So is it Evolution or Creation

by Punk 85 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Brother Apostate
    Brother Apostate

    Burn,

    Welll, I do know how to say this. This is the type of statement that should be discussed via PM. However, since you feel that it is appropriate, I’ll engage what you stated:

    but maybe your faith is a little fragile?

    Not at all fragile- rather, very strong, and grows stronger each day.

    Your idiosyncratic and hard headed interpretation of several tough passages of Scripture could be considered damaging to the progress of your own walk with God.

    Not so. My faith is built upon my decades of research and reading the Bible. In all those readings, over all those years, I have always found explanations for the passages that you and others may question. That you choose not to do so could impact your faith negatively.

    To tie your faith to this interpretation so strongly risks spiritual shiprwreck for you if you ever become convinced that the interpretation is incorrect.

    Again, not so. As new information comes across my radar, I consume it, digest it, and reason on it, based on my framework of belief, just as all of us, including you do. All of us have been incorrect before, some choose to throw the baby out with the bathwater, not I.

    You posts tend to reveal your own infatuation with a particular interpretation more than they say anything about the veracity of the written deposit.

    Not sure what "written deposit" you are discussing here. In reality, as I have repeatedly stated and will continue to state, we are given precious few indisputable facts, so we must use our knowledge, logic, reason, to come to an interpretation of the indisputable facts. That process ultimately requires faith that the interpretation we hold as most likely is the "correct one", the one that we incorporate into our individual belief system. All of us have an infatuation with our interpretations, that is human nature.

    It's a mistake to pontificate without a due consideration of the facts.

    True. I’ve given the facts due consideration. My interpretation is different from yours.

    To do this alienates potential converts and obscures the more fundamental truths of Christianity.

    You may think so, I disagree. I believe that the fundamental truths of Christianity revolve around the fact that God created us in His image, that we are in a fallen state, that he imbued us with knowledge of good and bad, that that the Bible is God-breathed, that Christ’s sacrifice can redeem us from our fallen state, that we must put faith in Him and His Son in order to be redeemed. You may choose to believe in the neo-darwinistic model of evolution, I do not. I feel it is designed to mislead my fellow humans and not bring praise or honor to their Father, their heavenly designer. There is much more I find wrong with the neo-darwinistic model of evolution, but for the sake of brvity, I’ll leave it at that.

    Genesis is not about the HOWS, but the WHYS. Scripture is not so much about history or science but of the story of human redemption.

    You know what they say about opinions, right? Everybody has one. I too agree that Scripture is primarily about mankind’s fall and redemption. I, however, feel that history and science that significantly differ from Scripture is junk history and junk science. Not all sciences are equal in veracity, some are more art than science, such as history, archaeology and neo-darwinistic evolution theory.

    BA- Setting the record straight

    PS- PM me next time, mmk? Cheers.

  • Brother Apostate
    Brother Apostate

    inkling,

    Micro-evolution/adaptation has been observed. Finches may adapt to their surroundings with time, however, they are desended from finches, and they bear finches. With time, there may be many different varieties of finches, yet they remain finches.

    Macro-evolution has not been observed. It is wishful thinking, based on an interpretation of the fossil record, which in turn is based on the preconception that a creator/designer does not exist.

    One is observable while the other is imagined. There's the "line".

    As for Behe or others, I don't believe anyone has all the "truth". We may find, within any ones knowledge base, things which we agree with and things which we do not. It is sad that many seem to still have the either/or, black vs white mentality of the WTBTS. An article published by a human author may be mostly right or mostly wrong, but rarely, if ever is it entirely right or entirely wrong.

    Operating within our ever growing framework of individual beliefs, we should make sense of new ideas and adopt or reject them from our belief system based on their veracity. Unfortunately, our ability to judge what rings true and what smacks of nonsense is subjective, and we are all unique in our ability to do so, or not.

    One thing is certain- we do not have all the answers, what we have are individual beliefs that will be proven right or wrong with the passage of time.

    BA- "...let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, as it is written..." -Romans 3:4

  • hillary_step
    hillary_step

    BA,

    You may think so, I disagree. I believe that the fundamental truths of Christianity revolve around the fact that God created us in His image, that we are in a fallen state, that he imbued us with knowledge of good and bad, that that the Bible is God-breathed, that Christ’s sacrifice can redeem us from our fallen state, that we must put faith in Him and His Son in order to be redeemed. You may choose to believe in the neo-darwinistic model of evolution, I do not. I feel it is designed to mislead my fellow humans and not bring praise or honor to their Father, their heavenly designer. There is much more I find wrong with the neo-darwinistic model of evolution, but for the sake of brvity, I’ll leave it at that.

