Theistic Evolution

[Eran of Arcadia]

I usually type religions and other organisations as well as their concepts without capital letters. Why should I put capital letters for every little organisation out there and each one of their concepts? The Mighty Mojoles of the Margarita Maroons and the Aquatic Subawoobas as well as their Insidious Overlomper.

I would say that as it is normal to capitalize the name of any organization, religious or not, that it is called for here. As far as concepts, like "the Great Flood" or "the Great Green Arkleseizure", it isn't necessary.

Note that only definition 1 is capitalized. Since there are many versions of many gods and I don't know any of them I have no reason to use the first definition, rather it's usually the second definition that's relevant.

When discussing gods as a concept, I do not capitalize it either. But this thread has been discussing God as an individual, and be he/she/it/they Christian, Jewish, or Zoroastrian.

Again, this is irrelevant to the thread, but I have always gotten the idea that people don't do it just so they can show how "liberated" they are or something. If you capitalize "Santa Claus", why not "Jesus"?

But more importantly, like I said my interpretation of the Bible may or may not be correct or even internally consistent (although I will argue the latter, but not the former on the internet). What matters is that I sincerely believe it.

 

[brennan]

Now you're just nitpicking. Ironduck, do you have any serious questions or comments for me, or do you want to just talk about definitions? Really, if you have a serious issue you want me to address, then fine, I'll answer it. But you seem to have some weird fascination with continuing conversations after they've really ended, by continuing to talk about things that really don't matter.

I believe the point is that if you learned about micro-evolution, macro-evolution and types. Then you have learned creationism.

We learned about Evolution and taxonomy. These are science.

 

[JoeM]

of course i'm not saying that because one part of a text is not true everything else it says is not true. I'm saying that if part of a book is not true because evidence points otherwise, then the rest of the book should be called into doubt until it can be proven.

That's a fair enough position.

 

[Brighteye]

plenty of people that claim to be christian see genesis as a mere story. doesn't mean that genesis isn't the very basis of the christian religion and without it it becomes meaningless.

Yes it does. Why should you dictate to me what my religion is? Shall I do the same to you? You must believe in a great tree-swinging ball of uranium-enriched fur. You either believe in this or you must never accept anything that is not entirely proven. Stop this nonsense and realise that Christianity is not defined by you, or even the Council of Nicaea. See the end of this post for an elaboration.

how do you know anything about gods time?

And how do you know that he's wrong? You need to show him he's wrong; he just requires there to be the possibility.

god is omnipotent whatever he wants is. no need to sculpt, no need for evolution he simply wills and it is so.

Exactly! This is what I said before: God can will a universe with evolution, and quite possibly would, given that it's a more elegant solution than creating individual planets, stars and creatures.

I do not take it litterally at all I find the bible to be complete and utter rubish and apparently so do most christians that use it to base their beliefs off of

Most Christians do not find it to be complete rubbish. We're not interested in you making snide comments that would appeal to a bunch of atheists in your local pub. The truth, as we have stated, is that some Christians are capable of realising that not all the Bible is true. The rest may be true; we choose to believe that it is.

such councils are where they also came up with the basic tennents of christianity like the divinity of christ

Christianity has no Tennent's. Tennent's is a rather strong tramp juice. Tennants are people who rent a property. Tenets are the central principles of (in this case) Christianity. The Council of Nicaea did indeed decide what constituted Christianity.
I do not believe that they have any better idea than I. I refuse to accept their authority. This is why I am a protestant. My religion is my own, and I will not accept any doctrine, be it religious or otherwise, that is supposed to be accepted simply because someone else says so.

I trust my own judgement above all others, and I judge certain parts of the Bible as wrong. Others I find reasonable, and others I choose to believe, although their historical accuracy is not ascertainable.

 

[ironduck]

I would say that as it is normal to capitalize the name of any organization, religious or not, that it is called for here.

