Ask a Christian Theologian
- Thread starter maximilian
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Sneakypenguin, I propose a more logical conclusion that the Bible makes - God has foreknowledge about everything because he has determined every single action for his own ends. For me it doesn't make sense that God can see the future (as you propose) but does and can do nothing about it - if thats the case then God is weak. However the Bible is CLEAR that God has foreknowledge because of predetermination.
And desires "all to be saved" - language study, who is the "all"? In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul defines "all" as "those who belong to Him" - and remember, you have to read one verse holistically along with all the others. If John 11 says that Jesus died for the Children of God scattered throughout the World (limited atonement) and 1 John 2 says that Jesus died for the "whole world" (supposedly unlimited atonement) - the logical language study is to say this:
both were written by John.
both were saying the same thing.
Therefore it is fair to say, "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not just ours but also the (children of God scattered throughout) whole world" - 1 John 2 (insert John 11)
Thus the one verse that could be seen to uproot limited atonement actually defends it.
And desires "all to be saved" - language study, who is the "all"? In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul defines "all" as "those who belong to Him" - and remember, you have to read one verse holistically along with all the others. If John 11 says that Jesus died for the Children of God scattered throughout the World (limited atonement) and 1 John 2 says that Jesus died for the "whole world" (supposedly unlimited atonement) - the logical language study is to say this:
both were written by John.
both were saying the same thing.
Therefore it is fair to say, "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not just ours but also the (children of God scattered throughout) whole world" - 1 John 2 (insert John 11)
Thus the one verse that could be seen to uproot limited atonement actually defends it.
LOL. Scientists has proven..... Great Leap Forward? I think you are taking science way too seriously. But, yes, there is plenty of evidence for it, for a start there's the mass deforestation, that's not mentioned in books or on the net thanks to censorship and the fact no one cares, but there are plenty of villagers' tales of green landscapes turning to bare muddy hills. Also there are all the gaps in lots of family trees corresponding to people who died after this period.Dele said:
I hate how people always point to the missing link. There isn't one, there doesn't need to be one, that's the point.Dele said:
Trace,Trace2010 said:
The stuff you're posting is rather, err, scientifically misguided. Hell, with all the exclamation points and capital letters it kinda comes off as downright insane.
No "scientists" "struggle over the missing link." Paleontologists are continually discovering new ancient species to fill in these supposed evolutionary "gaps." That's why cdesign proponentsists have to continually shift the goal post (even then, they're still not fooling anyone).
Of course humans emerged in circumstances that were favorable to their development. That's how natural selection works.
-- Alex
Okay obviously you failed to understand my post and what it had to do with evolution so I guess I gotta do it the old good way.. With pictures!Anarchemitis said:
Here is your regular unevolved farmer. Obviously he is discontent to his life as can be seen from his expression but fortunately for him there are higher forces in the world trying to change his life completely.
Introduce a little influence from Mao Zedong (theistic folk can replace him with God) and the evolutionary process shall begin.
Irrefutable proof about existance of the missing link [link:] that scientist are supposedly struggling with
An artistic view about Great Leap Forward producing modern civilized people out of unevolved farmers. You can read more about GLP from Encyclopedia Galatica [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward]
There you have it! A farmer evolved into a happy communist through influence by divine being causing evolution to happen. It doesn't get any simple than this folks... Any futher questions? No? Good
Actually I do have a question; what does Communist Cult of Personality have anything to do with God?
Don't answer that. Back on topic.
Don't answer that. Back on topic.
You seemed to be implying that the 2% variation meant that we couldn't have evolved. The fact that such a small change can cause such a big difference is in fact evidence for evolution.[/quote]Trace2010 said:
I am not saying mankind hasn't evolved- of course we have. What do you think skin pigmentation is- or round and slanted eyes are (evolutions of man to protect against THE SUN)? But I AM saying we didn't start with the rest of the universe- WE WERE PLACED within it at a particular place and time where the planet could best facilitate human growth and development. And the fact that we were placed in the proper place, in the proper time, with THE ABILITY TO EVOLVE only furthers my point. Scientists still have struggled over THE MISSING LINK, and the so called GREAT LEAP FORWARD. Why? CAUSE IT'S NOT THERE!![/quote]
the Great leap forward indeed existed, the only reason skepticism still abounds is due to the nature of China's ability to censor its media. And many candidates for "missing links" exist in the fossil record, the only reason none of the "believers" accept this is because they demand a living link. Humans and chimps both use tools, both wage war, both have intricate social structures, both have sex for pleasure, and both have the same number of hair follicles, humanity's body hair is usually just less pronounced.