    Why not just scan and post the "Evolution Book"? It seems to represent your views on the subject exactly, as it too borrows most of its ideas from Whitcomb.

    HS

    PS - but for the sake of brvity

    Should not the word be rendered "brevity" not "brvity"? I would not of course normally draw attention to the spelling in people's posts but as you spent so much time pointing out that my spelling of the word "bufoon" in my description of your good self should actually have been "buffoon", I understand your scrupulous desire for accuracy, at least in spelling.

    Of course the readers understand what you meant by "brvity", as I am sure they did by what I meant buf(f)oon. ;)

  • Awakened07
    Awakened07

    There's a big difference in who I am now as an atheist (you can call me an agnostic if 'atheist' conjures up images of people eating babies), it can't be compared.

    As a theist, I used to think the two sides could be compared, in that the atheist would lose his worldview if he 'converted' to creationism, and the theist would lose his/her worldview if 'converted' to atheism. What do I mean?

    As a theist, one often makes the assumption that the atheist willfully rejects the notion of a Creator, because they want to live in sin; don't want to be "bothered" by God. I used to believe this.

    I also used to 'loath' atheists and evolutionists, and hate talkorigins.org, because I felt talkorigins.org pretended to be level headed and unbiased, but were in fact pro-evolution. So I used to browse their articles quickly when I "had to", but quickly Googled up a creationist counterpoint, which could make me relax and exhale again.

    Now I must confess it's mostly the other way around. That said, I've already read the creationist/ID arguments before; there's rarely anything new.

    So - what's the difference, then? Have I just changed sides, and am now just as blind to creationism/ID as I once was to evolution theory?

    -The difference is that I am now an atheist, and I haven't become the deprived, evil, sinful person I thought they were. I'm still me.

    What's more important is that when I was a theist, I had something to lose: A whole worldview. An eternal future life. A God who cared. I had a need for evolution (at least a "Godless" evolution) to be wrong.

    So - what's the difference? Wouldn't I hate for creationism to be correct now, and wouldn't that make it exactly the same as before, just changed sides?

    No - as mentioned, I have no desire to "live in sin" (as defined by religion). I also wouldn't mind there being a God out there. This may put me in a small percentage of atheists, but I'm not so sure.

    So, in review - I have "lost" God, I have "lost" a future life. I could easily "gain" it back. I would only be winning if there indeed were a loving God and an eternity ahead of me. Are you kidding me!? Of course I'd want that!

    It's not like it's hard to believe in God, in and of itself.

    All you have to do is say "OK - so I believe in God. He's out there. He started all this.". And you're done! Of course, you'd have to decide which God to believe in, but... You'd have an instant answer to almost any complicated question. "God did it".

    It's not hard to do at all.

    There are things your religion may ask you to do which would make it hard, but the belief in a God itself would not be hard - not a huge leap. Not to me.

    I used to be in a position where I stood to lose everything if evolution and atheism was true. I now am in a position that - if there is a God - I would stand to gain everything. And still I don't believe.

    Not because I want to live in sin, but because I can't see the evidence for his existence. Not in nature, and not in the way he allegedly has chosen to reveal himself to mankind through the ages (irregardless of which religious explanation).

    Given evidence - I would have everything to gain by believing.

    So it's not that I staunchly oppose the existence of a God because his existence would cause me to lose something.

    I don't oppose it, and if anything I should be prone to belief, as it would gain me the most.

  • BurnTheShips
    BurnTheShips

    Hi Awakened! That is a very profound post.

    As a theist, one often makes the assumption that the atheist willfully rejects the notion of a Creator, because they want to live in sin; don't want to be "bothered" by God. I used to believe this.

    One often makes that assumption indeed. I can't shake the idea that it is often true. I base this on interaction with others and a certain degree of projection or intuition if you will, your personal example notwithstanding.

    I also used to 'loath' atheists and evolutionists, and hate talkorigins.org, because I felt talkorigins.org pretended to be level headed and unbiased, but were in fact pro-evolution. So I used to browse their articles quickly when I "had to", but quickly Googled up a creationist counterpoint, which could make me relax and exhale again.

    I suppose my path is different, I see no contradiction between a theistic belief and biological evolution.

    Given evidence - I would have everything to gain by believing.

    If you ever feel a moment of doubt, an instant where you might just believe a little tiny bit, ask. Ask God for faith.

