|
bigperm posted:No for two reasons. First No because I don't believe there is a god to be made an image of in the first place and two because our 'image' is based on billions of years of natural selection which I contend neither needs nor shows any indication of a guiding hand towards any particular purpose. The watchmaker is blind and so on. My point was not directed at your particular faith but rather the superintending agent, couldn't that agent have created man in the image of himself even while using evolutionary principles to bring about that realization? Sorry for any confusion. You don't think there is any evidence of design in the complexity of life on the planet? It just came from flatworms by chance? You mention the watchmaker but you gotta climb mount improbable before you can see him (the new atheist's arguments are not bulletproof) Yehoshua Eben fucked around with this message at 02:54 on Jun 23, 2016 |
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 02:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 17:07 |
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:You don't think there is any evidence of design in the complexity of life on the planet? It just came from flatworms by chance? Randomness is scary.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 02:57
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:(the new atheist's arguments are not bulletproof) Yehoshua Eben posted:You mention the watchmaker but you gotta climb mount improbable before you can see him Speaking of arguments that are not very bulletproof.... We have loads of supporting evidence the uphold the idea that life could arise from randomness. We've recreated those circumstances in the lab repeatedly. However, the watchmaker argument? Why should order mean we are designed? This is just sad appeals to try to hold up a preconceived notion. Its pseudoscience. Its just another in the line of human chauvinism. You are just another victim of anthropocentrism. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 03:26 on Jun 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 03:19
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:You don't think there is any evidence of design in the complexity of life on the planet? It just came from flatworms by chance? You mention the watchmaker but you gotta climb mount improbable before you can see him (the new atheist's arguments are not bulletproof)
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 03:26
|
|
|
bigperm posted:Perhaps not bulletproof, but if you think anyone suggests we came from flatworms by chance then you don't have any bullets and don't understand the basic premise of 'climbing mount improbable', the whole point of which was to demonstrate that it was not chance but a series of small steps which built one upon the other in small increments over a long period of time to get to the top of the mountain. Natural selection is anything but chance. This is a quote from Richard Dawkins Natural selection is a cumulative process which breaks the problem of improbability up into small pieces. Each piece is slightly improbable, but not prohibitively so. When large numbers of slightly improbable events are stacked up in series, the end product of the accumulation is very very improbable indeed, improbably enough to be far beyond the reach of chance So he breaks it down into smaller less improbable pieces that appears to be complex when taken as a whole Dawkins thinks that accumulation easily sidesteps the irreducible complexity objection. But any structural complexity below some given point is not survival productive at all , just inefficient, non productive and hence counterproductive and nonsurvival producing. The most primitive brain is still a brain and a highly complex machine but it would have to have numerous antecedent states that are not brains at all and "survival of the fittest" should eliminate them, unless of course there is a design plan at work.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 14:39
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:Dawkins thinks that accumulation easily sidesteps the irreducible complexity objection. But any structural complexity below some given point is not survival productive at all , just inefficient, non productive and hence counterproductive and nonsurvival producing. The most primitive brain is still a brain and a highly complex machine but it would have to have numerous antecedent states that are not brains at all and "survival of the fittest" should eliminate them, unless of course there is a design plan at work. The fact that you are even bringing up the irreducible complexity argument is laughable. Its been blown out of the water repeatedly, and is just a creationist fallacy. And I don't think 'Survival of the Fittest' means what you THINK is means. And if you think that it was all designed, were the dinosaurs just a mistake in god's plan? Given that they dominated the Earth for a significant period, why were they not God's chosen creation? Or could it be that life is just chance and the dinosaurs were simply not able to adapt to the sudden change in their environment. I'm not a fan of Dawkins, but you are repeating Creationist pseudoscience that has been laughed out of the scientific community ages ago. Its part of why approaching scientific arguments from a faith centered view is very dangerous, because you are coming in with predisposed claims and hoping to prove them valid, drat the evidence. That's not how science works, and its not how reality works. Special pleading is not helping your case for Intelligent Design. quote:The core of their argument is this; that complexity can only