Esther and Evolution

[juvenissun]

So you say God has never played an active part in human history? What do you call the Incarnation then? I wonder what Mark Kennedy would say to all of this...

That is God's Personal intervention. It is rejected by TE as a possible factor of evolution.

 

[Assyrian]

My response is short and sweet comment to all verses your listed.
If you have problems on any particular one, we can talk about it.

I am not the one who had the problem with them.

1. So, does our Lord sustains this universe mean that He has to work 24/7? What a poor lord if it were true.

John 5:17 But Jesus answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I am working."

 

[juvenissun]

I am not the one who had the problem with them.


John 5:17 But Jesus answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I am working."

Welcome to the camp of literalism.

But, I think you seems to be worse than that. I don't see the Father and the Son work 24/7 in that verse.

May be it would be YOU who will work 24/7 when you arrive to there. Are you sure you still want to go?

 

[Assyrian]

Welcome to the camp of literalism.

But, I think you seems to be worse than that. I don't see the Father and the Son work 24/7 in that verse.

Don't know about Jesus being 24/7, we do know he slept. Certainly the 7 though. This was the Sabbath. As for his father in heaven... Psalm 121:4 Behold, he who keeps Israel will neither slumber nor sleep.

May be it would be YOU who will work 24/7 when you arrive to there. Are you sure you still want to go?

And being with Jesus? Are you kidding?

 

[Mallon]

1. So, does our Lord sustains this universe mean that He has to work 24/7? What a poor lord if it were true.

You seem to think God isn't infinitely powerful and gets tired.

 

[gluadys]

1. So, does our Lord sustains this universe mean that He has to work 24/7? What a poor lord if it were true.

Yes work 24/7, but that's no problem for God.

2. Does the sustaining of every functions continuously include the appearance of new functions? If there were no new function, how did a chimp become a human? If new function appears, what does "sustain" mean anyway?

Indirectly. What is sustained in this instance is the process of evolution. New functions appear because evolution happens. So new functions are not direct creations in and of themselves but modifications of older functions generated by evolutionary change. The process of evolutionary change is what is constantly sustained.

 

[shernren]

You seem to think God isn't infinitely powerful and gets tired.

But of course! He could only go six days before He needed a break, after all.

 

[juvenissun]

Yes work 24/7, but that's no problem for God.

Indirectly. What is sustained in this instance is the process of evolution. New functions appear because evolution happens. So new functions are not direct creations in and of themselves but modifications of older functions generated by evolutionary change. The process of evolutionary change is what is constantly sustained.

A god works 24/7 is only a god, not The God. Otherwise, He would want neither angels nor us. A nonstop working God is not a correct theological concept about God. A king should not go personally to every wars, even he can. When God does something Himself, it must be something special and is particularly meaningful, such as God curses the land after the sin.

God finishes His creation on Day 6. Whatever happened after that, should not be treated as the same level of work as those done in the 6-Day Creation. God does many changes to His creation at later time. But all of them should not be called creation. "Creation" here is a reserved word.

 

[Assyrian]

Ah! I get it. God created us to take the other shift.

 

[gluadys]

A god works 24/7 is only a god, not The God. Otherwise, He would want neither angels nor us. A nonstop working God is not a correct theological concept about God.

Well, God certainly doesn't need angels or us. After all God existed from eternity without us. God did not create because he lacked something.

Your proposal could have been taken from the Enuma Elish instead of the bible. In that creation story the gods did make humans because the gods did not like having to do the work of sustaining creation after it was finished. So they made humans to do the work and let them have leisure.

But many scholars agree that one of the significant messages of the biblical creation story is to contradict the view of the Enuma Elish.

When God does something Himself, it must be something special and is particularly meaningful, such as God curses the land after the sin.

So, you really do believe in an absent God, a god of the gaps. I don't know where you are getting your theology from, but it is not a recognizable biblical theology.

"Creation" here is a reserved word.

So say you. But scripture doesn't reserve the term to the 6-days of Genesis.

 

[juvenissun]

Well, God certainly doesn't need angels or us. After all God existed from eternity without us. God did not create because he lacked something.

Your proposal could have been taken from the Enuma Elish instead of the bible. In that creation story the gods did make humans because the gods did not like having to do the work of sustaining creation after it was finished. So they made humans to do the work and let them have leisure.

But many scholars agree that one of the significant messages of the biblical creation story is to contradict the view of the Enuma Elish.


So, you really do believe in an absent God, a god of the gaps. I don't know where you are getting your theology from, but it is not a recognizable biblical theology.

So say you. But scripture doesn't reserve the term to the 6-days of Genesis.

No. I do think God is continuously changing His creatures. A simple example is that God is talking to everyone of us everyday. Or God may use a squirrel to save me from an accident. But, as I insisted, these actions are not called creation. I challenged Assyrian on the Scripture he quoted for the argument. May be you like to use one for a further discussion.

