There once was a bunny

[Gregory Thompson]

Theology says God is the creator, which may or may not be true. We have convictions about God; we don't have certainty. Regardless of whether theology or atheism is true, the natural order - including rabbits - is the domain of science. You continue to mix apples and oranges.

Kindly note, this is a Christian subforum - Atheist ideology doesn't really have a place here.

 

[HBP]

Kindly note, this is a Christian subforum - Atheist ideology doesn't really have a place here.

Are we required to pretend it doesn't exist? The fact is, any rational Jew, Christian, Muslim or Hindu has to acknowledge at least the possibility that atheism, or a theism far from Judaism, Christianity, Islam or Hinduism, could be true. In any event, your effort to make rabbits part of theology is just simply wrong. Your original post literally makes no sense.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Are we required to pretend it doesn't exist? The fact is, any rational Jew, Christian, Muslim or Hindu has to acknowledge at least the possibility that atheism, or a theism far from Judaism, Christianity, Islam or Hinduism, could be true. In any event, your effort to make rabbits part of theology is just simply wrong. Your original post literally makes no sense.

God creating the universe is a foundational aspect of theology.

Kindly note, if you don't believe what Christians do, you're not welcome to post here.

 

[HBP]

God creating the universe is a foundational aspect of theology.

Kindly note, if you don't believe what Christians do, you're not welcome to post here.

Getting touchy, now. I've been a staff member with Campus Crusade for Christ and am a graduate of a Southern Baptist seminary, so let's not go into "holier than thou" mode. Sure, creation is a fundamental aspect of Christian theology and many others. The fact is, rational believers accept the possibility that theology could be wrong. I simply pointed out that rabbits are in the domain of science regardless of whether theology or atheism is correct and that speaking of rabbits in the manner you did in your original post simply makes no sense. "A heretical paradox" - what??? What is that even supposed to mean?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Getting touchy, now. I've been a staff member with Campus Crusade for Christ and am a graduate of a Southern Baptist seminary, so let's not go into "holier than thou" mode. Sure, creation is a fundamental aspect of Christian theology and many others. The fact is, rational believers accept the possibility that theology could be wrong. I simply pointed out that rabbits are in the domain of science regardless of whether theology or atheism is correct and that speaking of rabbits in the manner you did in your original post simply makes no sense. "A heretical paradox" - what??? What is that even supposed to mean?

So you were a church kid who worked his way up the food chain, your statements that God may not exist (and should we just pretend he does?) generally is an Atheist statement.

 

[HBP]

So you were a church kid who worked his way up the food chain, your statements that God may not exist (and should we just pretend he does?) generally is an Atheist statement.

No, virtually every major Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant theologian acknowledges that honest doubt or questioning is an element of the deepest faith. If you doubt this, simply Google "doubt as an element of faith." If you prefer to think otherwise, be my guest.

No, we don't pretend God exists. We reach a conviction that he does and we live as though he does - while accepting the possibility that we could be wrong. Pretend certainty - because that's all it can be - is the dangerous form of pretending.

 

[Fervent]

No, virtually every major Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant theologian acknowledges that honest doubt or questioning is an element of the deepest faith. If you doubt this, simply Google "doubt as an element of faith." If you prefer to think otherwise, be my guest.

No, we don't pretend God exists. We reach a conviction that he does and we live as though he does - while accepting the possibility that we could be wrong. Pretend certainty - because that's all it can be - is the dangerous form of pretending.

Doubt as an element of faith doesn't necessarily require us to acknowledge there is a genuine metaphysical possibility He doesn't exist. Aseity dictates that God must exist, because there must be some prime simple that qualifies as God. Whether that is a personal being, and Jesus may be open to suspicion, but correct reasoning should lead to recognizing the metaphysical impossibilitiy of something that's existence compels its own existence existing. Just because it is hypothetically possible for God to not exist doesn't mean that it is metaphysically possible, nor are we under any obligation to entertain the hypothetical.

 

[Hoping2]

Wow are you ever confused.

You are entitled to any opinion you may opine.

Theology is indeed the study of God. You or I may believe in God, but God is a metaphysical unknown -i.e., God may or may not exist.

That is where we part ways.
God has proven Himself many times in my life, but that is straying from the OP.
Bunnies are a proof that the word of God was true when describing the creation of the world, and the animals therein.
Ergo, bunnies are theological, in the sense that they prove the word of God is true !

Theological "proofs" are not proofs at all but rather attempts to show that belief in God is rational and plausible. Other theological studies assume the existence of God and attempt to put meat on the bones of the God concept.

Then you had better call them something besides "proofs".

Rabbits are part of the natural order. The natural order is the domain of science. Theology does not study the natural order or attempt to prove anything about it.

The natural order was made by and managed by God.
I feel comfortable using any and all of it, in an attempt to prove God exists. (theology)

You are simply mixing apples and oranges, seemingly on the basis of a misunderstanding of what theology means and does. The existence of rabbits is no more a theological issue than it is a philosophical issue; it's a scientific issue, period.

By separating creation from the Creator, you are turning apples into oranges.

Welcome to the site.

 

[Hoping2]

God didn't create sin. This was introduced into creation by humans, yet this too is theological.

... because of what Jesus did.

Amen.

 

[linux.poet]

AMBASSADOR HAT​

Friendly reminder - From the site statement of faith:

The Nicene Creed​

We believe in (Romans 10:8-10; 1John 4:15)
ONE God, (Deuteronomy 6:4, Ephesians 4:6)
the Father (Matthew 6:9)
Almighty, (Exodus 6:3)
Maker of Heaven and Earth, (Genesis 1:1)
and of all things visible and invisible. (Colossians 1:15-16)

If you don't believe in God, you aren't a Christian here at Christian Forums. Just thought I would clear that up.

The fact is, rational believers accept the possibility that theology could be wrong.

This implies that believers in Christ who believe in God without reservations are irrational. This can be read as flaming your fellow Christians.

• Please treat all members with respect and courtesy through civil dialogue.

Let's try to get back to whether theology can prove a bunny, not whether God exists, because in this subforum we all know that He does. Thanks!

AMBASSADOR HAT OFF​