Evolution v Creationism

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well, by now you have seen what the "Darwinist side" aka scientists has to offer. Sure it might do you good to spend some time reading up on the fineprints.

So have you changed your mind, and if not, what part of evolution is it that you still don't believe in / haven't understood?





PS: Second time I post this. I am still intrigued by what part of evolution still remains unclear

Stop trolling.

[Kadagar_AV]

Stop trolling.

Huh?

You opened up the thread asking about evolution, saying you were ready to change your mind if enough spoke in favour of evolution vs creationism.

Now some hundreds of posts later you've been hit with a ton of facts trying to explain.

So question remains, what part is it that still is unclear?

Or if nothing is unclear, what makes you still believe in creationism? What make it more believable?

It is contraproductive to call those question "trolling", as they relate to the very reason of your therad start. If you want us to help you understand evolution, you must of course point to the areas yet unclear to you.

warm regards :)

[Incongruous]

I'm a puritan with a small 'p'. Please don't go down that road of calling all non-Catholics/non-close-to-Catholics as non-Christian, its not very nice and I could do the same to Catholic views but it's not what this thread is for.

Not what I did, I just replied to a post of yours which I found astounding, that is all, so keep the "omg Catholic heretic hunter" in the bin.

I was interested is all.

[Rhyfelwyr]

You don't interpret though, you just absorb. I've said this to you before, if you aren't willing to make your own judgements just don't ever touch theology, don't read the Bible, don't ever think about it. As to reading Theology, JW SDA are not reputable. Read Augustine, Boethius, Aquinus, Wesley, Hooker, Crammer, Wyclif, Luthor, and for some modern flavour try the last and current Popes, Rowan Willians and Alistair McGrath for starters.

What makes you say that I don't interpret any theology? Generally speaking I agree with certain strands of Christian belief, because that is what I have felt compelled to believe in.

It's your tone, not your content.

On reflection that's maybe fair enough, although its also maybe something to do with constantly coming under siege.

You look like a Puritan, not a puritan (what ywould hthat be anyway). As to the link with Calvinism, that is what the rest of Christianity finds disturbing, not your mode of worship.

I could be wrong, but I always thought that a "Puritan" referred specifically to dissenters within the Church of England following the Reformation. I remember reading something about the Pilgrims, and how that because of this they were not actually "Puritans", just a "puritanical" sect, since they never attended the Anglican services and had their own seperate church polity.

Not what I did, I just replied to a post of yours which I found astounding, that is all, so keep the "omg Catholic heretic hunter" in the bin.

I was interested is all.

OK fair enough, sorry for being so harsh, I'm getting a bit frantic with this these days. Also calling certain branches of Christianity non-Christian is a pet peeve of mine. The Old Testament is also important to Catholicism, Jesus always referred to how he was fulfilling the scriptures after all. Of course, Jesus is the only example of how to act for any Christian, even the Puritans believed this. The way you talk about the OT almost makes you sound like a Cathar!

[Kadagar_AV]

Rhy, you seem to have made it an art to avoid direct questions. It's not a debate technique that leads very far, you know.

let me remind you:

You opened up the thread asking about evolution, saying you were ready to change your mind if enough spoke in favour of evolution vs creationism.

Now some hundreds of posts later you've been hit with a ton of facts trying to explain.

So question remains, what part is it that still is unclear?

Or if nothing is unclear, what makes you still believe in creationism? What make it more believable?

It is contraproductive to call those question "trolling", as they relate to the very reason of your thread start. If you want us to help you understand evolution, you must of course point to the areas yet unclear to you.

warm regards :)

[Rhyfelwyr]

And you make an art of of not following threads properly.

Generally speaking I think the evidence is quite stongly in favour of evolution, although it is not completely beyond dispute, as Sigurd showed. Obviously as a Christian I see if I can reconcile it with my faith and specifically the Bible, and if you'll read you can see that I say it is possible that theistic evolution is what happened, although I am not quite comfortable with how such an interpretation sits with the scripture.

So for the moment I'm just going to hold my hands up and not take an opinion, I think I can still get on with life that way.