Alex_P said:
So, can we get maggots from meat?
No, I assure you Alex, I am quite lucid in my arguments. Please pardon my overexhuberance.
I believe that science is mankind's attempt to realize complete understanding and control of the world he lives in- a noble ambition to be sure, but one that is always limited to concepts and calculations within the realm of human understanding. This is where science reaches its limitations on what can and cannot be proven as fact- once you get to a scale TOO big, you lose the accuracy of what can be proven.
Michael Chrichton said it best in Jurassic Park- paraphrased, "humans had no standard of measurement that would allow them to conceptualize 100 million years ago". Radio carbon dating is still inexact- 10 million years from now, the carbon in the bones of me, you, Chairman Mao, Ghengis Kahn, Shakespeare, Mozart, and Napolean Bonaparte would all register in the same period of time. I am quite sure that scientists are still struggling to put everything in the right order.
So saying that, yes, I believe evolution is a possibility, and it is the one possibility that the "enlightened human mind" can grasp and hold on to using it using the evidence and the rules of science to explain the world around it.
However, if this is true then everything being done on this earth to civilize it is a waste of time...time started, but there is no overall goal of life, no purpose. What people argue as "purpose" being an abstract idea, I find preposterous. Without purpose, all we have is instinct. Some scientists would actually interchange the words "purpose" and "instinct"- I find that silly. Assume we are the chimps: we eat, drink, mate, survive, thrive, born again. Maybe we develop complex social structure; maybe even something regarding speech patterns or songs to attract a mate. But we don't build or paint the Sistine Chapel; we don't compose Marraige of Figaro- there is no purpose to these things for a chimp. A chimp cannot be taught what art is, or what music is, or even what architecture is- and comparing a termite fishing rod to a screwdriver, or a sand burrow to the Palace of Versailles, is the complete definition of insanity- yet it is done by scientists all the time. That's the same arrogance as saying on the basketball court, "you're pretty good for a girl".
Also, if we are chimps, we do not have complex thoughts; we do not ask complex questions; we have no need of complex moral ideals. Evolution tells me these things would eventually come in time- but not if there is not an immediate need, a cause for the change (the scientific term escapes me for the moment). What was the basic cause for science to be developed in the first place? Quite frankly, the answer was organized religion- (on one side the attempt to prove its existence, on the other to discredit it entirely).
If there was no God (poly or monotheistic), there would be no reason to create anything: Art, Literature, Fashion, Architecture, Music, - what other species do you know that does THOSE things for pleasure.
Just as many atheists claim believers use religion as a "security blanket", I believe that the reverse exists as well- that science is used as the security blanket to protect a person from something that can exist outside of the metaphysical. While I am not going so far as to state belief in the "Boogyman", I do believe that there are forces (both absolutely good, and absolutely evil) that attempt to shape the world as it sees fit. It is the only "scientific" explanation (for lack of a better term) that covers every stupid/sick thing man can do to his fellow man, as well as give ordinary people extraordinary courage.
Lastly, I love how everyone says you can't prove what is in the Bible- Egypt still exists, as does Jerusalem, Jordan, (and many other historical biblical sites)- yet are so quick to say they do not like God because of what (supposedly) was done in the Bible.
I am interested: what does China's media have to do with this argument anyway?
Oh, one more thing---
There is no evidence to support that either or both of these occurances could have happened at the same time. But man, that would be another bone and a half to pick, now wouldn't it?
