Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Are dinosaurs the real reason young Christians in college desert their faith?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Readers will recall that geneticist Todd Wood offered an apology recently for involvement he may have had with Tim Stafford’s The Adam Quest, which—he felt—did not treat young Earth creationists like hmself fairly. Here’s Stafford giving his own view at HuffPo:

One of the scientists I profile in my book, the well-known paleontologist Mary Schweitzer, teaches at North Carolina State University. She says that many of the undergraduates who take her course, “Dinosaur World,” come from conservative churches. “They see the data for evolution, and they are placed in an uncomfortable position, splitting their heads and their hearts. They usually choose to walk away from their faith.

Somehow I doubt that is the actual reason. Most often, I suspect, the real reason is the discovery that Biblical values against lying, stealing, casual relationships of all kinds, and corruption generally are just so not cool any more. They are not how the top people got where they are. The dinosaur is a respectable excuse because he is irrelevant to all that, and dead anyway

What do we want for our children? What do people on both sides want for their children? Most people would say that they want their children to be scientifically literate, and to have a chance at a career using science.

But today, being scientifically literate and having a career in science are two different things.

“Scientifically literate” means understanding why falsification is important, just for example. Having a career in science may mean campaigning against it because it threatens cherished beliefs, like the multiverse.

See also: Copernicus, you are not going to believe who is using your name. Or how.

Comments
PB11: As an example of the kind of not-God explanations that I find completely lacking, we have this little gem:
Nothingness is inherently unstable
You see, I'm pretty sure that nothingness is inherently nothing, and the moment it becomes inherently something, then it is no longer nothingness. Further, the something that it inherently is then requires an explanation that nothingness did not require. But this is the avant garde, the bleeding edge, the state-of-the-art in not-God explanations. It's right up there with emergence (otherwise known as "poof") as explanations go. I simply cannot find enough faith in these sorts of explanations to begin to build anything that I could find satisfying as a world view, or that I could convince myself wasn't self-deceptive on some level.Phinehas
February 10, 2014
February
02
Feb
10
10
2014
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT
PB11:
I’m not sure I understand something you said, though. When you claimed that you don’t have “enough faith to be an atheist,” were you saying that because you see evidence of design in things, that everyone else should, too? Just curious.
Not really, no. I was just talking about me and my faith, not about everyone else at all. Further, the focus of that particular statement wasn't really on seeing the evidence of design in things, though that is certainly a factor for me. I simply find that it is easier/more intellectually satisfying/less taxing on credulity for me to believe that God exists than to believe that He doesn't, based on the entire sum of my life experiences, knowledge, and philosophical musings.
I like your list of questions that science doesn’t currently answer to your satisfaction, but I don’t understand why the first four points are on there. By its own rules, science can’t explain the origin of the universe — or all matter or physical laws — in terms of anything before the moment of the Big Bang. Fortunately, JPL specialists can still factor theories about gravity into their spaceflight equations, even though they can’t explain the origin of matter.
I apologize for any confusion, but where did you get the idea that my list is about what "science" doesn't answer? I'm merely pointing out that in trying to build a comprehensive and consistent Weltanschauung, it is important to me that these questions get answered in some intellectually acceptable manner. The fact that science cannot, in principle, answer a number of them does tend to rule out scientism as a viable candidate for me. Naturalism and materialism face similar challenges, for how could matter be responsible for the existence of matter? For me, the list is about a number of things that I believe exist for which not-God appears entirely inadequate to explain their existence.
(And just like chemists can reference the periodic table to predict the outcome of a chemical reaction, even if they don’t know how the elements came into existence, paleontologists can employ the theory of evolution to discover Tiktaalik, even if they don’t yet know the manner by which the first self-replicating molecules were assembled.)
You will note that neither chemistry nor the origin of the species, as such, were on my list. So, mathematicians can employ math to solve real-world problems even if they don't know why our universe contains mathematical concepts to begin with. OK. For me, pointing out that mathematicians can use mathematics doesn't make issues about the origin of logic, reason, and math suddenly go away. My curious mind remains unsatisfied, and implied promises of "don't yet know" sound awfully hollow and empty to my ears.
Re: your last three points… I think morality is the easiest to explain scientifically (see: signs of altruism and basic morality in chimps and other animals). Consciousness has already been shown to be a product of brain function, but the riddle of life will probably be solved before consciousness is fully understood. Much of the related research over the past 50 years or so is chronicled in books like “The Tangled Wing” and “The Blank Slate.”
