where our own arguments and scripture interpretation are weak if we deal with any problems they run into, any scripture that contradict our view, by dismissing them as coming from unbelief and excuse finding? We need each other.

 

[archaeologist]

Yes, Darwin did not believe in God his whole life. However, he DID believe while we was on the voyage making his observations.

in reading his biography, i did not get that impression, i think he was struggling with the idea of God and the sin he saw in the world but, and i will have to check, i doubt he held any real beliefs.

[You still must show exactly how his belief system turned something that has no relevance for or against God evil./QUOTE]

no i don't, you need to show from scripture that his theory and him were inline with God. i know what i want to expose and i will concentrate on that.

The Bible is littered with times God hardened the hearts of people to glorify Himself

that is a stretch to even consider such an idea, since we already have the genesis account, there would be no need for God to start a competing theory.

How do we know that evolution is not a God-concieved scheme to glorify Himself through the observations of an unbeliever about His world?

because we already have the Biblical account and the other passages referring to a 6 24 hour day creation. that is how. i have explained this before.

I don't always understand him, though

if you don't understand me, just ask me sincere, logical questions.

Then how do you justify using any technology yourself, as it is not of God

not the issue here, please start another thread for this.

 

[USincognito]

seeing that the foundation of evolution is not of God is very important for those who say they believe in God must know what is or isn't of Him so that they can remove it from their belief systems.

God is not mentioned in the owners manual of your car. Remove cars from your belief system.
God is not mentioned in medical textbooks. Remove doctor visits from your belief system.
Bill Gates is an atheist. Turn off your computer and remove it from your belief system.

Or are you selective about how you apply what is of God and what is not?

 

[theFijian]

God is not mentioned in the owners manual of your car. Remove cars from your belief system.
God is not mentioned in medical textbooks. Remove doctor visits from your belief system.
Bill Gates is an atheist. Turn off your computer and remove it from your belief system.

Or are you selective about how you apply what is of God and what is not?

Of course he is! All technology is simply the application of scientific knowledge. Therefore if all science is evil then all technology is evil. But that doesn't stop him using his computer founded as it is on evil physics.

 

[Dannager]

God is not mentioned in the owners manual of your car. Remove cars from your belief system.
God is not mentioned in medical textbooks. Remove doctor visits from your belief system.
Bill Gates is an atheist. Turn off your computer and remove it from your belief system.

Or are you selective about how you apply what is of God and what is not?

Amusingly enough, the only way we'll know that he has taken your advice to heart is if he doesn't actually reply.

 

[archaeologist]

no, i am just tired of the faulty contributions that appealto the absurd and do not present any logical, rational point.

focus on the topic of the thread, please

 

[Dannager]

no, i am just tired of the faulty contributions that appealto the absurd and do not present any logical, rational point.

focus on the topic of the thread, please

I guess he didn't. Oh well. Next time, perhaps.

 

[archaeologist]

I guess he didn't. Oh well. Next time, perhaps

it is disappointing and alarming to think that those who say they believe in God refuse to discuss the origins of the theory they hold onto.

one would think that they would be quite motivated to find out where the theory comes from and thenmake an intelligent decision.

a believer cannot afford to stake their lives on that which is not of God.

 

[theFijian]

no, i am just tired of the faulty contributions that appealto the absurd and do not present any logical, rational point.

I agree. there really is nothing rational nor logical about decrying all science as evil yet conveniently enjoying all it's benefits.

 

[Dannager]

it is disappointing and alarming to think that those who say they believe in God refuse to discuss the origins of the theory they hold onto.

one would think that they would be quite motivated to find out where the theory comes from and thenmake an intelligent decision.

a believer cannot afford to stake their lives on that which is not of God.

Man, we've all already done all of that. You're years behind most of us when it comes to analyzing the origins of our beliefs. I mean, we're here on a debate forum. Most of us love nothing more than analyzing the origins of beliefs, including (and especially) our own. It's just that when it comes to debating with you, we've all pretty much come to the realization that you're not actually interested in debate. The only thing you're here to do is make little snide jabs at evolutionists with the sort of language I would expect to hear out of a political campaign. It even sounds hollow and petty.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

it is disappointing and alarming to think that those who say they believe in God refuse to discuss the origins of the theory they hold onto.

one would think that they would be quite motivated to find out where the theory comes from and thenmake an intelligent decision.

a believer cannot afford to stake their lives on that which is not of God.

Pope Benedict admits evidence for evolution

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22136550-2,00.html

 

[USincognito]

that is a stretch to even consider such an idea, since we already have the genesis account, there would be no need for God to start a competing theory.

Where ever did you get the idea that evolutionary theory is in competition with Genesis? Genesis 1 and 2 tells believers that it is YHWH who made and is in charge of various things like chaos, the Sun, life and humanity. Evolutionary theory is merely an explanation of how that process worked.

Of course he is! All technology is simply the application of scientific knowledge. Therefore if all science is evil then all technology is evil. But that doesn't stop him using his computer founded as it is on evil physics.

Oh it gets worse than that. He needs to be living in a thoecratic nation or something, becuase the concepts of Democracy and a Republic came from the pagan Greeks and Romans!

At least Darwin was still rooted in his faith during the Beagle expidition.

 

[archaeologist]

Where ever did you get the idea that evolutionary theory is in competition with Genesis? Genesis 1 and 2 tells believers that it is YHWH who made and is in charge of various things like chaos, the Sun, life and humanity. Evolutionary theory is merely an explanation of how that process worked.

how, according to most people here Gen. 1-11 is all allegory so you can't say this without committing hypocrisy or cherry-picking.

evolution doesn't exist, so how can it explain how? you go to non-believers who are deceived to tell you how God did something...please...think about how hypocritical that sounds.

.

At least Darwin was still rooted in his faith during the Beagle expidition

prove it. lets see quotes and sources.

You're years behind most of us when it comes to analyzing the origins of our beliefs

again with the superiority complex. you are headed inthe wrong direction, turn around and you will see how far from God you are.

The only thing you're here to do is make little snide jabs at evolutionists with the sort of language I would expect to hear out of a political campaign

well you have joined 'the club'--assyrian, fijian, uscognito,kerrmatic and a few others-- who are great at misrepresenting what someone says.

you must be grateful that this is a TE board as you would never get away with it elsewhere.

what the problem is is that you can't stand it when someone has an alternative position from you thus you attack them frommany different angles and avoid honest debate.

how many times have i tried to keep this on topic yet you refuse to evendebate the originof the theory you hold to. that tells me something---you can't face the scrutiny as you know i will bring out scripture that tells you what to do but you refuse to acknowledge evolution is against God's word and you refuse to let go what is destroying you.

 

[USincognito]

how, according to most people here Gen. 1-11 is all allegory so you can't say this without committing hypocrisy or cherry-picking.

I think you're over stating the case that "most" people here think Gen. 1-11 is all allegory. But you're missing my point. Gen 1 and 2 specifically are simply reminders to believers that God is in charge of the things listed in those chapters, not the Babylonian gods.

evolution doesn't exist, so how can it explain how?

Denial isn't a river, nor does it make evolution go away.

prove it. lets see quotes and sources.

"Whilst on board the Beagle (October 1836-January 1839) I was quite orthodox, and I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused them. But I had gradually come, by this time, to see that the Old Testament; from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rainbow as a sign, etc., etc., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian."[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin's_views_on_religion