Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Theistic Evolutionist An Oxymoron?
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 1 of 83 (575409)
08-19-2010 10:12 PM


I was reading a thread of another topic, a comment by Meldinoor that he, being an evolutionist and a theist, had a problem being called a "theistic evolutionist" because, as he put it, "I don't like to describe myself as a "theistic evolutionist". The term implies a belief that evolution requires a 'divine tinkerer' to work. And I don't think that's been scientifically evidenced."
Since a response to the above in that thread would be off topic, I'm proposing a a thread pertaining to this topic.
I think it is an oxymoron. I see it as a vain attempt to gain the best of both ideologies; that of secularisim which essentially absolves one from contradicting establishment scientific academia and that of theism which offers a purpose for existence and a hope of a blissful existence beyond this life.
It is aximoronic in that it implies a creationless deity, contradictory to the Biblical record, essentially reducing that record to the status of myth. On the other hand it promotes a godless explanation of origins relative to all that exists.
What do you think?
Probably Coffee house or what ever Admin determines would be fine.
Edited by Buzsaw, : Correct spelling of Meldinoor

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by bluescat48, posted 08-19-2010 11:00 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 4 by subbie, posted 08-19-2010 11:02 PM Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied
 Message 5 by Blue Jay, posted 08-19-2010 11:03 PM Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied
 Message 6 by nwr, posted 08-19-2010 11:09 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 7 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-19-2010 11:20 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 8 by PaulK, posted 08-20-2010 2:00 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 15 by Meldinoor, posted 08-20-2010 5:32 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 83 (575509)
08-20-2010 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Dr Adequate
08-19-2010 11:20 PM


Dr Adequate writes:
Theist: one who believes in God.
Evolutionist: one who believes in evolution.
Nope, no contradiction there.
God being a generic term, I would agree but God, referring the Biblical god, Jehovah would imply a contradiction, unless the Biblical record is reduced to the status of myth.
The Biblical god is clearly a creative designer who, throughout the record is credited for all that evolutionist attribute to totally natural processes void of an intelligent designer.
Dr Adequate writes:
Buzsaw writes:
It is aximoronic in that it implies a creationless deity
No, just a deity that didn't do fiat creation of species.
But Jehovah created and designed, not totally by fiat, but by work and intelligent planning, after which he rested from his work on the seventh day. As per observed scientific laws, there was a measure of equaliberium effected in the process, just as was the case when Jesus healed the woman with an issue of blood. He said in Mark 5:30 (ASV):
And straightway Jesus, perceiving in himself that the power proceeding from him had gone forth, turned him about in the crowd, and said, Who touched my garments?
(Embolding mine for emphasis)
Dr Adequate writes:
Buzsaw writes:
... contradictory to the Biblical record, essentially reducing that record to the status of myth.
But obviously pointing out that Genesis is a myth isn't the same as saying that there's no God.
It's essentially saying there's no Biblical designer god, Jehovah as described throughout the Biblical record.
Dr Adequate writes:
One might with more justice complain that "theistic creationist" is an oxymoron. You are apparently defining God as a being who did something that verifiably didn't happen, just as though you defined God as "the being who makes everything in the world bright pink". One can be certain that that God doesn't exist, and so you are in effect defining him out of existence.
(Of course, you do not know this, just as a blind man wouldn't know that the "bright pink" definition would render belief in God untenable to the sighted. But such is the case.)
You, on the other hand, being a blind man spiritually, are assuming no intelligence above that experienced by humans on tiny planet earth.
That premise from which you extrapolate interpretations of observed phenomena happens to be different than that of the creationist does not necessarily make the term "theistic creationist" oxymoronic.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-19-2010 11:20 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-20-2010 8:54 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 12 by PaulK, posted 08-20-2010 10:00 AM Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied
 Message 14 by ringo, posted 08-20-2010 2:35 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 83 (575520)
08-20-2010 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Dr Adequate
08-20-2010 8:54 AM