    Burn

  • BurnTheShips
    BurnTheShips

    BA, I found this gem from one of the greatest Christian minds in history just for you:

    "In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing."

    St. Thomas Aquinas - Summa

  • BurnTheShips
    BurnTheShips

    Awakened!

    What is odd and rather telling is how Christianity is attacked on all sides and for all contradictory reasons.

    One accusation against Christianity frequently seen here is that prevents us, by morbid fears and terror of divine retribution, from seeking comfort and joy and liberty in this life. We should give it up to "enjoy life". I believe because I am afraid.

    Then we see the opposite opinion lobbed across the bows, that I cling to it for a fictitious comfort, a fairy tale world because I fear life itself.

    Then I am told here that Nature nature is beautiful and awesome enough, that I don't need to invent a sky father. The world is enough.

    But then another says that Nature is ugly, and pitiless and indifferent, and because of this there can be no God.

    One says my Christian faith is a nightmare, and in the same thread another calls it a paradise for fools.

    On the one hand I am a coward to cling to it, and on the other I am a fool to put up with it!

    Vexing and contradictory accusations. Paradoxical. And very telling. Faith is rejected. The reason does not matter.

    Burn

  • eclipse
    eclipse
    I too agree that Scripture is primarily about mankind’s fall and redemption. I, however, feel that history and science that significantly differ from Scripture is junk history and junk science.

    Is it accurate to state that the theologians and church leaders of the 1500's & 1600's would agree with you?.

    Modern History Sourcebook:
    The Crime of Galileo:
    Indictment and Abjuration of 1633


    Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzio Galilei, of Florence, aged seventy years, were denounced in 1615, to this Holy Office, for holding as true a false doctrine taught by many, namely, that the sun is immovable in the center of the world, and that the earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion; also, for having pupils whom you instructed in the same opinions; also, for maintaining a correspondence on the same with some German mathematicians; also for publishing certain letters on the sun-spots, in which you developed the same doctrine as true; also, for answering the objections which were continually produced from the Holy Scriptures, by glozing the said Scriptures according to your own meaning; and whereas thereupon was produced the copy of a writing, in form of a letter professedly written by you to a person formerly your pupil, in which, following the hypothesis of Copernicus,you include several propositions contrary to the true sense and authority of the Holy Scriptures; therefore (this Holy Tribunal being desirous of providing against the disorder and mischief which were thence proceeding and increasing to the detriment of the Holy Faith) by the desire of his Holiness and the Most Emminent Lords, Cardinals of this supreme and universal Inquisition, the two propositions of the stability of the sun, and the motion of the earth, were qualified by the Theological Qualifiers as follows:

    1. The proposition that the sun is in the center of the world and immovable from its place is absurd, philosophically false, and formally heretical; because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scriptures.
    2. The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world, nor immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal action, is also absurd, philosophically false, and, theologically considered, at least erroneous in faith.

    Therefore . . . , invoking the most holy name of our Lord Jesus Christ and of His Most Glorious Mother Mary, We pronounce this Our final sentence: We pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo . . . have rendered yourself vehemently suspected by this Holy Office of heresy, that is, of having believed and held the doctrine (which is false and contrary to the Holy and Divine Scriptures) that the sun is the center of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the earth does move, and is not the center of the world; also, that an opinion can be held and supported as probable, after it has been declared and finally decreed contrary to the Holy Scripture, and, consequently, that you have incurred all the censures and penalties enjoined and promulgated in the sacred canons and other general and particular constituents against delinquents of this description. From which it is Our pleasure that you be absolved, provided that with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, in Our presence, you abjure, curse, and detest, the said error and heresies, and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Church of Rome.

    1633 A.D

    Was Galileo's scientific discoveries ''junk science'' , BA?

    Afterall his theories and discoveries about astronomy are shown to signifigantly differ from the scriptures.

  • Dansk
    Dansk
    Nvrgnbk, the cut 'n' paste queen.

    Nvr's a homosexual? There's evolution for you!

    Ian

  • Brother Apostate
    Brother Apostate

    Was Galileo's scientific discoveries ''junk science'' , BA?

    Afterall his theories and discoveries about astronomy are shown to signifigantly differ from the scriptures.

    Red Herring.

    His conclusions in no way were "signifigantly differ from the scriptures".

    This misunderstanding was caused by human ignorance and misapplied authority, not a correct understanding of Scripture.

    Same is true of the crusades.

    And the current US administration's actions while claiming they are "Christian".

    BA- There's a differrence between talking the talk and walking the walk.

    PS- I'd rather see a sermon than hear one, any day.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit