How many creationists practise what they preach?

[OzSpen]

I absolutely agree, I am not presenting wikipedia as a source for deep knowledge in this regard, but it is a good resource for better sources when you look at its references.


That makes you in the minority. Most people on here will flat out not read sources posted, not even if they have reasonable time to do so, or the source is short.

I agree that Wikipedia can be a beginning source to lead to deeper knowledge. My 17-year-old grandson in high school uses it sometimes as a starter. I think Encyclopaedia Britannica online is a better resource.

I do read links to resources because I'm a researcher with a PhD in dissertation-only research in the British university system. I probably am in the minority but please be assured that I pursue research (if I have the time).

Oz

 

[Cearbhall]

This is a red herring. You were the one who wanted other creation stories and I referred you to Google. Why are you switching tactics now.

Er, what? That must have been someone else.

 

[Cimorene]

So you don't like Googling to find your own evidence?

My teachers have told us not to just Google for evidence. You're supposed to look at credible peer-reviewed data instead of just piling through tons of sites on Google.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

No one is arguing against science as a good and reasonable approach to understanding "this" world. But it is (and should be considered) the wrong tool for understanding matters of God...which supersedes matters of this world.

Please show me an instance where science tries to explain God. I'll wait....

This world is a realm [within] the greater realm of God, which makes for a difference of context

The "greater realm of God"? What does that even mean? It's incomprehensible nonsense and special pleading. Could you provide some evidence instead of just rambling?

therefore, evolution must be considered as circumstantial [evidence] only: an educated guess, but a guess, nonetheless.

Incredibly wrong. Evolution has been repeatedly tested, is supported by an abundance of facts from several different scientific disciplines. It's one of the most tested theories in all of science. It's a fact. Facts don't care what you believe, Scott. You can call it a "guess" all you want, you'll still be wrong.

I am not trying to shift the burden of proof, but demonstrate your limited outlook...which is not an outlook at all, but a closed-circuit of circumstantial information. Your refusal or inability to look beyond your own understanding, has nothing to do with me proving anything

Is this your way of saying you cannot substantiate your claims? You cannot provide any evidence for what you believe? Then why should I believe you?

Does a sighted person have to prove the beauty of a sunset to the blind? No. However, the virtue of the blind, is that they know they are blind, and are inclined to take the sighted at their word.

Inconsistent comparison Scott. Why would a sunset have any significance to a blind person? On the other hand, evidence for the existence of God would be great interest to people. However, you have failed to demonstrate any evidence. Why should I take you at your word? Give me 1 good reason why I should believe you without any evidence?

Yes, only some have the greater knowledge of God (obviously). But that is in no way an arrogant boast...anymore than the sighted are to the blind. You are just being spiteful, in addition to being unreasonable.

The way you phrased it was extremely arrogant, Scott. Knowledge is demonstrable and you refuse to bring any evidence to the table that support your claim. Your argument comes off as "I have this knowledge that you have no ability to obtain, so just take me at my word" Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Asking for evidence is not unreasonable. If I told you there was an invisible pink kitten that followed me around and told me right from wrong and gave me knowledge that is only available to a select few, it would not be unreasonable for you to ask for evidence. Unless you're just gullible and believe anything that you wish to be true.

Let me get this straight: you want me to present physical evidence of spiritual truth, which you have thus far proven to be incapable of interpreting?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Incapable of interpreting what? Your entire argument is "just believe me". Do you have an actual argument?

Okay. Using the blind vs. the sighted analogy, tell me just how I would present the beauty of a sunset to the blind....and I'll get right on it.

Inconsistent comparison. You can't, nor would it be relevant to a blind person. However, the claim for the existence of God should come with evidence for that claim. If you are suggesting that it is not testable, nor observable and you are incapable of substantiating the claim, then by definition, it is imaginary. This claim is easily dismissed.

 

[Hoghead1]

I'm still not sure what your model of God is, Scott A. Many Christians think that there is only one model of God. That is not true. At present, there are two models of God. There is the classical model. The God of the creeds, confessions, and church fathers. Contrary to popular myth the classical model did not come from Scripture, but from the influx of Hellenic fathers. The Bible is not a book of metaphysics, tells us little about how God is built, provides only snapshots that often conflict with one another. It is left to the reader to put them together into a meaningful whole if possible. Hence, the early fathers looked to Hellenic philosophy to help. To make a long story short, this led to the classical Christian model of God, by which God is described as void of body, parts, passions, compassion, wholly immutable. The Greeks enshrined the immune and the immutable, and so the classical model is essentially Aristotle's Unmoved mover baptized Christian. In recent years, this model has been challenged by a number of contemporary Christian theologians. It has been faulted for providing an essentially insensitive, cold, world-negation of God. In contrast, there is now a neo-classical model of God. In this model, God is seen as a synthesis of both consistency and change. God and the world are seen as mutually interdependent. God grows as the world goes. God's transcendence is God's radical sensitivity to all things. God enjoys a direct, immediate empathic response to any and all creaturely feeling. This is sensitivity and love on a far grander scale than we can imagine. The universe might be best described as the body of God, as no other analogy does justice to God's radical empathy and love. Now, all this, of course, requires much further explication on my part. I am simply introducing here the fact that there is a choice in what model of God to follow. As far as I am concerned the neo-classical model is far superior to the classical. But that is another story. I bring all this up to help others distill their picture of God and be clearer on what they mean by God. It is not enough to say you believe in God, you need to say what kind of god it is.

 

[dad]

Why do you care what people think, as long as they will get saved by their belief anyways? From your perspective, they shall learn the truth sooner or later, so why bother? Furthermore, if this is for atheists such as myself, you are not making believers out of anyone by spouting the extreme.

Because those same people teach kids that there was no real creation, therefore no real actual Personal God.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Because those same people teach kids that there was no real creation, therefore no real actual Personal God.

And you just can't stand the thought of people not believing in your personal God?

 

[dad]

And you just can't stand the thought of people not believing in your personal God?

God is personal and Personally sent Jesus who is the Person God. The sort of crapopla pi in the sky so called god that maybe oversaw the big bang is a fraud. An inept joke.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because those same people teach kids that there was no real creation, therefore no real actual Personal God.

What do you have against reality?

 

[Hoghead1]

Dad, if I had a nickel every time I've heard someone say they believe in a personal God and then disrobe as God anything but, I'd be a rich man. The classical or traditional Christian model or picture of God is in or his or her own nature is anything but personal. The classical model, the God of the fathers, creeds and confessions did not come from Scripture, contrary to popular myth. it cam from the influx of certain schools of Hellenic philosophy. Scripture is many things, but it is definitely not a book of metaphysics; it sells us very little about how God is build; all we get are snapshots, many of which conflict. it is left to the reader to assemble them into a unified picture of God, if they can. Hnece, the fathers had to turn to Hellenic metaphysics. There were many different schools of Hellenic philosophy, but the more predominant ones tended to stress that the world of time, change, movement is evil and a big illusion. The "really real," the truly divine, is a wholly static immaterial world. The Greeks enshrined the immune and the immutable. Incorporated into the church, this meant God was described as void of body, parts, passion, compassion, wholly immutable. Aristotle's Unmoved Mover was baptized Christian. The problem is that such a cold, indifferent Deity is in no ways personal. In recent years, a neo-classical model has b been proposed, which places great emphasis the dynamic and sensitive side of God. Many Christians are unaware of this. They think there is only one model of God in Christianity, whereas there are two. Many Christians automatically accept the classical model and then have trouble understanding why others find them contradictory and hypocritical when they say they believe in a personal God, but such a God has no real feeling, is blissfully indifferent.

 

[dad]

What do you have against reality?

A real God is reality. I have nothing against Jesus. Guess who that leaves?

 

[dad]

Dad, if I had a nickel every time I've heard someone say they believe in a personal God and then disrobe as God anything but, I'd be a rich man.

To end your tormented struggle about what God is, let me simplify it for you...Jesus.

The classical or traditional Christian model or picture of God is in or his or her own nature is anything but personal.

Who cares about so called experts who do not know God?

The classical model, the God of the fathers, creeds and confessions did not come from Scripture, contrary to popular myth. it cam from the influx of certain schools of Hellenic philosophy.

Fairy tale.

Scripture is many things, but it is definitely not a book of metaphysics; it sells us very little about how God is build; all we get are snapshots, many of which conflict.

Utterly false. We have the clear picture of God in the flesh and exactly what He is like. Jesus.

it is left to the reader to assemble them into a unified picture of God, if they can. Hnece, the fathers had to turn to Hellenic metaphysics.

Lard. Tripe. Bullocks.

