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.
Many thoughts and questions... I will respond to the first one: Because it was for some reason better to be evolved to that state than to be created "fiat". Our path of learning is making us more perfect than angels.
God does only what is best.
On the other hand, the rebellion of Adam or of humanity is not put aside just because we accept evolution path to Adam... I am not sure why do you think so.
How do you define a denomination? I know this number is misused by various atheists or by roman catholics against protestants.It's why there are 30,000 Christian denominations
So, for those who visit TAW, I've engaged with a lengthy discussion about the problems that I see with YEC, OEC, and Theistic Evolution from multiple different perspectives.
I can fully comprehend the idea that the naturalist assumptions in Darwinism can be erroneous and philosophically flawed.
However, upon looking at all three of these alternatives, I don't see how any of them can really make sense if we are to believe in Christianity.
Young Earth Creationism - that is, a belief in the age of a young earth, typically held by most to be 6000 years - seems hard to understand in light of the massive amount of evidence that contradicts this point of view - mainly the issue of geology, radiometry, and the fossil record. How could a flood like what was described in Noah's Ark create the results that it did - why is it, that extremely less complex life-forms are at the bottom with more complex life-forms at the top, with such a linear formation that nobody has found anything that would suggest non-linearity? Why is it that radiometric dating all (in the various techniques used) seems to confirm consistent dates for where these fossils are found (gradually increasing in year-size), the lack of human remains that would naturally be found within the strata, had such a flood occurred, and the various different compositions of the strata themselves which are all layered in such a way that they seem to imply that the layers were added via erosion. How could a flood, if it came from the bottom up and top down, create such an effect where fossils that are located in millions year old dated strata are, in fact, located?
This isn't even with the assumption of 6000 years - a date I find to be extremely problematic from just merely an archaeological perspective, because there are calendars that are older than the date of when the Flood would occur according to YEC proponents - including the Hebrew Calendar, the Chinese Calendar, and even the Yazidi Calendar, the Yazidi Calendar being older than 6000 years. Or perhaps the fact that the languages of the Sumerians, Babylonians, and once again, the Chinese, are older than 3000 years but yet no flood has interrupted the progress of their culture or civilization.
With OEC - which I define as Old Earth Creationism which denies Theistic Evolution, I find problematic with the fossil record once again, which makes even less sense than YEC. How is it that we have hominid skeletons that are several millions of years old that are located where they are? If you hold to a flood, how can a flood cause the fossil record to be lined up so drastically they are located where they are, but so non-drastically that it doesn't affect the the sediments themselves erosion-wise? If you believe that the fossil record was put there by God in His design of the world, you lead to the intentional belief that God is deceptive, as to create the illusion of death, which would be problematic with His benevolence.
Also, how does Eden being vegetarian play a role in the history of Salvation? Even If you are a Protestant, the earliest Church Fathers like Saint Irenaeus and Saint Theophilus of Antioch from the 2nd century clearly believed that Creation was vegetarian, which would be contradictory.
With Theistic Evolution - that is, Old Earth Creationism which accepts Theistic Evolution - you get into a whole bunch of problems regarding the fact that - if God created us in a condition of death - the purpose of Christ's redemption is ultimately made completely meaningless, as are the promises of a return to a world that once was in the Old Testament. If you attempt to believe that at one point humanity was given a soul or transfigured, you have to deal with the fact that the implications of Genesis are wrong, which implies complete harmony between man and beast, with both creatures being vegetarian. If you believe that this is purely symbolic, it makes no sense why we shouldn't extrapolate such ideas of symbolism onto ANY of the Events of the Bible, even Christ's Death and Resurrection. Yeah, it's Casuitry, but I don't get how such Casuitry can be unsound, especially when this becomes especially all the more problematic when your Church claims direct, Apostolic descent, with Church Fathers who explicitly argued against and denied evolution as a heresy (in Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, or Oriental Orthodoxy).
I don't want to become an Agnostic. I don't. I feel like God has been there for me in the worst of my troubles, but the more and more I think about it logically, the more and more unsound and untenable these positions become to me, because I despise and hate cognitive dissonance / compartmentalization. Maybe it's the truth which I am ultimately terrified of - that there exists nothing but an empty space and me, and I am just a thought.
Please pray for me. If there's a God out there, and there is a Devil, maybe God can still save me from the Serpent whispering into my ears and help me find the Truth of Christ - if Christ is True, if God is True, and if the devil existing is True.
So, for those who visit TAW, I've engaged with a lengthy discussion about the problems that I see with YEC, OEC, and Theistic Evolution from multiple different perspectives.
I can fully comprehend the idea that the naturalist assumptions in Darwinism can be erroneous and philosophically flawed.
However, upon looking at all three of these alternatives, I don't see how any of them can really make sense if we are to believe in Christianity.
Young Earth Creationism - that is, a belief in the age of a young earth, typically held by most to be 6000 years - seems hard to understand in light of the massive amount of evidence that contradicts this point of view - mainly the issue of geology, radiometry, and the fossil record. How could a flood like what was described in Noah's Ark create the results that it did - why is it, that extremely less complex life-forms are at the bottom with more complex life-forms at the top, with such a linear formation that nobody has found anything that would suggest non-linearity? Why is it that radiometric dating all (in the various techniques used) seems to confirm consistent dates for where these fossils are found (gradually increasing in year-size), the lack of human remains that would naturally be found within the strata, had such a flood occurred, and the various different compositions of the strata themselves which are all layered in such a way that they seem to imply that the layers were added via erosion. How could a flood, if it came from the bottom up and top down, create such an effect where fossils that are located in millions year old dated strata are, in fact, located?
This isn't even with the assumption of 6000 years - a date I find to be extremely problematic from just merely an archaeological perspective, because there are calendars that are older than the date of when the Flood would occur according to YEC proponents - including the Hebrew Calendar, the Chinese Calendar, and even the Yazidi Calendar, the Yazidi Calendar being older than 6000 years. Or perhaps the fact that the languages of the Sumerians, Babylonians, and once again, the Chinese, are older than 3000 years but yet no flood has interrupted the progress of their culture or civilization.
With OEC - which I define as Old Earth Creationism which denies Theistic Evolution, I find problematic with the fossil record once again, which makes even less sense than YEC. How is it that we have hominid skeletons that are several millions of years old that are located where they are? If you hold to a flood, how can a flood cause the fossil record to be lined up so drastically they are located where they are, but so non-drastically that it doesn't affect the the sediments themselves erosion-wise? If you believe that the fossil record was put there by God in His design of the world, you lead to the intentional belief that God is deceptive, as to create the illusion of death, which would be problematic with His benevolence.
Also, how does Eden being vegetarian play a role in the history of Salvation? Even If you are a Protestant, the earliest Church Fathers like Saint Irenaeus and Saint Theophilus of Antioch from the 2nd century clearly believed that Creation was vegetarian, which would be contradictory.
With Theistic Evolution - that is, Old Earth Creationism which accepts Theistic Evolution - you get into a whole bunch of problems regarding the fact that - if God created us in a condition of death - the purpose of Christ's redemption is ultimately made completely meaningless, as are the promises of a return to a world that once was in the Old Testament. If you attempt to believe that at one point humanity was given a soul or transfigured, you have to deal with the fact that the implications of Genesis are wrong, which implies complete harmony between man and beast, with both creatures being vegetarian. If you believe that this is purely symbolic, it makes no sense why we shouldn't extrapolate such ideas of symbolism onto ANY of the Events of the Bible, even Christ's Death and Resurrection. Yeah, it's Casuitry, but I don't get how such Casuitry can be unsound, especially when this becomes especially all the more problematic when your Church claims direct, Apostolic descent, with Church Fathers who explicitly argued against and denied evolution as a heresy (in Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, or Oriental Orthodoxy).
I don't want to become an Agnostic. I don't. I feel like God has been there for me in the worst of my troubles, but the more and more I think about it logically, the more and more unsound and untenable these positions become to me, because I despise and hate cognitive dissonance / compartmentalization. Maybe it's the truth which I am ultimately terrified of - that there exists nothing but an empty space and me, and I am just a thought.
Please pray for me. If there's a God out there, and there is a Devil, maybe God can still save me from the Serpent whispering into my ears and help me find the Truth of Christ - if Christ is True, if God is True, and if the devil existing is True.