And God, referring to the being who makes everything bright pink, also doesn't exist. ...........
No. ...............
And the term "theist-who-thinks-that-God-makes-everything-bright-pink" is not strictly an oxymoron. But I hope you see my point.
Your point?? No valid ponts worthy of response; nothing but blind assertions above, none of which address the tenets of my points in the message to which you responded.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is a reply to:
Message 9 by Buzsaw, posted 08-20-2010 8:42 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-20-2010 8:54 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-20-2010 8:22 PM Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 83 (575719)
08-20-2010 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Meldinoor
08-20-2010 5:32 PM


Re: Having It Both Ways
Meldinoor writes:
Hello Buz,
It occurs to me that it's been quite a while since we both took part in a discussion. I think it's because you tend to gravitate toward theology/prophecy discussions while I spend most of my time in the science fora. So how've you been?
Hi Meldinoor. Things have been well with me an mine. I hope so with you and yours as well. Thanks for weighing in here. I apologize for misspelling your username in the OP. I have corrected it.
There are really a lot of you theistic evolutionists around. I've always wondered how you folks can possibly reconcile Biblical theism and evolution since if the Genesis record is mythical, so must the other tenets of Biblical theism also set forth in the same Biblical record be mythical.
Meldinoor writes:
Technically, since I am both a theist and an evolutionist, that makes me a "theistic evolutionist". However, I am reluctant to use this term to describe myself as it implies a conflation of the two terms that I think is misleading.
Conflated ideologies share some similar characteristics as I understand the term. What, pertaining to Biblical theism, shares characteristics with ToE? They appear to be oxymoronic, contradicting one another, the one advocating naturalistic secularism and the other advocating intelligent design and the supernatural.
Meldinoor writes:
My being a theist should not influence how I read the evidence nor give me cause to make unsupported assumptions about a scientific theory. Neither does the fact that I accept the theory of evolution influence my faith in God.
It's like making a distinction between "theistic mathematicians" and "mathematicians". There's no reason to believe that the two groups do their math differently, so the distinction is irrelevant.
Shouldn't Biblical theism determine what premise you apply in determining interpretation of observed phenomena?
Meldinoor writes:
Buzsaw writes:
I see it as a vain attempt to gain the best of both ideologies; that of secularisim which essentially absolves one from contradicting establishment scientific academia and that of theism which offers a purpose for existence and a hope of a blissful existence beyond this life.
But you're wrong. I do not see how merely accepting the theory of evolution influences one's ideology. The ToE does not tell me how to live my life, or influence my moral or political decisions. I don't contest that to some people it might. Perhaps for some people "evolutionism" really is deserving of that -ism, and perhaps some people really can make a religion or an ideology out of it. Social Darwinism comes to mind, which I guess is an ideology, but that's taking the ToE out of the realm of science and using it to justify political actions.
The problem is that there is a whole lot in the Biblical record, from which I assume to be the primary source of your theism, besides morality and politics. It's allegedly the record of origins as per intelligent design rife with supernatural phenomena from prophecy to miracles, all oxymoronically contradictory to ToE and the BB etc.
Meldinoor writes:
My theism OTOH has an impact on my life and does influence my decisions and ideology. So my faith and my acceptance of the ToE have no bearing on each other, just as my belief in the existence of carrots does not influence my belief in God.
You're convincing yourself that they are compatable when they're not. you're deluding yourself by ignoring the contradictions which you appear to be sweeping under the proverbial rug, so as to hope for the blessings of Biblical theism while denying the majority of what the Bible contains.
Theistic evolutionists appear to view life as a super smorgasboard of sorts, picking and choosing only what satisfies their preconceptions as acclaimed theists.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Meldinoor, posted 08-20-2010 5:32 PM Meldinoor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Meldinoor, posted 08-21-2010 12:12 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 83 (575722)
08-20-2010 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by ringo
08-20-2010 2:35 PM


Apples & Oranges
ringo writes:
You seem to be confusing "theistic" with "Buzsawistic". It's the same mistake as saying there are no Canadian republicans because we don't have a Republican Party.
This is a strawman, my point being that the Biblical god, Jehovah is an intelligent designer, contradictory to the ToE.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by ringo, posted 08-20-2010 2:35 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by DrJones*, posted 08-20-2010 9:51 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 20 by ringo, posted 08-20-2010 10:02 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 83 (575731)
08-20-2010 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by PaulK
08-20-2010 2:00 AM