be created by design. That's the first premise they offer up. quote:Frequently, believers in this philosophy cite the eye as an example of something too complex to have evolved. The argument is frequently presented with a question of the type, "What use is half an eye?". However if the question is recast as "Given a choice, would you prefer to be completely blind or have 50% of your present vision?", then it becomes clear that the question is badly formed, especially when keeping in mind that many species manage to survive with significantly less advanced eyes. Examples include the polychaete worms, which can distinguish between light and dark;[7] the simple eye-cup of the flatworms, for finding the direction of a light source; jellyfish and scallops, with simple eyes for detecting movement;[8] the famous compound eyes of the insects, which can make out simple shapes, and ultimately the sophisticated single-lens eyes of the molluscs and vertebrates. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 14:50 on Jun 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 14:41
|
|
|
Q. Why does God allow terrible things happen to innocent people, like children? Possible Answer: The presence of such gratuitous evil in God's creation is consistent with God's purposes for creation; moreover it is what we might expect to find in a natural order designed to serve as an arena in which free human beings are given an opportunity to respond to real dangers and challenges in the process known as soul-making
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 14:52
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:Q. Why does God allow terrible things happen to innocent people, like children? Might as well toss prayer out the window then. And god's blessings. Apparently God is a Roman emperor and we are all just the gladiators in the Colosseum for his entertainment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 14:56
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The fact that you are even bringing up the irreducible complexity argument is laughable. Its been blown out of the water repeatedly, and is just a creationist fallacy. You did not answer the problem I posed, you just cited "science" and did not explain anything beyond further muddling the waters without any real explantions Answer this then: But any structural complexity below some given point is not survival productive at all , just inefficient, non productive and hence counterproductive and nonsurvival producing. The most primitive brain is still a brain and a highly complex machine but it would have to have numerous antecedent states that are not brains at all and "survival of the fittest" should eliminate them,
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 14:56
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Might as well toss prayer out the window then. And god's blessings. We live in a free system supported dynamic world, but that does not mean that God doesn't intervene on behalf of people or uphold His covanental promises (including answering prayer if they abide in Him and He abides in them)
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 14:59
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:Answer this then:  You are aware that even our complex brains are made up of relatively simple neurons, right? And you are forgetting: Multiple species failed because they couldn't adapt. Almost as if they were not fit to survive. You are looking at a single path and saying that all other paths never happened because you only followed that one path. Therefore, that path is the best path and obviously you were blessed to take it. Yehoshua Eben posted:You did not answer the problem I posed, you just cited "science" and did not explain anything beyond further muddling the waters without any real explantions HAHAHAHAHA! No. You muddied the waters by citing a well disproved argument about irreducibility and are upset that it got called out as being bullshit. And citing that argument IS muddying the waters, because you are hand waving away evolution by saying 'God did it'. Yehoshua Eben posted:We live in a free system supported dynamic world, but that does not mean that God doesn't intervene on behalf of people or uphold His covanental promises (including answering prayer if they abide in Him and He abides in them) Funny that he only seems to bless first world citizens, screw the rest of them. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 15:07 on Jun 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 15:01
|
|
|
I agree the argument from design known as the "teleological argument via the watch on the beach by Willliam Paley" has had some problems, you forget that this argument was created before evolution was discovered edit: not saying that it came before origin of species validates the argument, saying that he did not make this argument in light of the science of the second half of the nineteenth century. But this is only one form of argument, defeating the watch on the beach does nothing for the arguments from contingency, moral arguments, or ontological arguments. Yehoshua Eben fucked around with this message at 15:14 on Jun 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 15:03