Well, let's see, what don't I capitalize? Groups of people, for instance 'creationists' or 'biologists' or 'muslims'. I know that in English you're supposed to capitalize people coming from a specific country, such as Italians, so I do that, but find it silly. Capitalizing people for belonging to some club is just kind of ridiculous though, and I'm surprised anyone can feel annoyed by not capitalizing it.

When discussing gods as a concept, I do not capitalize it either. But this thread has been discussing God as an individual, and be he/she/it/they Christian, Jewish, or Zoroastrian.

Except that this individual you speak of doesn't actually exist in any way that makes sense to speak of 'an individual' - correct? You talk about 'an individual' and 'he' and 'him' as if it was a person. But the Abrahamic god (who is not the same as in other religions, mind you) is not 'a person' according to most followers of those religions. It's some sort of entity or concept and the reason the followers capitalize their specific god is because they want to pay tribute to it.

I'm not singling out any gods though. If your god has a name, like, say Jehova, then I'll be happy to capitalize it. But if you're just going to say 'god' then I know what it means, it means this concept thing that you believe in and I'm not going to capitalize that.

Again, this is irrelevant to the thread, but I have always gotten the idea that people don't do it just so they can show how "liberated" they are or something. If you capitalize "Santa Claus", why not "Jesus"?

Apparently you haven't paid attention because I capitalize Jesus just like any other name, Eran. See? You and Jesus both get to be capitalized. And so does Santa.

 

[classical_hero]

hmm no it did not. earth, water, and plants, existed before the sun. and the sun and the moon were created at the same time. Therefore the genesis account is completely wrong scientifically.

So are you saying that we can only get light from the Sun? This is very unscientific of you. You can grow plants without even seeing one drop of sunlight. This is often done by illegal methods, ie, drug sellers of marijuana. You do not need to have the sun for light, it is just our source of light. All you need light and that is mentioned in the first day, so you have light before the creation of plants, water and the earth.

 

[El_Machinae]

In order to have a 'day' you need a sun and a rotating planet.
How else would you have a day?

 

[Shadylookin]

Yes it does. Why should you dictate to me what my religion is? Shall I do the same to you? You must believe in a great tree-swinging ball of uranium-enriched fur. You either believe in this or you must never accept anything that is not entirely proven. Stop this nonsense and realise that Christianity is not defined by you, or even the Council of Nicaea. See the end of this post for an elaboration.

the ammount you believe in something should be proportional to the amount of evidence there is.

And how do you know that he's wrong? You need to show him he's wrong; he just requires there to be the possibility.

no i don't he's taking a position without evidence it's a logical. He is the one that must prove it exists not I.

Exactly! This is what I said before: God can will a universe with evolution, and quite possibly would, given that it's a more elegant solution than creating individual planets, stars and creatures.

I don't believe that an omnipotent being would care much for elegance. but then again the concept of an omnipotent being is a hard one for the human mind to wrap around

Most Christians do not find it to be complete rubbish. We're not interested in you making snide comments that would appeal to a bunch of atheists in your local pub. The truth, as we have stated, is that some Christians are capable of realising that not all the Bible is true. The rest may be true; we choose to believe that it is.

why do you choose to believe something without evidence?

Christianity has no Tennent's. Tennent's is a rather strong tramp juice. Tennants are people who rent a property. Tenets are the central principles of (in this case) Christianity. The Council of Nicaea did indeed decide what constituted Christianity.
I do not believe that they have any better idea than I. I refuse to accept their authority. This is why I am a protestant. My religion is my own, and I will not accept any doctrine, be it religious or otherwise, that is supposed to be accepted simply because someone else says so.

I trust my own judgement above all others, and I judge certain parts of the Bible as wrong. Others I find reasonable, and others I choose to believe, although their historical accuracy is not ascertainable.

but that's where they decided that jesus would officially but the son of god and where they picked the books of the bible that would be included.

 

[El_Machinae]

why do you choose to believe something without evidence?

People often have other reasons why they believe something. A portion of the population is more spiritual than you, it's easier for them to believe in supernatural explanations. I believe this phenomenon to be a quirk of biology, but I cannot call it abnormal since it's more common than left-handedness.