"Signs of altruism and basic morality in chimps and other animals," doesn't even come close to answering questions about the origin of morality for me. Seriously, it is completely lacking as an explanation in satisfying my desire to understand what could possibly account for the existence of morality to point out that some chimp behavior could be interpreted as analogous to moral behavior. How does that begin to explain how each one of us has a powerful, internal conviction that it is absolutely necessary and right to compel other free agents concerning what they ought or ought not do? How exactly does labeling chimp behavior in a certain way get us from is to ought?
And the progress really isn’t all that slow, is it? It might have taken nearly 150 years after the publication of “Origin” to discover Tiktaalik, but look at how long it’s taking to discover a cure for cancer or a practical alternative to fossil fuels. With money from governments and corporations, and support from ever-improving genomic sequencers, it’s possible that our scientific knowledge about genetics and the brain will improve vastly over the next 10-50 years.
Sure it's possible. It's also possible that God will return to rapture His church in the next 10-50 years. Or not. The possible is a huge category, but not one that is particularly helpful in satisfying the curious mind. At least not for me. And to be honest, I'm tending to see more and more of a trend where science bumps up against barriers that appear to grow larger and more impenetrable the more they are studied. As you've said, my list certainly includes things that are inaccessible to science, and I feel reasonably confident that each one of the items on it will continue to strongly resist not-God explanations. Confident enough that this seems to me the most sturdy ground on which to build my faith as well as the most intellectually fulfilling world and life view.Phinehas
February 10, 2014
February
02
Feb
10
10
2014
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT
nullasasus: The Rom Houben story is a hoax, tough possibly unintentional. His facilitator held his hands along a keyboard (which there was no reason to even believe Houben could see). She then typed "his" words, probably by way of ideomotor effect. Effectively, she was communicating "his" thoughts by the equivalent of a ouija board. By itself, this doesn't mean anything, but the situation could not pass basic tests (such as showing him an object while she was out of the room and then having her/him type it out). This is all fortunate, because it implies that he was not in fact undergoing twenty years of living hell, as "his" writing implied, but rather is in a genuine vegetative state. Instead, the sad part (besides the basic fact of his condition) is that the facilitator would be so emotionally manipulative of the family, possibly without realizing it herself, and that so much of the media would fall for it.Lenoxus
February 9, 2014
February
02
Feb
9
09
2014
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT
Greetings. CentralScrutinizer
Even granted that, what would such a detection look like? What could it look like? How can you cross the rubicon of detected effect and subjective experience of, say, the color blue?
I do not know. But if it can be detected in principle, then what one can say is that "We do not know how to cross the rubicon, but we have seen it." The subjective experience of blue can still be described objectively in terms of frequency, which can then be described in terms of energy. Consciousness needs to follow this principle of being converted to energy terms if it is detectable by physical means. Something that just hit me: If consciousness is subject to the laws of thermodynamics, why is telekinesis said to be false in principle? It is said one reason it is false is because it violates the laws of thermodynamics (I'm guessing it is the second law they have in mind). Consciousness, if it is detectable by physical means, should necessarily have an energy value. This energy from the brains of those who perform telekinesis is simply influencing matter around them. It will be like the force from a distance, like gravity. I hope I have not misunderstood something.seventrees
February 8, 2014
February
02
Feb
8
08
2014
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT
seventrees: From the way I see it, consciousness can only be detected by physical means if it is subject to the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
Even granted that, what would such a detection look like? What could it look like? How can you cross the rubicon of detected effect and subjective experience of, say, the color blue? And then, how could you be sure it was the actually the consciousness in question and not a buffer "field" of somekind between the neural networks and something else? Something primary? You can't. Not even in principle. The best the materialists (like Dennet) can offer is to simply deny it exists. Well screw him and the horse he rode in on. In that respect he's a complete idiot. Obviously so. Astoundingly so.CentralScrutinizer
February 7, 2014
February
02
Feb
7
07
2014
05:38 PM
5
05
38
PM
PDT
Greetings everyone. From the way I see it, consciousness can only be detected by physical means if it is subject to the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. I do not see consciousness having a value of mass or an energy value.seventrees
February 7, 2014
February
02
Feb
7
07
2014
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT
PasserBy11: Consciousness isn’t detected in people whose brains are dead but whose bodies are kept alive artificially. Further, medical science continues to discover which parts of the brain are associated with our feelings and drives, the basis of our personality, and the facilitating role played by neurotransmitters.
Again, at best it's correlation, but causation. Scientifically, nobody knows what consciousness is. So how anyone say neurons in a particular configuration and mode causes it? The brain may be an interface to consciousness, and not a generator of it. It's impossible to say at this point because we cannot directly detect consciousness. You can't point a device at it and say, "there it is." At best you can see that certain neural areas are active when a subjective report is given by a conscious entity, i.e, a human subject. At this point. Nobody knows the degree the brain "causes" or "generates" consciousness. You claim is false. How do you get from neurons in a certain configuration to the subjective experience of blue that you experience? Ponder it awhile, your ponderings may shock you.CentralScrutinizer
February 7, 2014
February
02
Feb
7
07
2014
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT
Consciousness isn’t detected in people whose brains are dead but whose bodies are kept alive artificially.
Consciousness isn't 'detected' at all in the sense that would be necessary here. It's inferred by the presence of - among other things - physical reactions to stimulus. That's one of the reasons why situations like this pop up at times. You stated that consciousness was shown to be a product of brain function. You were wrong - CS replied that all we have are correlations. We don't have even the beginning of a scrap for any explanation of how the brain produces or 'causes' consciousness. You can point out that impairing the brain has an effect on the mind - but that's not being doubted, nor is it necessary for the claim you're trying to argue against. This is precisely why you have eliminative materialists who respond to the problem of consciousness and intentionality and otherwise by arguing that such things don't even exist to begin with.nullasalus
February 7, 2014
February
02
Feb
7
07
2014
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT
CentralScrutinizer nobody has shown that the brain causes consciousness.
Consciousness isn't detected in people whose brains are dead but whose bodies are kept alive artificially. Further, medical science continues to discover which parts of the brain are associated with our feelings and drives, the basis of our personality, and the facilitating role played by neurotransmitters. OTOH... People who replace their hearts or other vital organs with machines, or even with organics from other species, don't suffer adverse effects to their consciousness.PasserBy11
February 7, 2014
February
02
Feb
7
07
2014
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT
PasserBy11: Consciousness has already been shown to be a product of brain function
Who? Where? When? The only thing that is demonstrable empirically is correlation, not causation. Nobody (that I know of) doubts the the brain is responsible for the particular experiences that consciousness experiences, but nobody has shown that the brain causes consciousness.CentralScrutinizer
February 7, 2014
February
02
Feb
7
07
2014
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT
Hi, Phinehas - Good call on the Hyles-Anderson connection. It sounds like our backgrounds might share many similarities. I'm not sure I understand something you said, though. When you claimed that you don't have "enough faith to be an atheist," were you saying that because you see evidence of design in things, that everyone else should, too? Just curious. I like your list of questions that science doesn't currently answer to your satisfaction, but I don't understand why the first four points are on there. By its own rules, science can't explain the origin of the universe -- or all matter or physical laws -- in terms of anything before the moment of the Big Bang. Fortunately, JPL specialists can still factor theories about gravity into their spaceflight equations, even though they can't explain the origin of matter. :) (And just like chemists can reference the periodic table to predict the outcome of a chemical reaction, even if they don't know how the elements came into existence, paleontologists can employ the theory of evolution to discover Tiktaalik, even if they don't yet know the manner by which the first self-replicating molecules were assembled.) But if anyone, atheist or otherwise, claims that science can make testable predictions about anything that might have occurred prior to the BB, that person probably has a poor grasp of science or is trying to push an agenda. Re: your last three points... I think morality is the easiest to explain scientifically (see: signs of altruism and basic morality in chimps and other animals). Consciousness has already been shown to be a product of brain function, but the riddle of life will probably be solved before consciousness is fully understood. Much of the related research over the past 50 years or so is chronicled in books like "The Tangled Wing" and "The Blank Slate." And the progress really isn't all that slow, is it? It might have taken nearly 150 years after the publication of "Origin" to discover Tiktaalik, but look at how long it's taking to discover a cure for cancer or a practical alternative to fossil fuels. With money from governments and corporations, and support from ever-improving genomic sequencers, it's possible that our scientific knowledge about genetics and the brain will improve vastly over the next 10-50 years. Regardless, it's unfair to fault people for saying, "If man were meant to fly, God would have given him wings," especially when the vast majority of them lived and died long before the Wright brothers made history at Kitty Hawk.PasserBy11
February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT
Phineas @67:
I’ve never had enough faith to be an atheist, though. . . . Nor can I find the requisite faith to believe in the starry-eyed promises of future explanations, always just around the corner.