Your entire argument boils down to equating "should be" with "is." "Oh, I would much prefer if God existed. Therefore, he must!" Aesthetic arguments certainly have a place in theology and philosophy but, well, you need something with more substance as well.Trace2010 said:
At best, you're looking around and saying "Hey, here is some stuff we don't know! Lets fill it in with the same stuff that people two thousand years ago used to fill in stuff they didn't know, despite the fact that what we do know now has consistently shown that their beliefs make much more sense as metaphors than as statements about the direct objective nature of reality -- probably because they were just big ol' guesses to begin with."
Heck, even aesthetically, the "God of the gaps" rather sucks. Fundamentally, he's a God who's constantly in retreat, shirking away from every new particle, every new fossil, every new AI algorithm -- a God that is doomed to wither and die. There's gotta be some other conception of God that, at the least, isn't being slowly strangled by our own growing abilities to perceive the very universe that he supposedly created.
-- Alex
Aesthetic arguments do not have a place in science as well? AHA, I have now proven that something exists outside the quantifiable realm of science!! lol..Alex_P said:
I guess this is how you and I differ- you, Mr. Tom Masters(whose paper I have read and I believe you are quoting), and all the non-believers believe that human discovery is strangling the existence of God...when I believe He is actually being revealed and mankind is too slow to understand this, because within themselves, they are secretly hoping that God can one day be disproven with finality. But really: How is my God being strangled by our depth in human understanding? I understand that the wind, the rain, the forest, etc. all had their own gods back in the days of polytheism until monotheism came along and debunked them. The ultimate problem with many gods: they were given human qualities and were supposedly in constant struggle with eachother- which did not ultimately reflect the balance of life. The problem with the new god called science is, even if we find an underlying answer to a question, it does not present the ultimate answer- it only adds more questions. I firmly expect when a scientist dies for them to find God- have Him look at them and say "What took you so long?"
Stimulus-Response-Stimulus-Response-Adaptation-Stimulus-New Response-New Stimulus
The wheels on the bus go round and round, but they had to start somewhere- and we had to jump on, fully in rhythm, ready to evolve with the planet, but given a completely different skill set (both in size and in capacity), than the other animals. That takes talent, not trial and error, and not blind luck.
No Alex...God is not in retreat- He has always been there. People are in the state of constant retreat- the same people who subverted the word of God that caused the Inquisition and the Crusades; that caused Reformation; and Counter Reformation; that placed the King of England back in control, and have recently been the source of everyone's "control issues". Me, I am not a scientist, nor a theologian, which is why it is very easy for you to punch holes in my science or in my religious history and doctrine- but not my logic or my reasoning...I am an artist and creator, which makes it much easier for me to understand God who is both.
Oh one more question/observation: Even if Evolution were proven, would it actually refute God anyway? Or is science on the single most slippery sloped fallacy of our time?
Hmmmm, yes, well my point was that the Bible's condemnation of homosexuals can be derived from only a man and a woman being allowed to marry in addition to mandating that only a married couple can have sex. This basically restricts homosexual sex, but I was curious as to the restrictions of a celibate homosexual relationship.G_Wright said:
Does this mean that as long as sex/marriage isn't involved, homosexual tendencies aren't condemned by the Bible? (Although I suppose that the specific point of homosexuality is sexual attraction to the same sex, meaning a homosexual relationship is based on the desire for sex with the same gender.)
And I think you missed my point on God being all knowing but choosing not to predestine .jordan. said:
Some have suggested that the idea of man having a free will is somehow a denial of the sovereignty of God. If it is God who created man with a free will, omnisciently knowing how man will exercise it, omnipresently influencing man to use it for God?s glory and omnipotently holding man responsible for how he exercises the free will, how is His sovereignty denied?
For God to elect those for salvation (and by logic condemn those that arent) is to show that He is not a just and fair God as shown in the scriptures. But it would show malevolence in that he would create people specifically for hell. It also brings no glory or honor to God if man has no free will. IE if people serve you because you make them that means so much less than people having a love for Christ and serving Him
Basically I'm saying yes God does predestinate events He also gave man a choice to pick between choosing to place faith in Him or rejecting Him.
All knowing and all powerful =/= pre-selection for salvation
I put my replies to your post in brackets cause I'm not sure how to separate it into little quote blocks.
Again appologies for not replying in a full manner as i'm in class atm of writing