Theists Who View The Bible As Mythology
PaulK writes:
The more common interpretation is that the term refers to the belief that God set up the universe so that it's ordinary operations bring about the desired results. While this view is consistent with Deism it does not rule out intervention in human history so it cannot be said that it is opposed to theism. And it fully accepts evolutionary theory, so this reading is certainly not oxymoronic.
Paul, you, Jar, Meldinoor and a host of other professing theist evolutionis all have the same problem. You all try to apply a pseudo-Biblcal theism, all the while denying everything supernatural in the record which happens to be most of the book, supernatural aspects being tenets of all 66 books of the Bible. You're all deluding yourselves into professing Biblical theism when in fact you insult/blaspheme Jehovah, the Biblical designer, reducing his holy book to the status of mythology.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by PaulK, posted 08-20-2010 2:00 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by jar, posted 08-20-2010 10:21 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 29 by GDR, posted 08-20-2010 11:57 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 31 by PaulK, posted 08-21-2010 4:29 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 32 by Meldinoor, posted 08-22-2010 11:37 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 81 by archaeologist, posted 09-05-2010 3:51 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 83 (575732)
08-20-2010 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by ringo
08-20-2010 10:02 PM


Re: Apples & Oranges
ringo writes:
It isn't a strawman. You used the word "theistic", which does not refer to the Biblical god at all. You can't redefine "oxymoron" based on a redefinition of "theistic".
Ringo, have you been reading me? All through this thread I have alluded to the term, Biblical theism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by ringo, posted 08-20-2010 10:02 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by ringo, posted 08-20-2010 10:27 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 83 (575734)
08-20-2010 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by nwr
08-19-2010 11:09 PM


Re. What Is Silly?
nwr writes:
Really, that's just silly. Secularism is a matter of keeping religious bias out of administrative matters. It does not imply atheism
What's really silly is to keep the ID Biblical record out of Biblical theism.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by nwr, posted 08-19-2010 11:09 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by nwr, posted 08-20-2010 10:26 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 83 (575737)
08-20-2010 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by bluescat48
08-19-2010 11:00 PM


Re: Contradictions
bluescat writes:
Why would a creationist deity be oxymoronic, just because it goes against your belief in the Abrahamic god and your scripture? I think you keep forgetting that belief is not evidence.
What ToE goes against is Biblical theism as set forth in the Biblical record rife with ID and the supernatural.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by bluescat48, posted 08-19-2010 11:00 PM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by bluescat48, posted 08-20-2010 11:39 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 83 (576212)
08-23-2010 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by PaulK
08-21-2010 4:29 AM


Re: Theists Who View The Bible As Mythology
PaulK writes:
Buzsaw writes:
You all try to apply a pseudo-Biblcal theism, all the while denying everything supernatural in the record which happens to be most of the book, supernatural aspects being tenets of all 66 books of the Bible. You're all deluding yourselves into professing Biblical theism when in fact you insult/blaspheme Jehovah, the Biblical designer, reducing his holy book to the status of mythology.
In other words your problem is not with "theistic evolution" as such. Your problem is that you don't like Christians who take a different view of the Bible from yours. You would have done far better to actually start a topic on that rather than trying to argue that the term "theistic evolutionist" is oxymoronic. There is nothing, nothing in the term that ties it to Christianity at all.
You're totally spinning my position. I like many Christians who disagree with me. I consider them as brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus if they have received him as savior, regardless of their interpretation of Genesis.
The theist-evolutionist essentially denies the Genesis record. There is nothing in it that is indicative of the status of myth. All one needs do is read the book of Genesis in order to see that is not intended as myth any more than any other Biblical book was intended as mythical.
Paul writes:
What is more you cannot assess another's interpretation of the Bible merely on the question of whether they accept the two creation stories in Genesis and try to harmonise them into a single account. If Christian, they might well believe in some of the Gospel miracles, for instance. Maybe even some OT miracles, too.
Really? What theist-evolutionist here at EvC has ever admitted to one miracle in the Bible? Can you cite some examples?
Paul writes:
And you're a fine one to accuse others of blasphemy when you regularly twist and misrepresent the Bible which you claim to be God's word (being most upset when others read it and find that it does not say what you claim) and even mangle God's very name.
It seems that Ringo was entirely correct. Your real issue with theistic evolutionists is that they dare to disagree with YOU.
These are below the belt blind assertions which have been debated on other threads relative to topic. They are unsupported cheap shots.
Edited by Buzsaw, : Delete phrase