Well said. Reminds me of what Behe called the "promissory note" of evolutionary explanations. With the due date that keeps receding into the forever future and we never get to cash the thing in.Eric Anderson
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
09:05 PM
9
09
05
PM
PDT
Piltdown2@61 remarked
Interesting idea. I like the Variants vs. Actors part – each group both helping and depending on the other while evolving differently. Plus, it fits the evidence about as well as any other ideas out there:
Thank you, and yes, that was exactly my point. I can easily make up a plausible scientific story, and then locate and emphasize the facts that seem to support it. Then, as an unethical Darwinist professor, I would try to force (er, enlighten) my students to choose between my bold, remarkable, brilliant, rational, intelligent scientific theory . . . and their stupid, illiterate, redneck superstition upon which I would heap ALL the ills and inequities of the world. -QQuerius
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
08:12 PM
8
08
12
PM
PDT
PB11: If I'd grown up in the Hyles-Anderson tradition, I probably wouldn't be a believer today either. Actually, that might not be true. I grew up Bible Methodist, which might best be described as the Arminian's answer to Hyles-Anderson and Bob Jones. And my path took me through a fundamental Baptist (KJV-only, of course) church of the Hyles-Anderson mold (I even went to their big summer rally thingy--I forget what it was called), then to a GARBC college, and finally to an independent Bible church. I've rejected a lot of the culture and tradition in which I was raised, but never my faith, in large part because I was able to understand that these were two very disparate things. I've never had enough faith to be an atheist, though. Even if I were to accept that evolution was the best explanation for the origin of the species (which I could see myself doing), there is still just way too much left unexplained: * the origin of something * the origin of matter * the origin of information * the origin of physical laws * the origin of life * the origin of consciousness * the origin of morality For me, materialism just isn't up to the task, and atheistic approaches to explaining the above always strike me as unbelievably empty and lacking. Seriously. Shockingly so. Nor can I find the requisite faith to believe in the starry-eyed promises of future explanations, always just around the corner.Phinehas
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT
Hi, tjguy - Thanks for the reply. Please don't feel sorry for me because I've rejected my faith. I have four children, ages 7 to 22, and I'm thankful nearly every day that they're not growing up in what Sagan called a demon-haunted world. [Side Note: They could have if they had wanted to. My two more spiritually minded ones went through phases where they professed belief in a god and attended services with their fundamentalist Baptist friends. Their mother and I always encouraged such exploration, confident that our values could take the Pepsi Challenge against anyone else's any day of the week. ;) On a similar note, one of our sons attended services at Buddhist and Hindu temples while he was in high school, an interest that was also supported.] Thanks, too, for the Tiktaalik link. Regrettably, nearly all of Nunn's points are either wrong or irrelevant, the latter because no one is arguing that Tiktaalik walked on land like a fully formed tetrapod. In the Wrong department, Nunn implies strongly that Tiktaalik is nothing more than a typical bony fish, but that description is such an oversimplification as to be a falsehood. Tiktaalik possessed a neck, lacked a dorsal fin, and featured an amphibian-like skull (e.g., shape and size, mouth and dentition, internal and external nostrils, etc). Additionally, the older tracks in Poland don't pose any problem for evolution, as the Canadian Tiktaalik population could be descended from the same (or similar) population that gave rise to the Polish tetrapods. Further, Nunn contends there's nothing exceptional about Tiktaalik's pelvis, even though it's a perfect example of what's expected in a transitional form. As remarkable as Tiktaalik is as a specimen, the manner by which Shubin's team discovered it is IMO even more remarkable: They were deliberately searching exposed, late-Devonian rocks -- in the tundra of Ellesmere Island, no less! -- because they had the idea that said rocks provided the best opportunity to discover the fossilized remains of a creature that no one had ever seen before (or, truthfully, would otherwise ever have reason to think even existed). That creature was an animal with traits common to lobe-finned fishes as well as amphibians, an idea inspired by 150+ years of observations, data-quantifying, hypothesizing, testing, reformulating, retesting, and doing it all over and over and over again. When the animal in question was precisely what the team found, the prediction that had been made across deep time and global space was confirmed. It's akin to an astronomer pinpointing the location of a planet two years hence, or predicting the return of a comet to the year, month, and day. It's the kind of thing that science is all about. :)PasserBy11
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT
F/N: Those interested in a framework of Christian thought rooted in the historic summary views outlined in Creeds and based on the confession of the Apostles, martyrs and confessors etc, will I believe find here on helpful, which includes a discussion on why the orthodox Christian view of God is triune. I simply note for reference, as UD is not a place for theological disputes and debates. By and large such simply feed scapegoating stereotypes. KFkairosfocus
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT
CentralScrutinizer:
I didn’t say Jesus was “a god.” What I said was “I happen to think that there are vast numbers of beings who belong to the “Yahweh Elohim” group (yes, it’s a group), and Jesus is surely one of them, in fact, the most important one with regards to this earth.” The members of the Yahweh Elohim comprise one group, one family. They are the one Yahweh Elohim, the “One God.”