Indeed, as a creationist, I have never thought what should be the definition of creation. Do you know a good one? Just "to make up something new" will not work. To make a unique painting is not an example of creation either.

How about: "Something could not be explained by science"? Better, but not good enough.

How about: A unique thing done by God? Unique means one and only one. It seems still has problem.

Idea?

 

[BrendanMark]

Creation out of nothing. We can create, but need materials and ideas to work with before we can start.

The godhead builds the world playfully, countless times, and always in something different.
Heidegger, Martin – The Essence of Truth – On Plato’s Cave Allegory and Theaetetus [Continuum, 2002, Sadler, Ted trans., p. 10]

 

[theFijian]

A god works 24/7 is only a god, not The God. Otherwise, He would want neither angels nor us. A nonstop working God is not a correct theological concept about God.

Can somebody page mark kennedy? We have a Creationist denying God's role in redemptive history here! Does MK realise what kind of beliefs are held in the Creationist camp?

So Juvie why are you sidestepping these texts?

Psalm 139:13 - For you formed my inmost being. You knit me together in my mother's womb
John 5:17 - My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working
Col 1:17 - And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together
Heb 1:3 - ...and he upholds the universe by the word of his power

Is God still involved in his creation or not?

 

[gluadys]

Indeed, as a creationist, I have never thought what should be the definition of creation. Do you know a good one? Just "to make up something new" will not work. To make a unique painting is not an example of creation either.

Sure, it is creation. The definition has never been limited to God's creative work. Since we are made in the image of God, we are also creative. Artists, architects, designers, chefs, a child with a package of crayons, they all create. The one difference is that humans are limited to creating out of materials which already exist while God is not. But God also creates from what already exists: he created dirt and then created living things from dirt.

How about: "Something could not be explained by science"? Better, but not good enough.

No that would define "miracle" not "creation". And it would limit God to working via miracles, something scripture does not do. God works both through supernatural and natural means.

How about: A unique thing done by God? Unique means one and only one. It seems still has problem.

Why not "something new"? That is biblical. "Behold I make all things new".
Each species, even each individual is something new and unique. That is why we can speak of God creating each and every one of us.

 

[juvenissun]

Can somebody page mark kennedy? We have a Creationist denying God's role in redemptive history here! Does MK realise what kind of beliefs are held in the Creationist camp?

So Juvie why are you sidestepping these texts?

Psalm 139:13 - For you formed my inmost being. You knit me together in my mother's womb
John 5:17 - My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working
Col 1:17 - And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together
Heb 1:3 - ...and he upholds the universe by the word of his power

Is God still involved in his creation or not?

You are a little behind in this discussion.

If you can tell me what creation is, then I can answer your questions.

 

[juvenissun]

Creation out of nothing. We can create, but need materials and ideas to work with before we can start.

The godhead builds the world playfully, countless times, and always in something different.
Heidegger, Martin – The Essence of Truth – On Plato’s Cave Allegory and Theaetetus [Continuum, 2002, Sadler, Ted trans., p. 10]

I was going to say that. But God creates animals and human from clay. So it violates your definition.

 

[shernren]

Can stars still form today?

Can new "kinds" still form today?

 

[juvenissun]

Sure, it is creation. The definition has never been limited to God's creative work. Since we are made in the image of God, we are also creative. Artists, architects, designers, chefs, a child with a package of crayons, they all create. The one difference is that humans are limited to creating out of materials which already exist while God is not. But God also creates from what already exists: he created dirt and then created living things from dirt.

No that would define "miracle" not "creation". And it would limit God to working via miracles, something scripture does not do. God works both through supernatural and natural means.

Why not "something new"? That is biblical. "Behold I make all things new".
Each species, even each individual is something new and unique. That is why we can speak of God creating each and every one of us.

You are defining the word in the most loosely way. I don't agree.

If God creates, and we also create, would that suggest that we have the most powerful capability of God? I don't think so. We will never be that powerful. You have to tell "this creation" from "that creation". They are different in nature.

There is a possibility that each Christian is NOT something new. I do not imply reincarnation of any kind.

 

[juvenissun]

Can stars still form today?

Can new "kinds" still form today?

Are you suggesting God is creating new stars almost 24/7? I do not respect that kind of god. It is equivalent to the job of a technician.

God has made all stars on Day 4. That means He makes many stars on Day 4, AND He sets up the star forming process and have angels take charge of it. If use the definition of creation given by Gluadys, angel can also "create".

As matter of the "new kinds", a creationist never recognize any new kind since Day 5. So the answer is NO.

Scientifically, I don't think any new kind is appearing today. We may discover some. But they already existed.

 

[theFijian]

You are a little behind in this discussion.

If you can tell me what creation is, then I can answer your questions.

Why wont you answer this simple question? Is it because you know you are wrong?

Is God still involved with his Creation or not?