Theistic Evolution

[AV1611VET]

Genesis does not have to be read literally ...

Even allegorically, you have the earth before the sun and stars.

 

[AV1611VET]

At the risk of repeating myself, theistic evolution is a philosophical interpretation of a scientific theory.

What's the difference between philosophical and theological?

 

[lesliedellow]

What's the difference between philosophical and theological?

Theology is a sub-discipline of philosophy. So, strictly speaking is science, which is why it was known as natural philosophy until the mid nineteenth century.

 

[AV1611VET]

Theology is a sub-discipline of philosophy.

Does that include Christology and Pneumatology as well?

 

[lesliedellow]

Does that include Christology and Pneumatology as well?

As I am quite sure you are aware, Christology and Pneumatology occur as chapter titles in many systematic theologies.

 

[elopez]

Even allegorically, you have the earth before the sun and stars.

So? At that point it doesn't matter. The point is the same: God is creator of all...

 

[AV1611VET]

As I am quite sure you are aware, Christology and Pneumatology occur as chapter titles in many systematic theologies.

So if you ran this site, I take it you would put CREATION AND EVOLUTION in the PHILOSOPHY forum, along with Theology proper?

 

[lesliedellow]

So if you ran this site, I take it you would put CREATION AND EVOLUTION in the PHILOSOPHY forum, along with Theology proper?

Would I?

 

[AV1611VET]

So?

So the allegorical method can take a hike.

The allegorical method was an attempt to meld literalism with Platonic thought.

Since Koine Greek was the language of the laity, the Classical Greeks started their own brand of literature.

Scientists do that today.

Using Greek and Latin terminology to [seemingly] put them head-and-shoulders above the laity.

That way they can "talk turkey" and get away with it.

It also requires an expensive education to have to learn all that tongue-speaking technoblab.

1 Corinthians 14:19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.

Once in awhile they coin terms that are blasphemous, such as "El Niño" and "El Niña" and "Homo sapiens", and their true intent is exposed.

 

[AV1611VET]

Would I?

I doubt it.

I have to think you're just being argumentative for the sake of argument.

If you're not, then ... well ... you're not.

 

[lesliedellow]

I doubt it.

I have to think you're just being argumentative for the sake of argument.

If you're not, then ... well ... you're not.

It seems to me you are the one in the argumentative mood.

 

[juvenissun]

YOU not being able to see how it is possible doesn't mean it isn't possible. Many Christians are TE.

Genesis is not disregarded. Genesis is obviously relevant to TE as we still think God is creator. Genesis does not have to be read literally (which really is for another thread), and has no always been treated as literal. Augustine for example took a symbolic interpretation. Now, regarding one's salvation is an entirely different subject, one I don't think is tenable if you take the position of saying no literal sense means no salvation, but again that is nor here or there.

Well honestly you are wrong. "Create" doesn't mean special creation, though. In fact, "creation" doesn't even have to mean that at all.

That is what the TE's stand is. No surprise. It MUST BE so.
You people missed A LOT of blessings all because a very flawed theory developed by human.

Are you a scientist? Do you really think the idea of evolution worths so much of your sacrifice on your eternal benefit? If you are a scientist, the huge problem of evolution is very very obvious to see. To me, it is scientifically much easier to believe the Genesis is literally true, than to believe the evolution really works as it said.

 

[elopez]

You people missed A LOT of blessings all because a very flawed theory developed by human.

Who are you to understand anything about who is saved or not? You couldn't name one blessing anyone who believes in evolution or TE has missed...

Are you a scientist? Do you really think the idea of evolution worths so much of your sacrifice on your eternal benefit?

Do you not realize many scientists are Christian? How does that preclude one from any eternal benefit? You failed to explain that, nor do I think you can.

If you are a scientist, the huge problem of evolution is very very obvious to see. To me, it is scientifically much easier to believe the Genesis is literally true, than to believe the evolution really works as it said.

Really? The OP has already agreed creationism isn't scientific. At least someone gets it! You have to bend backwards and add extra Biblical matters to make sense of a scientific understanding of a literal Genesis, which BTW, doesn't make it all that scientific...

 

[lesliedellow]

That isAre you a scientist? Do you really think the idea of evolution worths so much of your sacrifice on your eternal benefit?

Another Protestant who believes salvation is by works. In this case the work of disbelieving a well established scientific theory for no good reason.

If you are a scientist, the huge problem of evolution is very very obvious to see.

If it's that obvious, how come so very few scientists appear to see it?

 

[justlookinla]

Can't you find a new song to sing? This one is getting a bit same-ey.

As soon as the Darwinist find a new song to sing. As long as they sing their faith-based song, I'll sing mine.

 

[juvenissun]

Who are you to understand anything about who is saved or not? You couldn't name one blessing anyone who believes in evolution or TE has missed...

Do you not realize many scientists are Christian? How does that preclude one from any eternal benefit? You failed to explain that, nor do I think you can.

Really? The OP has already agreed creationism isn't scientific. At least someone gets it! You have to bend backwards and add extra Biblical matters to make sense of a scientific understanding of a literal Genesis, which BTW, doesn't make it all that scientific...

I am not God. How would I know what would you missing in the Heaven? Pretty bad argument.

No. I don't need to bend anything and do not need to add anything of science to the creation account. That is what literal means. Bending and adding are only needed in TE. If you like to see that, we may start with Gen 1:1, verse by verse.

Yes, many many Christian scientists are in TE. I feel sorry for them.

 

[lesliedellow]

Yes, many many Christian scientists are in TE. I feel sorry for them.

There's really no need, I assure you.

 

[juvenissun]

Another Protestant who believes salvation is by works. In this case the work of disbelieving a well established scientific theory for no good reason.

If it's that obvious, how come so very few scientists appear to see it?

Two major reasons:
1. They have NEVER seriously considered how could a literal reading of Genesis fit the current science.
2. They are in the profession of using evolution theory. They need to keep their career. Even they do see (easily) the theory has millions of holes, they do not want to say the holes are not amendable.

 

[lasthero]

2. They are in the profession of using evolution theory. They need to keep their career.

Creationists make plenty of money.

 

[juvenissun]

Creationists make plenty of money.

Atheists make more.