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by PaulK, posted 08-21-2010 4:29 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by PaulK, posted 08-23-2010 9:44 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 36 by Nij, posted 08-23-2010 9:47 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 41 by jar, posted 08-23-2010 10:30 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 43 by onifre, posted 08-23-2010 5:31 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 83 (576215)
08-23-2010 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Meldinoor
08-22-2010 11:37 PM


Re: Theists Who View The Bible As Mythology
Meldinoor writes:
Before this thread goes the way of the dinosaurs; do you feel that your question has been properly answered in this thread?
Have you reached a conclusion about Theistic Evolutionism, and whether you think it is an oxymoron or not. And do you see where we're coming from?
I remain convinced that you're trying to have it both ways. It's not only oxymoronic but borders on deism as per the Dictionary.com definition of deism.
deism   /ˈdiɪzəm/ Show Spelled[dee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
—noun
1. belief in the existence of a god on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation ( distinguished from theism).
2. belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it.
Where do you draw the line and what qualifies you to demote the status of the Genesis record to alegorical myth. What in it indicates to you that it was intended to be alegorical or mythical?
What miracles in the Biblical record do you ascribe to as literal? What qualifies you to make a private judgement as to which are alegorical/mythical and which are not?

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Meldinoor, posted 08-22-2010 11:37 PM Meldinoor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Nij, posted 08-23-2010 10:16 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 44 by Meldinoor, posted 08-23-2010 5:45 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 45 by Taq, posted 08-23-2010 6:11 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 83 (576369)
08-23-2010 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Meldinoor
08-23-2010 5:45 PM