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:I agree the argument from design known as the "teleological argument via the watch on the beach by Willliam Paley" has had some problems, you forget that this argument was created before evolution was discovered Evolution has been proposed multiple times over centuries. Anaximander and Empedocles proposed something similar centuries before, Darwin was just the first one to firmly establish the hypothesis and back it heavily with evidence. And the watch argument is still a BAD argument, and saying that "A-HA! It got there first" does not invalidate Darwin's advances and suddenly validate Intelligent Design. Yehoshua Eben posted:edit: not saying that it came before origin of species validates the argument, saying that he did not make this argument in light of the science of the second half of the nineteenth century. But this is only one form of argument, defeating the watch on the beach does nothing for the arguments from contingency, moral arguments, or ontological arguments. No, the evidence defeats that argument. Because we know through evidence that none of the things that are proposed as being irreducibly complex are actually irreducible. You are making an argument that something is proof of a designer by citing a natural phenomenon or device and then saying "STOP! We can go no further, this is evidence of a creator, so we should not reduce it further!" when we've already reduced it AND discovered and described the methods that led to it. LET ME BE CLEAR My goal is not to disprove god or your faith, but to inform you that you may be being misled on the scientific arguments that are being proposed in the Seminary to support your faith. You can believe in god, and believe god had something to do with this, but that does not invalidate the natural evidence supporting evolution and nature. Looking for god's footprints in natural phenomenon kind of defeats the purpose of having faith, especially when any slight hint of design turns into a lambasted argument about how science is wrong. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 15:24 on Jun 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:You did not answer the problem I posed, you just cited "science" and did not explain anything beyond further muddling the waters without any real explantions I might humbly suggest not going down this path man, here be dragons. quote:Answer this then: This is just wrong and kind of gobbledygook. The progression from single cell organisms to multicellular organisms to central nervous systems and so on is logically consistent and demonstrable. "Survival of the fittest" does not mean what you think it means. "Survival of the fittest" does not eliminate inefficiencies - that is the kind of thing that only an intelligent designer would do. The fact that there are numerous inefficiencies that are not eliminated specifically because they do not impair survival is evidence against what you're saying, not evidence for it. But if this thread is going to turn into a sort of thinly veiled evolution debate we should all probably abandon ship at this point because it will inevitably resolve into people berating you for either not understanding or not learning about it if you double down on misinformed beliefs. I'll give you an anecdote: a lot of Tibetans, I mean a lot, have a very poor scientific education. They are shocked when they get into airplanes and see that the world is not actually 4 continents circling the world-mountain Mt. Meru. I have spoken to more than one Tibetan who was let down by this the first time they got in a plane. But because they don't deeply invest in this worldview, most Tibetans I've met are actually really fascinated by and interested in discovering how the world actually works. I think a lot of this is because Buddhism as a religion encourages study and observation of how things actually are, and it certainly doesn't hurt that Buddhism and modern science are completely compatible, but the main point is that if your strongly held beliefs are contradicting the evidence you have in front of you, it's not really admirable to double down on the strongly held belief. If you want to study modern sciences to actually learn about these things, without the kind of insane "teach the controversy" pre-assumptions we (and we alone, on the entire planet) make in the US, then that's definitely good and cool. But if you don't want to do that, at the very least do not get baited into arguing with people who have taken the time to learn sciences, or try to convince them that the science and research is wrong. It will not convince them, it will make you look like a crackpot, and ultimately, it's not really that important to living your life right now today. You can believe whatever you want, but trying to convince others that their beliefs are wrong when theirs are built by consensus and research leads to madness. Edit: whether you believe in evolution or astronomy or molecules isn't that important in your daily life, I've never made a decision based on "well, evolution exists, so I guess . . . . " outside of a science classroom, but that doesn't mean it should be dismissed or that it should shake your faith or something. "Evolution is a thing that happens" should not lead to "but that doesn't work with my deeply held beliefs, I should work on finding ways that evolution might not be the case!!" Instead, almost any other mental action, even just ignoring it, is going to lead to a happier outcome. Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 15:30 on Jun 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:But if this thread is going to turn into a sort of thinly veiled evolution debate we should all probably abandon ship at this point because it will inevitably resolve into people berating you for either not understanding or not learning about it if you double down on misinformed beliefs. Seriously, I'd suggest abandoning this now. This person created the thread so that we could ask questions, not get into an extended debate on the merits of evolution vs. intelligent design. There is zero chance you're going to convince this person of anything, so maybe don't waste the time and effort?