Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The meaning of "carnal" is being led by the flesh, or fleshly mind. The bod still needs to be taken care of/maintained--but it's still not Christianity. Christianity is leaving behind the world's minds eye which is "materialism". In the civilized world material is king/the way. That's the same as consumerism. The body of Christ isn't the his material body--it's his embodiment of the spiritual things that make one human (collective spiritual characteristics).Correct, it can be disproven though. eg. if we found the un-resurrected remains of Jesus.
More accurately, it isn't only about 'material'; and certainly our standing before God isn't isn't affected by our physical body, he is interested in what we do with it however.
The meaning of "carnal" is being led by the flesh, or fleshly mind.
Christianity is leaving behind the world's minds eye which is "materialism". In the civilized world material is king/the way. That's the same as consumerism.
The body of Christ isn't the his material body
--it's his embodiment of the spiritual things that make one human (collective spiritual characteristics).
I didn't say natural,I said naturalistic,as in the scientific view,which does exclude knowledge of God's involvement with nature.
How can that be if one does not also accept a priori the view that "natural" implies the rejection of God?
Again,I did not say natural,and I do not understand the word natural to mean the naturalistic view.That is not how our Christian ancestors understood the term "natural". They saw natural processes as God-given, God-empowered. To them the light of day and the darkness of night, the cycle of the seasons, the rain and the flowing streams, the fecundity of plants and animals were all "natural" and also all "providential" i.e. part of God's providing for his creatures.
What makes Lewontin's view more logical than that view?
No,and I did not suggest that.Are we really supposed to think that because scientists have worked out what the physical processes are that enable the sun to give off light that God no longer has anything to do with the gift of light to the earth?
No,I didn't suggest that. I said that he was more honest than Gould about the implications of the scientific view of nature,meaning that he admitted that science is committed to a materialist world view.Because that is what Lewontin's "logic" means. And you are agreeing with that "logic". "Oh, science has now explained it, so I guess we can stop thinking God provided it."
It isn't. You are not acknowledging the obvious fact that MN deliberately excludes knowledge of God from the study of nature,and when I point it out you act like I am saying that scientific explanations make it impossible to believe that God is involved with nature. I suspect you are doing this deliberately. Science doesn't make it impossible to believe in God's involvement,but it is contradictory to believe this and to also believe scientific theories about the origin of species and life and order and matter,because science attributes these things to natural causes,and in the case of matter,to nothing.Why is it that anti-evolutionary "creationism" is so riddled with this atheistic notion?
I didn't say that. I am saying that the scientific understanding of natural processes is naturalistic,and this leads to false accounts of life,the history of species,natural order and the origination of matter.I didn't say that it was more acceptable. I don't believe that scientific explanations are adequate to explain all natural phenomena.I do believe that scientific explanations are adequate to explain natural phenomena. What I don't believe is that this means natural phenomena are not created, sustained and empowered by God as the expression of his providential care for his creation. What is the logic behind saying that a scientific understanding of natural processes means they are no longer to be thought of as the way God works in the created order?
It doesn't make sense to say that scientific explanations are adequate for these things and to also say that God creates and sustains them. Since he does create and sustain them,and science does not take this into account,the scientific explanations cannot be adequate. Science attributes to natural causes the ability to do things they do not have the power to do.
Isn't it written that God holds everything together by the word of His power. Sadly scientists dont know this and are still trying to find what the "cosmic glue" is.But doesn't God create and sustain
everything??
What you are really saying with your last paragraph here is that scientific explanations can never be adequate.
But doesn't God create and sustain
everything??
What you are really saying with your last paragraph here is that scientific explanations can never be adequate.
Of course God creates and sustains everything. What I am saying is that it does not make sense to say you believe this while also believing in naturalistic theories about how species and life and order and matter originated. Scientific explanations cannot be adequate in regard to phenomena which happen directly by the power of God,unless they acknowledge that they happen by a power over nature.
Wow that would sure be a scientific breakthroughDo you believe that scientific explanations can be adequate to explain the sustaining, at least, of things? That, for example, a scientist might be able to tell you exactly why ducks always breed ducks, even if (in your creationist understanding) he cannot tell you where the first duck came from?
Do you believe that scientific explanations can be adequate to explain the sustaining, at least, of things? That, for example, a scientist might be able to tell you exactly why ducks always breed ducks, even if (in your creationist understanding) he cannot tell you where the first duck came from?
The scientific explanation for reproduction is alright insofar as it accurately describes something that can be observed,and as long as conception is not explained as if it is caused by self-moved natural mechanisms. The more that biological life is explained by reducing it to the natural causes involved,in ignorance of spirit,the more that naturalism determines the explanation,and natural causes are thus portrayed as self-sufficiently creative.
What part of conception can't be observed?
If your concern is with the human soul, then what part of animal or plant conception can't be observed?
Okay, but that shouldn't apply to the embryological development of, say, dogs or apples.
Apples have spirit?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?