[Incongruous]

OK fair enough, sorry for being so harsh, I'm getting a bit frantic with this these days. Also calling certain branches of Christianity non-Christian is a pet peeve of mine. The Old Testament is also important to Catholicism, Jesus always referred to how he was fulfilling the scriptures after all. Of course, Jesus is the only example of how to act for any Christian, even the Puritans believed this. The way you talk about the OT almost makes you sound like a Cathar!

Cathar?

Perhaps simply a Catholic whom wishes the Church to go back to what Jesus and the Apostles preached? It is not heretical at all to suggest it and is the spirit of the modern church, in the West at least. I do not believe that YHWH in the OT is the same as The Lord God Heavenly Father that I give thanks and praise to. YHWH in the OT seems to be a Hebrew version of the generic god of war and takes on much of the same features as most Near East war gods, however the religious extremism of the Hebrews is exceptional. I believe that the Covenenat of Israel was proved false with the ministry of Jesus, I believe he made it quite clear that God intended a covenant with all people. Whether it was through the friendship of Publicans or his attacks on the way the Temple had been used. the YHWH who called for slaughter, I think was merley the political tool of Hebrew leaders.

Jesus was fulfilling the messianic prophecy, but that does not mean he agreed with the OT, he clearly did not agree with most of if we look at his sermon on the mount. The thing reads like a history of war in Israel.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What makes you say that I don't interpret any theology? Generally speaking I agree with certain strands of Christian belief, because that is what I have felt compelled to believe in.

You yourself have said you are not willing to make private interpretations, or to conduct your own exegesis.

On reflection that's maybe fair enough, although its also maybe something to do with constantly coming under siege.

You might want to consider why the other Christians here find your views objectionable, it has to do with the content of them.

I could be wrong, but I always thought that a "Puritan" referred specifically to dissenters within the Church of England following the Reformation. I remember reading something about the Pilgrims, and how that because of this they were not actually "Puritans", just a "puritanical" sect, since they never attended the Anglican services and had their own seperate church polity.

If it looks like a duck, smell like a duck, sounds like a duck and floats....

In any case dissenter is the wrong word, Puritans fell into two groups. Those willing to work within the Church and respect others, now the Low Church, and those not. The latter are largely extinct, though their ilk has recently resurfaced in the modern "Evangelical" Churches.

OK fair enough, sorry for being so harsh, I'm getting a bit frantic with this these days. Also calling certain branches of Christianity non-Christian is a pet peeve of mine. The Old Testament is also important to Catholicism, Jesus always referred to how he was fulfilling the scriptures after all. Of course, Jesus is the only example of how to act for any Christian, even the Puritans believed this. The way you talk about the OT almost makes you sound like a Cathar!

You called a Roman Catholic a Cathar, that frankly is absurdly foolish to say the least.

I'm with him, and so is the Pope, and Canterbury, and the Methodists, a lot the Baptists, the Pentacostals.... Jesus clearly rejected much (not all) of the OT.

As to Calvinsim not being a form of Christianity. Argueably the conception of God is completely different, and the "Reformers" believed that only the "Elect" that is, Calvinists, entered heaven.

So maybe Calvinism isn't a form of Christianity, personally, I have seen that theology do more harm than good on and individual and collective scale.

[Tribesman]

If it looks like a duck, smell like a duck, sounds like a duck and floats....

buy it an island and claim it on expenses

[Rhyfelwyr]

You yourself have said you are not willing to make private interpretations, or to conduct your own exegesis.

You might want to consider why the other Christians here find your views objectionable, it has to do with the content of them.

Well that's what the scripture warns against. Obviously everything we ever learn we interpret, information can't really enter our brains without first passing through our own biases, understandings, and generally our own framework of storing it. I just try not to go overboard with fanciful interpretations, and reading my own values into things.

As for my views being objectionable, that's fair enough. Obviously we will take issue with each other's views for various reasons, doesn't mean we can't still accept each other as Christian though.

If it looks like a duck, smell like a duck, sounds like a duck and floats....

In any case dissenter is the wrong word, Puritans fell into two groups. Those willing to work within the Church and respect others, now the Low Church, and those not. The latter are largely extinct, though their ilk has recently resurfaced in the modern "Evangelical" Churches.

OK, I won't start an argument over semantics.

You called a Roman Catholic a Cathar, that frankly is absurdly foolish to say the least.

I'm with him, and so is the Pope, and Canterbury, and the Methodists, a lot the Baptists, the Pentacostals.... Jesus clearly rejected much (not all) of the OT.