Meldinoor writes:
Certainly. I believe in the God of the Bible. And I also "believe" in Electricity, Gravity, Heliocentrism and Evolution. I also believe in the existence of carrots. None of these beliefs conflict.
LOL. The God of the Bible claims to have created the sun on the 4th day, plant life on the 3rd day, the sun & moon on the 4th day, sea and bird life on the 5th day and man and animals on the 6th day.
God declared a curse on anyone who takes away or adds to his holy word. This is declared both in the OT and the NT. Do you and other theist-evolutionists believe that your alleged Biblical God is pleased when you professing Christians reduce the specifics of his claims in Genesis to the status of mythology?
Meldinoor writes:
Buzsaw writes:
It's not only oxymoronic but borders on deism as per the Dictionary.com definition of deism
Buzsaw, your misrepresentations are starting to annoy me. In my last post (did you even read it?) I wrote about how the central tenets of Genesis 1 and 2 don't conflict with the ToE.
Poor baby. I know. It's always an annoyance to have one's beliefs faulted. Does deism, defined below, resemble, somewhat, your belief?
Dictionary.com:
1. belief in the existence of a god on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation ( distinguished from theism).
2. belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it.
Of the tenets of Genesis 1, 2 and 3 which are compatible with your version of Biblical theism, the large majority of the specifics of them are regarded by theist-evolutionists as mythical alegories. How can you say you hold to the major tenets of these origin chapters?
Meldinoor writes:
1. God created everything (compatible)
2. God chose the human species to be made "in his image" spiritually (compatible)
3. Humanity fails to live up to God's standards (compatible)
4. God promises to redeem humanity (compatible)
1. Too vague. It says noting to support your position, being your position is incompatible with the written record.
2. The record does not limit the "in his image" to spiritual." God, being a spirit does have an image form, sitting on a throne.
3. Incompatible, in that Genesis man made perfect in one day but evolved man emerging over millions of years into primitive level of intelligence.
4. Incompatible in that primitive man's intlligence not up to what the record implies.
Meldinoor writes:
Do you really think someone who holds to these tenets fits your definition of a Deist? Please read my posts carefully before responding.
Yes.
Correction: not my definition but the definition of Dictionary.com.
Meldinoor writes:
What qualifies you to demote the Genesis record to mere history?
Say what? Which is more realistic, myth or history? I can't believe you asked that
Meldinoor writes:
Whatever the intents of the fallible (albeit perhaps inspired) human authors were, a simplistic literal reading of the account set forth in Genesis clearly contradicts the evidence we have of the past.
Oh. So your version of the Biblical god, Jehovah, is that his acclaimed record is trumped by man's science and likely Jehovah was either ignorant or fooling us but human (creature) science is infallible.
Meldinoor writes:
Buzsaw writes:
What miracles in the Biblical record do you ascribe to as literal? What qualifies you to make a private judgement as to which are alegorical/mythical and which are not?
Well, creation for one. I don't know how God created the universe (whether through "natural processes" operating "before" the Big Bang, or just ex nihilo), but I think it qualifies as a miraculous event. And the resurrection of course.
Beyond that, I won't deny the plausibility of most of the miracles in the Bible. I'm not qualified to judge which ones are mythical or historical, so in the absence of contrary evidence, I don't. I do believe that God is fully capable of performing any miracle described in the Bible.
1. Another dodge of the question. "creation." That's the sum total and you haven't, after reading the Genesis record as to any of the specifics. Can't you see how rediculous you're being, Meldinoor? I can't believe your response got a POM nomination
Meldinoor writes:
Buzsaw writes:
What theist-evolutionist here at EvC has ever admitted to one miracle in the Bible?
I just did.
Yah sure, Meldinoor. I'm sure you, all of the secularists and your theist-evos in EvC town are sure that you indeedy did. They will praise you til the cows come home for being their eloquent spokesman to debunk stupid ole unegukated dummie, Buzsaw.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Meldinoor, posted 08-23-2010 5:45 PM Meldinoor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Nij, posted 08-23-2010 10:34 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 53 by Meldinoor, posted 08-24-2010 12:55 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 54 by Blue Jay, posted 08-24-2010 1:06 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 83 (576372)
08-23-2010 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Taq
08-23-2010 6:11 PM


Re: Theists Who View The Bible As Mythology
Taq writes:
God is behind it, but it can never be shown in a scientific sense.
Herein lies the problem with this, Taq. It's more of a strawman than an analogy. Why? Because Jehovah, the Genesis god sanctioned his own words. On the otherhand, he did not sanction get rich quick gambling schemes. In fact in Proverbs, his man Solomon advises against it.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Taq, posted 08-23-2010 6:11 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Taq, posted 08-24-2010 12:08 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 83 (576377)
08-23-2010 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by onifre
08-23-2010 5:31 PM


Re: Theists Who View The Bible As Mythology
onifre writes:
Catholic Scientist believes in the miracles claimed in the NT. He has never denied that.
Mmm, Thanks Onifre. It would be nice if he/she were here to confirm or deny and to name some specific miracles which he ascribes to as literal.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by onifre, posted 08-23-2010 5:31 PM onifre has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 83 (576381)
08-23-2010 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by GDR
08-23-2010 11:14 AM


Re: Theists Who View The Bible As Mythology
GDR writes:
I have no problem with the idea that God created using an evolutionary process. That is a miracle of creation itself. I believe fervently in the bodily resurrection. I argued for that a number of times on this forum. I believe in the healing miracles of Jesus.
CS Lewis (who hasn't posted here lately I'll agree) also had no problem with evolution and even wrote a whole book called Miracles in support of the the miracles of the NT
Thanks, GDR. That's very interesting. So for you, no changing water into wine, no raising of Lazarus, no feeding of the 5000 with a boy's lunch, no creating anything in a day, etc, but the afterlife raising of the dead.
Do you realize how shakey this makes your resurrection hopes? How do you figure God will do miracle after you die, for you when he or his son allegedly never did these Biblically acclaimed miracles, for man while alive? How do you determine which miracle/miracles you pick and choose to believe?

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by GDR, posted 08-23-2010 11:14 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by GDR, posted 08-24-2010 1:39 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024