Theistic evolution has many forms. I personally think that God created the Universe with natural laws and with such motions that it naturally lead to everything He planned without a need to do everything supernaturally.
As a tree is hidden in a seed, in the same way I can imagine everything we have today to be hidden in the Big Bang. Causes lead to causes etc till the end of the Universe.
On the other hand, recent discoveries in science, particulary in the field of quantum mechanics, may suggest that our world is kind of "nothing" made existent just by the observing effect, similarly to how game engines work in computers.
I am not sure how this can work together with the macro cosmology (the Big Bang), but nobody probably knows yet.
God is great.
I do not understand why it is necessary to worry about these things.
Why should every Christian have to have an informed opinion about matters they've never studied or have never studied beyond a very basic level?
I sympathize with your desire to avoid incoherence, if I follow you.I believe that if these things are negatively affecting you, we should confront it to overcome it rather than suppressing it.
I don't think every Christian should have an informed opinion about it - but I would like to resolve this paradox for me personally (if it can be resolved), because I personally really struggle with cognitive dissonance and compartmentalization. If I recognize that I am consciously allowing a significant contradiction to exist within my own ideas, it harms my relationship with God.
For me, this is something that has been infringing on my spiritual life for far too long, as an obstacle which allows the devil to easily tempt me.
First of all, there is a difference between YEC and that alternative of the universe created 6000 years ago, if we are talking strictly about life. As Christians, let us remember, the promise of eternal life. I think the difference is in the timeline, nothing more. How old the cosmos is, is an open question as far as I can tell. I'm convinced that the story of Adam and Eve is true and the stone age ape man is false. So sorry for dismissing so many millions of years of development, but the counter arguments remain, unconvincing.So, for those who visit TAW, I've engaged with a lengthy discussion about the problems that I see with YEC, OEC, and Theistic Evolution from multiple different perspectives.
I can fully comprehend the idea that the naturalist assumptions in Darwinism can be erroneous and philosophically flawed.
However, upon looking at all three of these alternatives, I don't see how any of them can really make sense if we are to believe in Christianity.
Young Earth Creationism - that is, a belief in the age of a young earth, typically held by most to be 6000 years - seems hard to understand in light of the massive amount of evidence that contradicts this point of view - mainly the issue of geology, radiometry, and the fossil record. How could a flood like what was described in Noah's Ark create the results that it did - why is it, that extremely less complex life-forms are at the bottom with more complex life-forms at the top, with such a linear formation that nobody has found anything that would suggest non-linearity? Why is it that radiometric dating all (in the various techniques used) seems to confirm consistent dates for where these fossils are found (gradually increasing in year-size), the lack of human remains that would naturally be found within the strata, had such a flood occurred, and the various different compositions of the strata themselves which are all layered in such a way that they seem to imply that the layers were added via erosion. How could a flood, if it came from the bottom up and top down, create such an effect where fossils that are located in millions year old dated strata are, in fact, located?
This isn't even with the assumption of 6000 years - a date I find to be extremely problematic from just merely an archaeological perspective, because there are calendars that are older than the date of when the Flood would occur according to YEC proponents - including the Hebrew Calendar, the Chinese Calendar, and even the Yazidi Calendar, the Yazidi Calendar being older than 6000 years. Or perhaps the fact that the languages of the Sumerians, Babylonians, and once again, the Chinese, are older than 3000 years but yet no flood has interrupted the progress of their culture or civilization.
With OEC - which I define as Old Earth Creationism which denies Theistic Evolution, I find problematic with the fossil record once again, which makes even less sense than YEC. How is it that we have hominid skeletons that are several millions of years old that are located where they are? If you hold to a flood, how can a flood cause the fossil record to be lined up so drastically they are located where they are, but so non-drastically that it doesn't affect the the sediments themselves erosion-wise? If you believe that the fossil record was put there by God in His design of the world, you lead to the intentional belief that God is deceptive, as to create the illusion of death, which would be problematic with His benevolence.
Also, how does Eden being vegetarian play a role in the history of Salvation? Even If you are a Protestant, the earliest Church Fathers like Saint Irenaeus and Saint Theophilus of Antioch from the 2nd century clearly believed that Creation was vegetarian, which would be contradictory.