You cannot think of them as being stupid for believing, there are endless quirks of each person's personality that would be stupid through other people's eyes.

 

[Elrohir]

Eh? You're the one who say you don't dismiss science. Yet, everything I've ever seen you say that relates to biology has been completely unscientific. Your entire post 150 for instance.

edit - I'll say that's quite on topic given that you're dismissing science as it's clashing with your religious beliefs.

Would you be satisfied if I edited post 150 to say "species" or "genus", or a similarly more "scientific" term? Honestly Ironduck, who cares? I'm not writing a paper for a peer-reviewed journal on the subject.

I'd think that you deciding to live your life based on your opinion of the inerrancy of the Bible (as read by your presents circle of faithful) is a fairly big thing.

Heck, if you didn't think that the Bible was inerrant, what else would change?

What would change? Well, I could no longer trust anything that's in the Bible, even the existence or death of Christ. And if I don't believe that, then I'm not a Christian. Changing one's religion strikes me as a fairly big thing.

 

[El_Machinae]

I was commenting on your opinion that your opinion on the Creation of the Universe wasn't important to you.

I think it is. Just like it's important to me.

If they found excellent evidence for a global flood, I'd have to rethink my world-view too. Of course, as I get older, we find more evidence against a global flood.

edit: you and Ironduck sure bicker a lot. I think it's a 'gotta get the last word' kind of thing, which is cute, because you're both hella civil at the same time.

 

[Elrohir]

I was commenting on your opinion that your opinion on the Creation of the Universe wasn't important to you.

I think it is. Just like it's important to me.

If they found excellent evidence for a global flood, I'd have to rethink my world-view too. Of course, as I get older, we find more evidence against a global flood.

It is something I have an opinion on, sure. But I don't care about it as much as I used to, or as much as most people do, mostly because I'm just sick of all the arguing, and that realistically, it doesn't personally affect anyone's life if the Earth is 6000 or 6 billion years old.

edit: you and Ironduck sure bicker a lot. I think it's a 'gotta get the last word' kind of thing, which is cute, because you're both hella civil at the same time.

I don't know what it is, but we sure do have a lot of these conversations, that sort of peter out but keep going for a couple pages longer, anyway. I keep trying to stop, but he keeps saying something bizarre or outrageous that I feel I have to respond to....

And what's with the "cute" and "hella civil"? I've never thought of myself as a "cute" or "hella civil" person.

 

[El_Machinae]

Like an old married couple, actually...

it doesn't personally affect anyone's life if the Earth is 6000 or 6 billion years old.

Except if you found out the answer, you'd reform your faith position (either abandon it or keep it). That's pretty important to you, I'd think. But, no need to reply, I get your point. My gas bill isn't going to go down either way...

 

[Elrohir]

Like an old married couple, actually...

Except if you found out the answer, you'd reform your faith position (either abandon it or keep it). That's pretty important to you, I'd think. But, no need to reply, I get your point. My gas bill isn't going to go down either way...

If I was convinced that life on Earth evolved, and the universe really was billions of years old, then I would reform my ideas of the Earth's history, and the interpetation of Genesis 1. I don't think I would become a non-Christian though, not from that one issue.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

but that's where they decided that jesus would officially but the son of god and where they picked the books of the bible that would be included.

See, ironduck (you do go with the lower-case, right?) when I talked of not capitalizing "Jesus" I didn't mean you. At any rate, as long as you are consistent about grammar rules and don't just do it when dealing with religious terminology, you can do it however you want and who cares about what others think.

But to answer Shady, the idea that Jesus was the son of God was much older than Nicea. Nicea did define their relationship in Trinitarian terms, but I don't accept its authority anyways.

 

[Elrohir]

But to answer Shady, the idea that Jesus was the son of God was much older than Nicea. Nicea did define their relationship in Trinitarian terms, but I don't accept its authority anyways.

Someone who knows what they are talking about! In a culture so saturated by the Da Vinci Code and his bizarre idea that Constantine "made up" the idea of Jesus being the Son of God, it's nice to see someone who knows what the Council was really about, and how it decided. (Even if he doesn't accept it's authority.)