I, too, believe that God is many beings in one. In fact, I think there are billions of them, a whole civilization. They think of themselves as ONE because they are truly in harmony with one another. However, I don't think that Jesus is just one of the billions. Jesus is a part of Yahweh. He is the physical face of many billions and they speak as ONE. I have this hypothesis that when Jesus died for our sins, billions of Elohim died with him: a life for a life. They had to pay the price for each one of us, otherwise it would be the end of humanity. That is true love. Karma is the universal conservation law of the spiritual realm. What is borrowed must be returned in full. One day, humanity will become part of Yahweh and we will be ONE with them as well.Mapou
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT
tjguy: Jesus is the most important god with regards to this earth?
I didn't say Jesus was "a god." What I said was "I happen to think that there are vast numbers of beings who belong to the “Yahweh Elohim” group (yes, it’s a group), and Jesus is surely one of them, in fact, the most important one with regards to this earth." The members of the Yahweh Elohim comprise one group, one family. They are the one Yahweh Elohim, the "One God."
"Are you a Mormon"
No. As for the rest of your reply, I have neither the time nor interest to discuss it all in this forum except to say that thirty years ago my views were similar to yours. Now they are not. Your mind is made up apparently. I find that a pity because there much to see that you are not seeing. Take care.CentralScrutinizer
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
05:29 AM
5
05
29
AM
PDT
Passerby11, I'm sorry you had a bad experience with YEC believers. I'm even more sorry that you have rejected your faith, but I'm sure it was no flippant decision on your part. I just wanted to respond to this sentence at the end of your post:
Since then, endogenous retroviruses, human chromosome 2, and the prediction and discovery of Tiktaalik have all provided additional support for evolution.
I'm sure you know that there are answers for each of these issues you brought up, but just in case you have not seen them, here they are: Articles on the endogenous retrovirus issue: http://www.answersingenesis.org/search/?q=endogenous+retrovirus&search=Go Chromosome 2: http://creation.com/chromosome-2-fusion-1 http://creation.com/chromosome-2-fusion-2 Tiktaalik: http://creation.com/tiktaalik-pelvis God bless!tjguy
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
04:37 AM
4
04
37
AM
PDT
Querius@54,
Evolutionary mythology. Everyone has some goofy ideas. Here’s mine.
Interesting idea. I like the Variants vs. Actors part - each group both helping and depending on the other while evolving differently. Plus, it fits the evidence about as well as any other ideas out there:
Eventually, the Variants evolved into common gut flora, losing nearly all of their symbiotic evolutionary function.
while
Actors typically mutate and reproduce far too slowly to have evolutionary significance.
Needs a name, though, and unfortunately "Q Theory" is already taken: http://qtheory.net/. But I will always think of Queue now whenever I find myself waiting in line somewhere!Piltdown2
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
04:33 AM
4
04
33
AM
PDT
Central @ 47
Point is: the literal story is irrelevant once you know the real message behind it all.