With Theistic Evolution - that is, Old Earth Creationism which accepts Theistic Evolution - you get into a whole bunch of problems regarding the fact that - if God created us in a condition of death - the purpose of Christ's redemption is ultimately made completely meaningless, as are the promises of a return to a world that once was in the Old Testament. If you attempt to believe that at one point humanity was given a soul or transfigured, you have to deal with the fact that the implications of Genesis are wrong, which implies complete harmony between man and beast, with both creatures being vegetarian. If you believe that this is purely symbolic, it makes no sense why we shouldn't extrapolate such ideas of symbolism onto ANY of the Events of the Bible, even Christ's Death and Resurrection. Yeah, it's Casuitry, but I don't get how such Casuitry can be unsound, especially when this becomes especially all the more problematic when your Church claims direct, Apostolic descent, with Church Fathers who explicitly argued against and denied evolution as a heresy (in Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, or Oriental Orthodoxy).
I don't want to become an Agnostic. I don't. I feel like God has been there for me in the worst of my troubles, but the more and more I think about it logically, the more and more unsound and untenable these positions become to me, because I despise and hate cognitive dissonance / compartmentalization. Maybe it's the truth which I am ultimately terrified of - that there exists nothing but an empty space and me, and I am just a thought.
Please pray for me. If there's a God out there, and there is a Devil, maybe God can still save me from the Serpent whispering into my ears and help me find the Truth of Christ - if Christ is True, if God is True, and if the devil existing is True.
I believe that if these things are negatively affecting you, we should confront it to overcome it rather than suppressing it.
I don't think every Christian should have an informed opinion about it - but I would like to resolve this paradox for me personally (if it can be resolved), because I personally really struggle with cognitive dissonance and compartmentalization. If I recognize that I am consciously allowing a significant contradiction to exist within my own ideas, it harms my relationship with God.
For me, this is something that has been infringing on my spiritual life for far too long, as an obstacle which allows the devil to easily tempt me.
Just a thought:
Thesis - antithesis - synthesis
If there are two truths that contradicts each other, then their synthesis is a solution.
If one truth is, that a car is blue and the second truth is that the same car is yellow, then the outcome is that the car is green (green is composed of blue and yellow).
I've never seen the Hegelian (or Hegel's) Dialectic put quite like that.
That's interesting. Perhaps I've read the more secular account that his ideas were based on the philosophies of Plato and Kant. I'll look into it.From what I remember of my 19th century political theory course (Hegel was discussed because he became foundational for both Marx and Weber), Hegel himself argued using his logic that Jesus Christ was the perfect synthesis between men worshiping created things (not being able to access the Perfect and Infinite God) and the Jews worshiping the uncreated God (who was not directly relatable and is incomprehensible; Christ, the Logos who is uncreated, while retaining His Divine Nature, took on human nature, so the infinite and inaccessible is made accessible.
How do you handle the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ after being dead three days?So, for those who visit TAW, I've engaged with a lengthy discussion about the problems that I see with YEC, OEC, and Theistic Evolution from multiple different perspectives.
I can fully comprehend the idea that the naturalist assumptions in Darwinism can be erroneous and philosophically flawed.
However, upon looking at all three of these alternatives, I don't see how any of them can really make sense if we are to believe in Christianity.
Young Earth Creationism - that is, a belief in the age of a young earth, typically held by most to be 6000 years - seems hard to understand in light of the massive amount of evidence that contradicts this point of view - mainly the issue of geology, radiometry, and the fossil record. How could a flood like what was described in Noah's Ark create the results that it did - why is it, that extremely less complex life-forms are at the bottom with more complex life-forms at the top, with such a linear formation that nobody has found anything that would suggest non-linearity? Why is it that radiometric dating all (in the various techniques used) seems to confirm consistent dates for where these fossils are found (gradually increasing in year-size), the lack of human remains that would naturally be found within the strata, had such a flood occurred, and the various different compositions of the strata themselves which are all layered in such a way that they seem to imply that the layers were added via erosion. How could a flood, if it came from the bottom up and top down, create such an effect where fossils that are located in millions year old dated strata are, in fact, located?