There were many different schools of Hellenic philosophy, but the more predominant ones tended to stress that the world of time, change, movement is evil and a big illusion. The "really real," the truly divine, is a wholly static immaterial world. The Greeks enshrined the immune and the immutable. Incorporated into the church, this meant God was described as void of body, parts, passion, compassion, wholly immutable. Aristotle's Unmoved Mover was baptized Christian. The problem is that such a cold, indifferent Deity is in no ways personal. In recent years, a neo-classical model has b been proposed, which places great emphasis the dynamic and sensitive side of God. Many Christians are unaware of this. They think there is only one model of God in Christianity, whereas there are two. Many Christians automatically accept the classical model and then have trouble understanding why others find them contradictory and hypocritical when they say they believe in a personal God, but such a God has no real feeling, is blissfully indifferent.

Useless blather.

 

[OzSpen]

My teachers have told us not to just Google for evidence. You're supposed to look at credible peer-reviewed data instead of just piling through tons of sites on Google.

Teachers from where? Credible, peer-reviewed data are available on Google. You have to know where to find it. I found droves of it through my university library when I was pursuing my PhD in historical Jesus studies. Google Scholar is an excellent resource.

However, with all evidence, even with peer-reviewed articles, there can be worldview biases that do not include evidence to the contrary. Try reading some of the evangelical scholarship that does not engage with contrary evidence. Try reading, Dom Crossan, where he pursues those who are his 'intellectual debt', i.e. he likes the research of those who support his postmodern, liberal worldview.

All of us need to be wary of how our worldviews can have a tendency to avoid contrary data.

Oz

 

[VirOptimus]

-snip-
All of us need to be wary of how our worldviews can have a tendency to avoid contrary data.

Oz

Indeed, you have a mirror nearby?

 

[Hoghead1]

I care about the experts, because here they happen to be the shakers and movers of the church, the major church fathers, creeds, and confessions. Maybe you think you are getting everything straight from the mouth of the Almighty. Truth is, you are very heavily influenced by traditional church teachings and view everything through the lens these teachings provide. The fathers and creeds are important to study because they are what has influenced and developed your faith. Also, as I said, most Christians implicitly or unconsciously hold to the traditional or classical Christian model of God, which did not come from Scripture and which can be seriously questioned. So don't give me this jazz you are getting everything straight form Scripture or the Spirit, no middlemen. That is simply not true.

 

[OzSpen]

I care about the experts, because here they happen to be the shakers and movers of the church, the major church fathers, creeds, and confessions. Maybe you think you are getting everything straight from the mouth of the Almighty. Truth is, you are very heavily influenced by traditional church teachings and view everything through the lens these teachings provide. The fathers and creeds are important to study because they are what has influenced and developed your faith. Also, as I said, most Christians implicitly or unconsciously hold to the traditional or classical Christian model of God, which did not come from Scripture and which can be seriously questioned. So don't give me this jazz you are getting everything straight form Scripture or the Spirit, no middlemen. That is simply not true.

So, does that apply to you also?

 

[Hoghead1]

Of course, OzSpan. I didn't come up with my theology out of thin air. I studied the fathers, the classical model of God and then the neo-classical one, and then decided which I wanted to go with and why.

 

[Hoghead1]

I'm curious, OzSpen, where did you pursue your doctorate in historical Jesus studies and how did this turn out for you? I thought of doing my doctorate in biblical studies, as I am good with languages, but decided my interests were in theology.

 

[Jay Follett]

Regardless of where we live, works never saved anyone. EVER.

That's right because not even Jesus did anything did he? do you think he just sat around waiting for the doors to heaven to open like you think you can do, I am just glad I am free from all the nonsense that is allowed to pass for Christianity.

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
― Mahatma Gandhi
I think the man nailed it don't you? I expect I will get banned now for daring to speak out against the nonsense that passes for Christianity today.

 

[AV1611VET]

I care about the experts, because here they happen to be the shakers and movers of the church, the major church fathers, creeds, and confessions. Maybe you think you are getting everything straight from the mouth of the Almighty. Truth is, you are very heavily influenced by traditional church teachings and view everything through the lens these teachings provide. The fathers and creeds are important to study because they are what has influenced and developed your faith. Also, as I said, most Christians implicitly or unconsciously hold to the traditional or classical Christian model of God, which did not come from Scripture and which can be seriously questioned. So don't give me this jazz you are getting everything straight form Scripture or the Spirit, no middlemen. That is simply not true.

Spoken like a true Protestant?

If not, what are you protesting?