Or maybe: Point is, once you reject the literal (plain) meaning of the story, you can never know for sure the real message behind it all. Interpretation becomes almost impossible if you don't take the plain meaning of the words. Poetry of course cannot be interpreted as such, but Genesis is history. It is written as history. All the biblical writers inspired by the Holy Spirit took it as history, including Jesus Himself. This is the strongest evidence that we should as well. Of course, if we saw them interpreting it allegorically, that would be one thing, but that is not the case. Just trying to understand your thinking here. Central, why would God start out the Bible with an allegory? Why wouldn't He tell us the true story? I mean He could have told us that He created life and then that life slowly changed into all different types of living creatures over long periods of time. This would have been very understandable to even people back then even if they didn't know how the things changed. But, no. The Bible is clear that He created everything. It says that all over Scripture. Creation is one of the 3 great works of God that He is praised for. The other two are the Exodus from Egypt and the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus through which He redeemed us. There is no indication it is allegory, so, if it is, Bible interpretation would seem to be hopeless! How would we ever know - especially since other inspired authors of the Bible were deceived as well? Are we in debt to Darwin for this new knowledge? I hardly think so.
Is a literal Adam and Eve necessary? No. The whole human race is cursed for some reason that is not precisely spelled out in the pages of the Hebrew scripts. The Adam and Eve story is an obvious turn-about contra the ideas from Sumer floating around. The concepts were already fairly familiar and so were adopted and modified for a purpose.
OK, this is your opinion. Great. But don't you think it would be difficult to trust a God who has arbitrarily cursed the whole human race for some unknown reason? Why do you insist that the reason the Bible gives is wrong? That doesn't make sense. Even the NT in passages that are NOT allegorical take this as truth. Why do you insist the Adam and Eve story originated from some ideas floating about in Sumer. Why couldn't it have been that the ideas in Sumer are corruptions of the original teachings of the patriarchs? You are probably a believer in the debunked JEDP theory that says that the Torah was not written until very late and was written by many different authors.
Is a literal flood necessary? No. The point was the whole earth, except a chosen few, are doomed, and will be destroyed. God will save his few. Again, the writer lifted a well known Sumerian flood tale and adapted to his purposes. What counts is the message behind the story.
Again, you assume the Sumerian flood tale is the original. You don't know this - you just assume this. Fine, but wouldn't it make more sense to see the biblical story as the original and the flood stories in cultures all around the world as corruptions of that story as people spread out and populated the earth after the flood? What counts is the message behind the story? The message is important too, but the trustworthiness of Scripture is called into question if all these things present as truth as just made up fairly tales. Jesus believed in the flood and Peter wrote about a global flood as well and prophesied that in the last days people would come to deny the flood.tjguy
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
04:29 AM
4
04
29
AM
PDT
Hi Central, You said:
Many of the “church fathers” made statements that flatly disagree with you with regards to the trinity, i.e, the philosophical Nicean type trinity dogma. At any rate, I did not say that Jesus was not “divine.” Nor did I say he was “not God.” I said the trinitarian dogma is false. Your bias just took it too far.
Yes, there were disagreements among the Church Fathers, but those who disagreed were labelled as heretics and cults. Apologies if I misunderstood what you are saying. But I don't think I did. You do not believe that Jesus is "God" in the sense I was meaning.
I happen to think that there are vast numbers of beings who belong to the “Yahweh Elohim” group (yes, it’s a group), and Jesus is surely one of them, in fact, the most important one with regards to this earth. So before you throw stones at me for rejecting “Jesus as God” you might want to find out what I think first.
Central, are you a Mormon? This sounds similar to their ideas. Vast numbers of gods? So you are a polytheist? Whatever you are, these views do not agree with the Bible. God is one. That was the central Jewish creed. The Bible does not teach that there is a Yahweh Elohim" group at all. You accuse me of throwing stones for rejecting Jesus as God, but I'm right. You ARE rejecting Jesus as the one and only true God. You may view him as a god among many others, but that is not what I meant by saying "Jesus is God" - one with the Father. "Jesus is the most important god with regards to this earth?" What does that mean? Are there other less important gods? What are their names? What are their roles? Can we pray to them? Can they save us? Are there other gods that have significance to other "earths"? Where do you see this in Scripture? Or is this just your New Age religiosity coming through? Once we leave Scripture, there is no end to the possibilities of things we can dream up. But that is specifically why God gave us His Word - so we would know what to believe. I don't mean this in a mean way, but again, it is hard for me to believe that no one every figured this out until you came along in the 21st century. Sure, the word Elohim is plural, but even so, the same writer who used that word wrote the Jewish doctrinal creed "The Lord our God, the LORD is one." It could be a reference to the Trinity or it could be the plural majesty use of the word where the plural is used to try and express the great majesty of the one being described. The Bible is very clear that there is only one God and one Savior, yet both God the Father and God the Son are referred to as God and Savior. It is from clear teachings like this that we arrive at the doctrine of the Trinity. Anyway, volumes of theological works have been written on this as you know, so I doubt we'll get too far here on this board with that subject. We're probably already off topic.tjguy
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
04:07 AM
4
04
07
AM
PDT
Mapou says:
I reject your argument because I don’t believe there ever was a first couple. It is my firm conviction that the Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden story is 100% allegorical. The tree of life, the tree of knowledge, the devious talking snake (this alone should be a big clue), the angels with the flaming swords, etc., it is all allegorical, IMO.