This isn't even with the assumption of 6000 years - a date I find to be extremely problematic from just merely an archaeological perspective, because there are calendars that are older than the date of when the Flood would occur according to YEC proponents - including the Hebrew Calendar, the Chinese Calendar, and even the Yazidi Calendar, the Yazidi Calendar being older than 6000 years. Or perhaps the fact that the languages of the Sumerians, Babylonians, and once again, the Chinese, are older than 3000 years but yet no flood has interrupted the progress of their culture or civilization.
With OEC - which I define as Old Earth Creationism which denies Theistic Evolution, I find problematic with the fossil record once again, which makes even less sense than YEC. How is it that we have hominid skeletons that are several millions of years old that are located where they are? If you hold to a flood, how can a flood cause the fossil record to be lined up so drastically they are located where they are, but so non-drastically that it doesn't affect the the sediments themselves erosion-wise? If you believe that the fossil record was put there by God in His design of the world, you lead to the intentional belief that God is deceptive, as to create the illusion of death, which would be problematic with His benevolence.
Also, how does Eden being vegetarian play a role in the history of Salvation? Even If you are a Protestant, the earliest Church Fathers like Saint Irenaeus and Saint Theophilus of Antioch from the 2nd century clearly believed that Creation was vegetarian, which would be contradictory.
With Theistic Evolution - that is, Old Earth Creationism which accepts Theistic Evolution - you get into a whole bunch of problems regarding the fact that - if God created us in a condition of death - the purpose of Christ's redemption is ultimately made completely meaningless, as are the promises of a return to a world that once was in the Old Testament. If you attempt to believe that at one point humanity was given a soul or transfigured, you have to deal with the fact that the implications of Genesis are wrong, which implies complete harmony between man and beast, with both creatures being vegetarian. If you believe that this is purely symbolic, it makes no sense why we shouldn't extrapolate such ideas of symbolism onto ANY of the Events of the Bible, even Christ's Death and Resurrection. Yeah, it's Casuitry, but I don't get how such Casuitry can be unsound, especially when this becomes especially all the more problematic when your Church claims direct, Apostolic descent, with Church Fathers who explicitly argued against and denied evolution as a heresy (in Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, or Oriental Orthodoxy).
I don't want to become an Agnostic. I don't. I feel like God has been there for me in the worst of my troubles, but the more and more I think about it logically, the more and more unsound and untenable these positions become to me, because I despise and hate cognitive dissonance / compartmentalization. Maybe it's the truth which I am ultimately terrified of - that there exists nothing but an empty space and me, and I am just a thought.
Please pray for me. If there's a God out there, and there is a Devil, maybe God can still save me from the Serpent whispering into my ears and help me find the Truth of Christ - if Christ is True, if God is True, and if the devil existing is True.
That's interesting. Perhaps I've read the more secular account that his ideas were based on the philosophies of Plato and Kant. I'll look into it.
Edit: I found the following quote:
The specifically Christian idea of God is as absolute spirit, which means that the divine life takes on a trinitarian structure: immediacy or self-identity, self-differentiation or positing of otherness, and self-return or consummation. This is the life-process of spirit itself. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity articulates this insight in representational language that introduces numbers (three-in-one) and persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). In Hegel’s speculative reconstruction, God is to be understood not as three persons but as infinite personality or subjectivity, which constitutes distinctions within itself but suspends these distinctions and remains in unity with itself. Life, love, and friendship all exhibit this dialectical structure. Traces and anticipations of the Trinity are to be found in everything and everywhere—an insight grasped by a heterodox tradition going back to Pythagoreans, Neoplatonists, Gnostics, and German mystics such as Boehme.It appears from this quote that Hegel rejected orthodox Christians beliefs. But I'm not an expert on Hegel by any means.
(Trinity: God as Absolute Spirit - Oxford Scholarship)
True, and Hegel seemed to have left his Christian roots, at least to an extent.Well, that's the thing about literature up until even the 19th century - if you didn't look like you've analyzed Christianity and didn't hold a belief in God, your work was dismiss-able, regardless if you believed in God or not. Darwin stated in his earlier writings that he was a theist, but near the end of his life he wrote that he could best be described as Agnostic.
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?