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Evolution has been proposed multiple times over centuries. Anaximander and Empedocles proposed something similar centuries before, Darwin was just the first one to firmly establish the hypothesis and back it heavily with evidence. Well the purpose of faith is not to merely say God created the grand canyon look at what He made, because I do not deny erosion, I do not deny the time it took too make the canyon in that method (though I do believe if God WANTED to, surely an omnipotent being that transcends time could have put it there in an instant) thats not the purpose of having faith. Christian faith's purpose is to have eternal life, to be resurrected and dwell in God's provenance for eternity . The bible says itself if the resurrection is not valid the religion is vein Yehoshua Eben fucked around with this message at 15:33 on Jun 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 15:29
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:Well the purpose of faith is not to merely say God created the grand canyon look at what He made, because I do not deny erosion, I do not deny the time it took too make the canyon in that method (though I do believe if God WANTED to, surely an omnipotent being that transcends time could have put it there in an instant) thats not the purpose of having faith. Christian faith's purpose is to have eternal life, to be resurrected on the last day. The bible says itself if the resurrection did not happen then we should be pitied beyond any other people for our religion is vein. And yet the evidence is clear: The Grand Canyon was made by errosion over long periods of time. End of story. You can fantasize about it as long as you want, point and say god did it, etc. But at the end of the day: Erosion did it, through natural processes over extremely long periods of time. And that's it. No divine interference. No grand plan. Just coincidental natural events like a small stream from a giant ice sheet eating away the rock over centuries. Paramemetic posted:But if this thread is going to turn into a sort of thinly veiled evolution debate we should all probably abandon ship at this point because it will inevitably resolve into people berating you for either not understanding or not learning about it if you double down on misinformed beliefs. I'll abandon first, since I was the one that kicked off this line of questioning. My bad.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Seriously, I'd suggest abandoning this now. This person created the thread so that we could ask questions, not get into an extended debate on the merits of evolution vs. intelligent design. There is zero chance you're going to convince this person of anything, so maybe don't waste the time and effort? Well that and the fact that both arguments rely on entirely different presuppositions, so a real discussion isn't even possible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 15:51
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:Well that and the fact that both arguments rely on entirely different presuppositions, so a real discussion isn't even possible. That's exactly what I mean. There is no "proof" that could possibly convince either side that they may be mistaken. That actually brings me to an interesting question. Can the OP go into some detail about his/her experiences with demonic activity? I know earlier in the thread you said you personally witnessed it, but I don't think anyone asked you to elaborate on it at that time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
possible question: so there are a bunch of different denominations of Christianity out there, why are they not all united? Whats the deal with that? possible answer: there are pretty distinct differences in how the different denominations are governed and their doctrines Presbyterians: they are in the reformed (Calvinist) camp, and their church government is ran by a board of elders, and the board from the local church will send a few representatives to a higher board of elders, so on and so forth. Elder rule basically. There are two main branches in the US of Presbyterians, PCA and PCUSA. PCUSA is more 'inclusive' oriented and PCA is rather conservative. PCUSA has lost a lot of their membership in recent years. Presbyterians sprinkle during baptism Methodist: were started by the Wesley brothers in England. They are big into community outreach (prisons, food kitchens, stuff like that). I think technically they are Armenian in theology (extremely basic description is free will of believer over predestination of Calvinism) but in the laymen you will find a lot of close similarities to the Baptist, except the methodist too sprinkle during baptism, and they allow women in the pulpit Roman Catholics: In the very early church there were several cities that were very influential in the Mediterranean area. The Bishop of Rome was one of the most prominent and had held pretty strongly to orthodoxy in the first 100 or 200 years of Christianity. In 313 Constantine ended the persecution of Christians, and in in the following years power gathered strongly in favor of the bishop of Rome, who claimed to be the successor of St. Peter (And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.) Around 500 A.D. a powerful pope (name for 'father', the pope is technically the bishop of Rome) named Gregory the Great centralized the papacy into the strong force it was for the next 1000 years. Catholics believe in the traditions of the church combined with scripture for their authority. They hold