To much ridicule and they will even doubt that he was the "Messiah".
What is the essential; surely it is not to believe that Jesus was the Messiah? Isn't that just a Jewish concept?
Last edited:
Is it possible to believe in God, and be a darwinist at the same time?
- Thread starter Jan Ardena
- Start date
What is the essential; surely it is not to believe that Jesus was the Messiah? Isn't that just a Jewish concept?
If you ignore the Hebrew prophecies/concepts, then there's no basis for thinking Jesus was anybody special.
That's not true. Even Jesus said "if you don't believe me, believe the miracles" or words like that.
I pray and see the miracles so I believe. Isn't that the proof that is left to us. I have premonitions and they come to pass. I have my personal prophecies being fulfilled. Stuff the old history. Do you believe in a "living God", one that does good for the living, or the God of the dead? Even Jesus said words like these.
"Or words like that"? Hmmm....
Actually, Jesus said those that wanted a sign (i.e - Miracles) were an evil and adulterous generation. The only sign he would give was the sign of Jonah. (Matthew 12:38-40)
No that wasn't the one, I'll see if I can find the one.
I Googled that exact phrase and got hits.
theres no such thing as Darwinist
There is a difference between those two, but they are not contradictory. One is a gift and the other is a demand.
Show me a sign is evil. Demanded by those seeking physical proof with no desire to really accept the truth e.g. skeptics generally.
But "believe of the miracles" is a gift from the Lord to those who genuinely seek after wisdom.
Call me arrogant if you want.
Jan: "The majority Christian view about how the Bible should be interpreted is wrong. I'm right."
The claim is actually that they are different aspects of the same entity.
William Lane Craig tackles it in the following articles (among many others):
Muslim Objections to Jesus’ Deity
Was Christ a Divine-Human Person?
Jan: "William Lane Craig, who has a masters degree in ecclesiastical history and the history of Christian thought, a Ph.D in philosophy, a doctorate in theology, who has lectured on the Christian faith for nearly 40 years and is now a professional Christian apologist (as well as a practicing Christian, of course), doesn't know how to interpret the Bible correctly. I do."
Yet another claim that is in conflict with what other theists would say. Many Christians claim that the Bible is the only divinely inspired word of God. Many Muslims claim that the Qur'an is the only divinely inspired word of God.
Furthermore, if claims concerning what is and isn't divinely inspired constitute "bringing religion into this discussion", then you had better exclude yourself.
More irony. On what authoritative grounds do you disagree?
Your position is weak because you are a cheat. You claimed that scripture should be interpreted literally, yet you are doing everything but that.
You are a disgrace to honest discourse, and always have been.
What is wrong with you? Can't you read? Where have I said that God, or Jesus, could ever be fully human? Go read Craig's articles that I linked you to above if you want a better understanding of the position I am presenting. You're just strawmanning me at every turn now, so it's clear there are some comprehension problems in play.
Errr, again, what's your point? Nothing there that is inconsistent with what I have been saying.
Jan: "William Lane Craig, use your brain man".
Again, what you're repeating back to me isn't what I'm actually saying, so there are those comprehension problems again. Like I said earlier, maybe Craig can help.
Earlier in this discussion I talked about (more than once, in fact) how in the context of Christian theology (and indeed most theologies) everyone is essentially spiritually immortal. Therefore when a person dies, it is merely the death of the physical body they inhabited. The spiritual essence of that person, or soul, lives on. Yet even though this is the case, both the Qur'an and the Bible use the word death anyway. What does this mean? It means we have a definition. That definition is: the demise of the material body.
So given that I made that clear early on, how can you conclude that I am suggesting that God could die just because he inhabited a physical body? By not bothering to fucking listen, that's how. And also, by not reading any of the additional resources I have linked you to throughout the course of this discussion, which formed an essential part of my presentation (which I why I bothered to include them).