He called Yahweh a war god that isn't even the trinitarian God of the New Testament! That's blatant Catharism if ever I saw it! The NT doesn't make any sense at all without the OT. Jesus didn't come because the Old Covenant was false or not from God, he came because we people failed at the Old Covenant.

As to Calvinsim not being a form of Christianity. Argueably the conception of God is completely different, and the "Reformers" believed that only the "Elect" that is, Calvinists, entered heaven.

So maybe Calvinism isn't a form of Christianity, personally, I have seen that theology do more harm than good on and individual and collective scale.

Maybe Arminianism isn't a form of Christianity, since it prominises Christ as a saviour, yet he saves noone. It says that Christ died to redeem a sinful world, and in doing so failed even to pay for the sins of one soul. It says that we are born sinners, and yet not so sinful that we cannot reform ourselves, as if our hearts of stone happily remove themselves in anticipation of a heart of flesh. And perhaps the greatest insult to the Christian religion of all, certain Arminians happily boast of their good use of their free will in bringing them to salvation. As Grevinchovius says “I may boast of mine own, when I obey God’s grace, which it was in my power not to obey, as well as to obey". What a sickening thing to say.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well that's what the scripture warns against. Obviously everything we ever learn we interpret, information can't really enter our brains without first passing through our own biases, understandings, and generally our own framework of storing it. I just try not to go overboard with fanciful interpretations, and reading my own values into things.

As for my views being objectionable, that's fair enough. Obviously we will take issue with each other's views for various reasons, doesn't mean we can't still accept each other as Christian though.

Your views are objectionable for reasons which make it difficult to accept you as Christian, most potently your refusal to see God as Universal Father.

He called Yahweh a war god that isn't even the trinitarian God of the New Testament! That's blatant Catharism if ever I saw it! The NT doesn't make any sense at all without the OT. Jesus didn't come because the Old Covenant was false or not from God, he came because we people failed at the Old Covenant.

This just demonstrates your ignorance of scipture and the state of things outside your own denomination. The Gideons society, and the Army, issue a special NT, Psalms and Commandments Bible to children, and serving soldiers. It does a more than an adaquate job as a spiritual comfort and communicator of the basics of the Gospel. Additionally, unless I miss my guess I would say Magyar is reffering to the Israelite interpretation of God, not the person of God Himself.

That is a perfectly valid point, and the opinion is held by Theologians of many denominations.

Maybe Arminianism isn't a form of Christianity, since it prominises Christ as a saviour, yet he saves noone. It says that Christ died to redeem a sinful world, and in doing so failed even to pay for the sins of one soul. It says that we are born sinners, and yet not so sinful that we cannot reform ourselves, as if our hearts of stone happily remove themselves in anticipation of a heart of flesh. And perhaps the greatest insult to the Christian religion of all, certain Arminians happily boast of their good use of their free will in bringing them to salvation. As Grevinchovius says “I may boast of mine own, when I obey God’s grace, which it was in my power not to obey, as well as to obey". What a sickening thing to say.

Congratulations, you have just demonstrated you do not understand the Christian conception of God, which is why you can't understand what you just said is nonsense.

1. God is all powerful.

2. He is best by no counterforce and restricted by none save himself.

3. Therefore all proceeds as he Wills

This was hardly new to Arminius, it's Christianity 101. It follows directly that if ANYONE goes to heaven it is by the will of God and if ANYONE does not it is also by God's Will. Throughout history most Theologians have said that man must have free will, because otherwise God would not Will anyone into Hell.

Calvin, for no apparent reason took the conception of God as a benevolant Father and turned it on it's head, if people go to Hell it MUST be his Will because God is irresistable. What Calvin did was identify the inherrent flaw in the Free Will arguement (how to reconcile Free Will with Divine Kowledge) closed it and instead created the problem of why God Loves some people more than others.

Of course, God can do whatever he wants, so if he wants man to have free will, he does. On the other hand, Calvin's God is either unjust (and therefore not God) or limited in power (and therefore not God).

In all the times we have had this arguement you have always appealed to mechanical simplicity, suggesting that because there is an apparent difficulty in the mechanism by which God grants free will it must be an illusion, but you have never answered the question of why God hates me when he made me and decides my every action.