that the Roman Catholic Church is who can interpret scripture correctly, they do not leave it up to the people. They believe in a works and faith based salvation, and they too sprinkle (babies) for baptism. they have seven sacraments: baptism, extreme unction, marriage, penance, ordination, communion, confirmation. Eastern Orthodox: This church's highest authority was originally the patriarch of Constantinople. They spoke Greek and were more philosophical than their Roman counterpart. Starting in 1054 there began a schism between the east and west that was not settled for a 1000 years Part of the reason that occurred was something called the "filoque clause" which the RCC added to their creed about the spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son instead of just the Father. (sounds unimportant but it actually is important when you consider the economy of God, in anyone cares to know about that I will try to explain) there are many many many more denominations than this and these are extremely simple descriptions, if anyone has a particular denomination they would like to know about I will consult textbooks and try and answer you
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:(sounds unimportant but it actually is important when you consider the economy of God, in anyone cares to know about that I will try to explain) Wait are Baptists teaching economic subordination in their seminaries now? I thought that was a very specifically Reformed thing (from Wayne Grudem.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:Wait are Baptists teaching economic subordination in their seminaries now? I thought that was a very specifically Reformed thing (from Wayne Grudem.) They teach that the different persons of the Trinity perform different roles, like the Father is the origin of all things, that the universe was created by the Father through the Son and those roles can't be reversed ever so their is some subordination going on there, but not in a subservient sense of the word. In dividing the economy of the Spirit and the Son then we are opening a door for theism (that God revealed my particular belief to me through the Spirit, and the Spirit is in conjunction with the Father, therefore bypassing the Son) as one possible caveat to that approach Yehoshua Eben fucked around with this message at 17:27 on Jun 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
I thought SBC was evangelical, why is there a dogmatic stance on any of the issues with the creed? Filioque is a big issue in liturgical Christendom, obviously particularly with the Orthodoxies, but why would there be an official Baptist stance on the issue? I guess simply because it's an important point of theology when it comes to understanding the nature of the Trinity, but I'm not sure what you mean about dividing the economy of the spirit opening the door for theism. Are you saying that because it might be possible for the Father to communicate through the Spirit without moving through the Son there is a danger of heresy? Doesn't that imply that Father and Son are separate (that one might bypass the other) rather than existing in perfect unison, such that the procession of the Spirit would necessarily be from both Father and Son as they are united in essence and so procession from one necessitates procession from the other? I only have the working basis to approach this from the Roman Catholic perspective, but my understanding of the core of the argument is that the Orthodox view would say that both Son and Spirit proceed from the Father, whereas the Catholic view is that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as a single principle - Father and Son are in perfect union and so the Spirit proceeds from both as from one entity. But again, none of this is necessary for the Baptists, so I am surprised there's an official stance. It sounds like you're saying that they would accept the Filioque?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:I thought SBC was evangelical, why is there a dogmatic stance on any of the issues with the creed? Filioque is a big issue in liturgical Christendom, obviously particularly with the Orthodoxies, but why would there be an official Baptist stance on the issue? Ok this is from the SBC Baptist Faith and Message (2000) Concerning the Holy Spirit The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God, fully divine. He inspired holy men of old to write the Scriptures. Through illumination He enables men to understand truth. He exalts Christ. He convicts men of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment. He calls men to the Saviour, and effects regeneration. At the moment of regeneration He baptizes every believer into the Body of Christ. He cultivates Christian character, comforts believers, and bestows the spiritual gifts by which they serve God through His church. He seals the believer unto the day of final redemption. His presence in the Christian is the guarantee that God will bring the believer into the fullness of the stature of Christ. He enlightens and empowers the believer and the church in worship, evangelism, and service. You can read the whole thing here http://www.sbc.net/bfm2000/bfm2000.asp I didn't mean to present it as Dogma because the SBC does not seem to take an official stance on it (but not everyone agrees within the seminary on every single point of theology) but they DO all believe in the whole faith and message The danger I think is in that you can claim to have revelation from the Spirit related to God the Father without necessarily involving the Son. Yes the scripture says that Jesus is in the Father and the Father in Him, that they are one. Thats why we say the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, since they are one in substance but two distinct persons. Yehoshua Eben fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Jun 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:. . . Thats why we say the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, since they are one in substance but two distinct persons.  Get rekt heretic schismatics, Roman Catholics got the Baptist seminarian student on lock!But seriously, thanks for that answer, it clarified the position for me well. I'm pretty pleased to hear about any evangelical studying the finer points of the Trinity because as I mentioned before my general experience with evangelicals is that they are theologically weak.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
So Holy Ghost : God :: hands : humans ? Clearly our hands are us, but to the fish in our aquarium they appear completely separate omnipotent entities?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
Doesn't economic subordination open up the fact that the Trinity may not be unified in will and purpose? e: Paramemetic posted:But seriously, thanks for that answer, it clarified the position for me well. I'm pretty pleased to hear about any evangelical studying the finer points of the Trinity because as I mentioned before my general experience with evangelicals is that they are theologically weak. You can blame Fundamentalism's anti-intellectual streak for that. It's rapidly changing though; even Pentecostals have some well-respected theologians these days. The Phlegmatist fucked around with this message at 18:31 on Jun 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:Doesn't economic subordination open up the fact that the Trinity may not be unified in will and purpose? The Bible is very clearly against that. Jesus says in John 4: 34 "My food," said Jesus, "is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work. and John 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. Yehoshua Eben fucked around with this message at 18:43 on Jun 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
Namarrgon posted:So Holy Ghost : God :: hands : humans ? Clearly our hands are us, but to the fish in our aquarium they appear completely separate omnipotent entities? No, thats not a perfect analogy. The Holy Ghost isn't just part of God nor is it only in appearence that He is distinct from the other two. Its God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit. Whereas a hand would be the hand "of the person" not " hand the person" So really there are three sets of hands all juggling the same juggling balls doing their own parts individually
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
[quote="Paramemetic" post="461360465"] Get rekt heretic schismatics, Roman Catholics got I personally greatly admire the scholastics despite the oftetimes snide remark about them "counting the number of angels on the head of a pin". People like Thomas Aquinas are very worthwhile reads to me and I really like the moderate-realist approach he uses compared the rampant nominal-ism that came later.  William of Ockham looking at you
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:Get rekt heretic schismatics, Roman Catholics got the baptist I personally greatly admire the scholastics despite the oftetimes snide remark about them "counting the number of angels on the head of a pin". People like Thomas Aquinas are very worthwhile reads to me and I really like the moderate-realist approach he uses compared the rampant nominalism that came later. William of Ockham looking at you
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:The Bible is very clearly against that. Jesus says in John 4: 34 What do you think about Mark 14:36? "He said, 'Abba, Father, for you all things are possible; remove this cup from me; yet, not what I want, but what you want.'" Or the whole Marcian low-Christology developing into a more Johannine high-Christology over the course of the development of the early church? Is it progressive revelation, or was Mark just wrong?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
What is it about the bible that makes you think it contains a message from the actual creator of the universe? And given the number of christian denominations, why did it do such a sad job of communicating that message?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 14:47
|
|
|
If there is a God and this being cares about what humans do, why is there a need for a church or priests at all? Surely such a being would be able to regularily inform us of what he wants in a manner that leaves no room for doubt or misinterpretation?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
Kopijeger posted:If there is a God and this being cares about what humans do, why is there a need for a church or priests at all? Surely such a being would be able to regularily inform us of what he wants in a manner that leaves no room for doubt or misinterpretation? Because maybe it is better for us to have some sense of liberty instead of being robotic automatons? It would be hard to have any freedom in that situation
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:Well I was trying to answer what you were asking. I was starting with the idea of "God who created the universe". Referring to my earlier post about the current question about why I believe it is in fact He who did the creating. There is an element of faith involved although I try to be reasonable to some extent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