The Council was really a council to decide on the Arian controversy, and decided overwhelmingly against Arius. (250-2, I believe it was.)

 

[ironduck]

Elrohir: See post 162.

El Mac: It's not bickering, I try to point out things I think are key to the issue at hand, but they seem to always get ignored or misunderstood.

classical hero: You didn't answer me earlier when I asked why you think the bible is the word of god.

Eran: I don't care if you capitalize my name or not. Also, another reason I don't capitalize 'god' is that you specifically capitalize your own god because you think 'he' is the 'true god' and therefore must be treated with reverence I assume. But I don't think any more of your god than any other gods, so it would be strange for me to capitalize yours. But if you want to call him by a name such as Jehova it would be different, just like saying Shiva or Thor.

 

[Shadylookin]

See, ironduck (you do go with the lower-case, right?) when I talked of not capitalizing "Jesus" I didn't mean you. At any rate, as long as you are consistent about grammar rules and don't just do it when dealing with religious terminology, you can do it however you want and who cares about what others think.

I started the sentence with the word but, left out commas, and probably made a whole host of other english mistakes. i type these posts out quickly and as long as i see things are understandable i typically do not go back and fix my errors. if i wanted to belittle your beliefs i would do so in no uncertain terms not by my lack of use of the shift key. So I ask that you back off my spelling and stop making it an issue.

But to answer Shady, the idea that Jesus was the son of God was much older than Nicea. Nicea did define their relationship in Trinitarian terms, but I don't accept its authority anyways.

so what books would you have include and which ones would you have taken out?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I started the sentence with the word but, left out commas, and probably made a whole host of other english mistakes. i type these posts out quickly and as long as i see things are understandable i typically do not go back and fix my errors. if i wanted to belittle your beliefs i would do so in no uncertain terms not by my lack of use of the shift key. So I ask that you back off my spelling and stop making it an issue.

I do not want to make an issue out of anyone's spelling, grammar, or capitalization. But I have seen, far too often, people write a post with perfect grammar, except for not capitalizing religious terms. This leads me to believe it is intentional, and not an honest mistake in writing. But I am not going to discuss this here anymore; I already started a thread for it.

 

[Brighteye]

the ammount you believe in something should be proportional to the amount of evidence there is.

no i don't he's taking a position without evidence it's a logical. He is the one that must prove it exists not I.

why do you choose to believe something without evidence?

but that's where they decided that jesus would officially but the son of god and where they picked the books of the bible that would be included.

The first three points: I call something 'knowledge' if I regard it as proven. Religion, and a great many other things do not fall into the category, although with some of them I regard them as knowledge anyway, despite not having absolute proof (various news reports and so on).

Then there is science, which doesn't prove, but is, in effect, the best we can do. I accept scientific conclusions as true, although I acknowledge that they may subsequently be disproven. I generally regard this as 'knowledge' too, although it's not proven.

Finally, there are things about which not only has science not given an opinion, but cannot. This is the area properly covered by religion; many religions and beliefs refuse to accept science as superior, and try to cover areas contradicted by it.
Given that there can never be any evidence for metaphysics, either against or for, we're free to choose to believe in whatever we please, be it a religion, or in nothing else at all. What do you say caused the big bang? Was it just a random fluke that out of nothingness popped a huge amount of energy? That sounds as unlikely as there being a creator who caused it. Both options are outside of what science can discuss, and the laws of physics/nature that we know to hold in our world.

For your last point, it doesn't matter what the Council of Nicaea said. If I said that evolution only happened suddenly, so that you'd get modern man out of a chimpanzee, and called that evolution, would you accept it if I told you that you have to accept my evolution or nothing at all? I have my Christianity, with similar tenets, but I regard it as contrary to the intention of God (as claimed in the Bible) in giving us free will if I simply accept someone else's opinion as authority, with no reason. Not only is it un-Christian but stupid (a far more damning statement).