Need some education on THEOLOGY? Start here! Evolutionists take note!
by LittleToe 92 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
MegaDude
And one year later, some evolutionists responded!
-
Warlock
Nice shot, LT
Warlock
-
LittleToe
For those who may have missed them, its a reflection on the following two threads:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/129048/1.ashx
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/128978/1.ashx
I decided to post it in acknowledgement that as much confusion exists over theological terms as scientific ones. If the Creationists are going to be beaten for not having an education in terms relating to evolution, why shouldn't their detractors take a similar beating when they misapply theological terms? So, in the spirit of good all round education, I offer this thread.
Oh, and for the record, lest it somehow be interpreted as sour grapes, I believe in evolution.
-
tall penguin
You're cool LittleToe.
tall penguin -
Deputy Dog
LT
When we get done there, you are going to do a unit from the Dispensational side... right?
-
Abaddon
Interesting links.
This word 'god' keeps on popping up.
I was trying to figuring out what they meant and found this;
There is but one only living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty.
Golly. Quite an impressive chap. I especially liked the semi-colon after passions. Whilst one wouldn't expect to bump into him, on account of the invisable spirit no body thing, one would expect to have come across evidence of such an entity. I mean, it's an 'ology, after all. Reading further I see;
That there is but one God is proved --
(1.) From the fact that every argument that establishes the being of God, suggests the existence of but one. There must be one First Cause, but there is no evidence of more than one. There must be one Designing Intelligence and one Moral Governor, but neither the argument from design nor from conscience suggests more than one.PROOF?! (You have to say this like Lady Bracknel says "A handbag?!"). Okay, it says god is proved by 'every argument that establishes the being of god', and then goes in for an exclusivity bid.
And the actual argument that establishes the being of god is what, exactly? I saw where the Queen went, nice try, no banana.
This First Cause business. Weeeeeeeell. What First Caused the First Cause? If there must be one, well, there must be one, QED. There has to be a rabbit IN the hat for a rabbit to come OUT the hat. You'd have lots and lots of First Causes. Try infinate recursion. Kind of buggers the argument from design too.
One Designing Intelligence. That sounds a bit sinister. Designing. But seriously, 'there must be' isn't an argument.
And Moral Governer. An ernest chap out of Dickens perhaps? With a flat cap?
Very interesting stuff though, and all well to those that find it interesting. I feel it does need a bit more work on it though, it is rough round the edges, lacks proof, and fails to account for similar bids for excusivity by varients of the same idea. Yup, gaps, too many gaps to be a convincing theory, and no archaelogical evidence either.
(I know I'm missing the point entirely, it just seemed funny to do a reverse angle)
With all this interest maybe there is something in it afterall?
Does seem a remarkable amount to write and know about something that is incomprehensible though.
-
kid-A
"If the Creationists are going to be beaten for not having an education in terms relating to evolution, why shouldn't their detractors take a similar beating when they misapply theological terms?"
While I always love a sassy rebuttal from my favourite Scotsman, it seems the issue is not with Christian Theology, rather evolutionary science versus a very specific, Old Testament "Creation" myth written by wandering desert nomads thousands of years ago, which is, in fact merely a derivative of much older creation myths passed down from tribe to tribe over eons.....
Having said that, the creation myth of Genesis (which is, in reality the version of creation that is being debated here, or at least on the threads you refer to) is pretty much understood by any person raised in the Western Hemisphere, let alone ex-JWs, who have had the myths of Genesis pounded into our heads from our first breath!
Having said that, I shall retort with my own rejoinder for the Creationists: a link with ALL extant myths of creation available at the click of a button!
-
Narkissos
Nice move, wrong target imo. From what I have seen so far, the average creationist has as much to learn on theology as on evolution...
-
No Apologies
There must be one First Cause, but there is no evidence of more than one.
There is just as much evidence for more than one than there is for one!!!
Somewhere there is a quote, not sure of the exact words, but its how atheists and theists are not that much different, theists believe that all other gods besides the one they worship are false, the athiest believes the same, but they just include that one in with all the other ones.
No Apologies