Kopijeger posted:If there is a God and this being cares about what humans do, why is there a need for a church or priests at all? Surely such a being would be able to regularily inform us of what he wants in a manner that leaves no room for doubt or misinterpretation? We believe in the inerrancy of the scriptures as well, that is the objective source of His will for mankind. As evangelicals we dont have to go through a priest.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:Because maybe it is better for us to have some sense of liberty instead of being robotic automatons? It would be hard to have any freedom in that situation Surely keeping people informed is not the same as compelling them to act in a certain manner? If a sense of liberty is important, why have a formal church organisation at all? Yehoshua Eben posted:We believe in the inerrancy of the scriptures as well, that is the objective source of His will for mankind. As evangelicals we dont have to go through a priest. How can the scriptures be inerrant when they aren't even internally consistent with each other? Well-known examples include how the gospels disagree about what Jesus said while on the crossor or the ambiguity introduced by the various meanings of the Hebrew word almah. What reason do you have to believe that the scriptures are anything but man-made?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
Kopijeger posted:Surely keeping people informed is not the same as compelling them to act in a certain manner? If a sense of liberty is important, why have a formal church organisation at all? 1. Because worship is meant to be done in community. If the archangel Micheal routinely came to your doorstep to "keep you informed". Would not that be a very intimidating experience? Would you feel then like your faith is faith or more of a compulsion? Most people would feel extremely compelled to listen (unless its a teenager). The church provides a place to learn more about God through sermons by someone who has a full time job devoting to giving them, to worship Him, to provide children with a moral community, to help equip missionaries, to have Sunday schools, to tend to the elderly, to have church functions, to enjoy each others company, etc. As far as internally consistency, think about this. Yes the Gospels provide different accounts of what happened, just like any multiple accounts of an eyewitness (or involving an eyewitness or apostle like Luke and Mark) they are going to tell you a slightly different story. In no way is the Gospel an account of every word that Jesus spoke, the bible attests to this very thing. I believe he said all of the things that are recorded about the crucifixion listed in the Gospels. In fact, there is only one passage that I feel there is a true contradiction, and it just involves carrying a staff or not carrying a staff. When I say inerrancy, keep in mind there are different forms of inerrancy: 1. Mechanical Dictation God dictated every word of the Bible. This view ignores style differences between various authors as well as differing historical and cultural contexts. Proponent: John R. Rice 2. Absolute Inerrancy The Bible is true and accurate in all matters. This view uses the plenary-verbal concept of inspiration, attempting to separate itself from the dictation view while assuring that the Bible is the written word of God. It does not take seriously the human aspect, or the historical contexts, in trying to harmonize the apparent differences and difficulties in Scripture. Proponent: Harold Lindsell 3. Critical Inerrancy The Bible is completely true in all that the Scripture affirms, to the degree of precision intended by the original author. This view does not seek to harmonize every detail. Scientific matters are considered to be treated with phenomenological language rather than technical and scientific thinking. This view allows the cautious use of critical methodologies in interpretation. It takes seriously both the human and divine elements. Proponents: Roger Nicole, J. Ramsey Michaels, D. A. Carson, John Woodbridge 4. Limited Inerrancy The Bible is inerrant in all matters of salvation and ethics, faith and practice, and matters which can be empirically validated. It is inerrant only in matters for which the Bible was given. This view seeks to be empirical, i.e., guided by observation alone without using science or theory. Some call this view “simple biblicism.” Proponent: Howard Marshall 5. Qualified Inerrancy The Bible is taken - upon faith - to be inerrant in all matters of salvation and ethics, faith and practice, and matters which can be empirically validated. This is the same as the previous statement, except for the faith element. It attempts to take seriously the human and divine elements. This view is difficult to define. Proponent: Donald G. Bloesch 6. Nuanced Inerrancy The Bible’s inerrancy varies with its types of literature: narrative, poetry, stories, or proverbs. Some passages require dictation in inspiration, while others, as in poetry, stories, or proverbs, may require only dynamic inspiration. This view takes seriously the human and divine elements. Proponent: Clark Pinnock 7. Functional Inerrancy The Bible is inerrant in its purpose or function. It is inerrant in its power to bring people to salvation and growth in Christian life. Proponents: G. C. Berkouwer, Jack Rogers, Donald McKim
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 17:07 |
|
|
Which of these does the SBC support, if any? Do you support any of these or find any of them particularly compelling? To be honest, I'm mostly following this thread to better understand your own positions, viewpoints and faith. The perspective on other matters that you provide is a nice bonus.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 21:02
|
|