What's becoming quite clear is that you are employing the same lazy approach to comprehension that we've seen you employ in pretty much every other discussion you've ever been involved in and are therefore failing to understand the essence of what is being said to you.
This is an outright lie. One minute you said, regarding the crucifixion "It's as if Jesus is seeing them do something to his body" and then the next, in response to being presented with the alternative translation, you switched to favouring the view where Jesus was substituted by someone else.
Your question was rhetorical, and you answered it yourself, on my behalf. And I didn't take issue with it. That's an answer. Twice, in fact. But since you want to be silly: of course you can't tell for sure what is going on in another persons head.
So, now that I've bothered to answer the rhetorical question that you'd already answered for yourself, answer mine, because you've essentially talked around it:
Do you accept that a Christian who embraces the sort of reading of the Bible that leads to standard Christian theology is indeed a real theist as long as their faith in God is properly genuine?
You're not just "questioning" it. You are making statements about it.
Bolster my position? Are you kidding? Take a look at the premises that are in play in this discussion:
1) God exists
2) Scripture is a source of knowledge about the nature of God
3) Scripture must be interpreted literally
4) When interpreted literally, scripture definitively shows us that God created various "kinds" of life that essentially never change
5) Therefore evolution can't be true
6) Therefore any theist who embraces evolution is rejecting scripture and is therefore not really a theist
Obviously we are accepting premise 1 for the sake of argument, but you can't even get past 2! It's simply not something that you can demonstrate therefore you don't have any justification whatsoever for excluding views of God that are not scripturally based. So already the question in the OP has been answered and you have no legitimate basis for disqualification. But even if we decide to be gracious and grant 2 as well (which also involves ignoring the debate about which sources are and aren't divinely inspired), you still can't even get past 3 owing to the fact that there is more than one view among theists about how literally scripture should be interpreted, and no way to definitively demonstrate which view is correct. But even when we decide to be incredibly gracious and also grant 3, all we see is that there is apparently more than one way to interpret scripture literally: yours, and that of the majority of the Christian/Muslim world (and no doubt others too), so we clearly can't rely on this supposed methodology as it is apparently afflicted with all the usual pitfalls of subjectivity. Therefore we can't actually proceed to 4 either. And if we don't get to 4 we don't get to 5, and if we don't get to 5 we don't get to 6. And guess what? 6 is what you are arguing here!
My position needs bolstering?
:crazy:
And the Qur'an which came after the Bible explains that it was made to look like he died.
Now a Christian would argue that the Qur'an isn't a bona-fide scripture. NOT MY PROBLEM.
Actually in terms of your efforts to justify your stance, this is part of the nature of your problem exactly.
Jan: "It's time to stop the nonsense, William Lane Craig."
(if you wonder why I keep doing this, I just find it amusing whenever theists essentially discredit one another as it's great ammunition for future discussions)
You have inaccurately characterized your interpretative methodology. You don't interpret scripture literally at all, at least not according to any reasonable definition of "literal". The problem with trying to have a discussion with someone like you is that because your theism is the only thing that is truly important to you, you can justify all sorts of behaviour undertaken in its defense. I can even understand the sentiment. Better to lie, evade, obfuscate and practice general intellectual dishonesty in an effort to stand firmly by a heartfelt conviction than allow it to be undermined in the eyes of others by instead upholding the virtues of honest debate. Better to be intolerant and judgmental rather than tolerant and accepting if it serves one's own theistic interests. Better to declare that billions of other religious people are wrong rather than to accept that it is legitimate to view God, and creation, in a way that is different to the way that you do.
Last edited:
this is fascinating, truly. i have always wondered what this meant...in a literal way.
because i have 'asked for signs.' not a sign of God to prove himself, but a sign if i should take a certain path in life, or whatever.
thanks for clarifying this, robittybob.
you're arrogant.
jk
April the 1st is what we call April Fool's Day.this is fascinating, truly. i have always wondered what this meant...in a literal way.
because i have 'asked for signs.' not a sign of God to prove himself, but a sign if i should take a certain path in life, or whatever.
thanks for clarifying this, robittybob.
you're arrogant.
jk
I once played a joke on my boss on April Fool's Day and had I written "Just Kidding" at the bottom of the letter, but those words were not noticed, and he called in the experts and they closed the whole computer system down, trying to restore and cleanse the system. I nearly got fired over that but there are those that still talk about it and think it was a hell of joke more than 10 years later.
Did you succeed in getting a sign at all?
Yeah, I did.
When Jesus said...'you'll know them by their fruits,' I believe he meant we are to see if someone's walk matches their talk. (and I think he meant this in a general sense, of how if someone claims to be righteous, or kind, or philanthropic, etc...we are to discern if that is true against his/her actions)
So, going with that...yes, I tend to get signs all the time. I used to ignore them, though.
Now, I pay attention.
I used to get that sort of criticism in the past. They'd say to me "Jesus said...'you'll know them by their fruits, so what are your fruits, where are your followers?"Yeah, I did.
When Jesus said...'you'll know them by their fruits,' I believe he meant we are to see if someone's walk matches their talk. (and I think he meant this in a general sense, of how if someone claims to be righteous, or kind, or philanthropic, etc...we are to discern if that is true against his/her actions)
So, going with that...yes, I tend to get signs all the time. I used to ignore them, though.
Now, I pay attention.
As if fruits and followers were the same thing. I'd just mention Hitler - he had the whole nation following him. That shut them up.
But in this case you are not talking about "followers" but "actions", and I wonder how one can judge another from such a distance?
Fruits don't mean followers, by the way...just a note there. You might want to research that more...He was speaking about actions.
Last edited:
It gets like that at work too, I end up with a "To do list" and you have to work through the list.Fruits don't mean followers, by the way...just a note there. You might want to research that more...He was speaking about actions.
Going to your point about how I can judge...
I've often noticed something poignant in life, when I've given someone a gift...and they don't open it. They ignore it. They don't even acknowledge it, and claim to be too busy to open it...etc. But, then I see them busy doing other things...this tells me, they are just not interested in my gift. Or in me, really.
But, then, they are confusing, because they will say flowery words in hopes that I don't notice that they don't really care about me...and then, I believe them again. Then, the behavior starts up again. Rinse and repeat. lol
If you care about someone, you care to open their gifts. Actions at the end of the day, ALWAYS blare louder than words.
''You'll know them by their fruits......''
I also hold said people who claim to be christians, to a higher standard. If someone touts that they follow Jesus, but treat me with little regard...I honestly stop believing they are following anyone but themselves.
Actions, robittybob....it's all about actions.
Last edited:
To believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis and be a Darwinist is a contradiction.
To believe in a God that did not create the Earth in 7 days and be a Darwinist is not.
One can believe in evolution and be a believer in God.
God gave us the ability to discern truths. Science has unraveled a lot of truths about the universe, that simply weren't known back when the bible was compiled.
If one takes Genesis as a literal story of creation, then, no...to hold darwinist views, would be contradictory.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
But it always comes down to the properties of God. No one disagrees that there must have been a Causality for the universe to come into existence.
But then the overriding question becomes, if God is sentient, what was the motive for creation of the universe?
IMO, the only answer that does not bring all the confusing sophistry of Intentional Creation is "creation of this universe was Inevitable". The potential for this event existed and from an infinity of probabilities, our universe became manifest because everything is governed and responds to Natural Constants, which allowed order to emerge and allow for the evolution of the universe and all that it contains (except perhaps for black holes). But ten, The latest information proposes that BHs are essential to the development and continuation of the universe.
In any case, unless one describes "orderly" as being (pseudo) intelligent, we always get stuck on "motive" and if the motive was good, then why create chaos as a start? Seems kinda random to me.