I see. And all the other inspired NT writers were also mislead by the Holy Spirit as well, right? The good thing about making it an allegory is that then you are basically free to assign whatever meaning you want to it. No one can tell you it is right or wrong.
I disagree with New Testament accounts of a first couple. I strongly suspect that some jackasses in the early Christian Church inserted their own cr*p in the New Testament that don’t belong there. The only book they did not mess with, IMO, was the book of Revelation because they had no clue what it meant and they still don’t.
I see. No evidence for this, but since it doesn't fit with your interpretation of Genesis, then you have to assume things like this to keep your interpretation consistent. Interesting that you think the book of Revelation was not tampered with. And they had no clue what it meant and still don't? I see. But you do, right? Hmm. We had to wait for Mapou to come on the scene to finally understand the book of Revelation? Seems a bit arrogant doesn't it? And why in the world would you assume that your own personal view of Revelation is anywhere near the truth?
I disagree with the concept of an original sin by a first couple. I think it’s all BS. The garden of Eden story is just a symbolic way of showing that humans were given a chance to prove their righteousness and they failed the test.
Well, your approach to Scripture seems a bit backward. Scripture is truth and we don't decide what we agree with and disagree with or what is true and what is cr*p. No, we allow ourselves to be taught, instructed, trained, and equipped by God's Word. It sits in judgment on us, not vice versa. God gave us the Bible to reveal His truth, not for us to judge what we like and dislike or so that we would accept whatever parts sound good while cutting out the parts we don't like. Your approach to God's Word turns it into Mapou's Word and therefore it loses all meaning - IMO. Mapou, thanks for sharing your views. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. But, please, if you claim to be a follower of Jesus, then for the sake of His name, can't you treat others - even those horrid YECers - with the love and respect that Jesus does? The command to "love your neighbor as yourself" applies to all of us.tjguy
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
03:32 AM
3
03
32
AM
PDT
Mapou, Apologies if I misunderstood your posts. Which part is the lie? that you claim to be a Christian or don't believe that Jesus is God? Or both? Didn't you say that you don't believe in the Trinity? I was assuming that you meant that Jesus was not God. Maybe I misread a post. Sorry!
As a follower of Jesus, I smoke pot, I drink beer and wine and I hang around prostitutes, homosexuals and drug addicts. That’s what I do. Why? Because they make no pretense of being righteous like some other people I know. Two of my favorite characters in the Bible are Rahab the prostitute and the woman with the alabaster perfume box who washed Jesus’ feet with her hair.
Jesus hung around with sinners as well, so obviously that is not wrong in and of itself. But He had a specific purpose in doing so. He didn't do it simply because they made no pretense of being righteous, although He hated that as well.(the Pharisees) He sought to lead them to repentance, to lead them out of that lifestyle and into a relationship with Him in which they follow Him as their Lord. So, it's not hanging around with them that is the issue. It is why you do so that is the issue. Do you do it because you are seeking to build relationships with them and introduce them to Jesus? Or do you do it simply because you like that atmosphere? If the latter, then you are not loving them like Jesus wants you to or like He would. But accepting them, loving them, and caring for them in order to lead them to Jesus is great! You have all these unsaved friends and God wants to use you to reach them for Jesus! What a great opportunity you have!! Be a light for Jesus right there where He has put you. Speak the truth in love! The woman with the alabaster perfume box is a great story isn't it? She is an excellent example of what Jesus desires of His followers. He wants them to love Him above all else, leave their life of sin, and follow Him as their Lord. He is able to change people's lives like no one else! You are responsible for your own lifestyle choices. You can't follow Jesus and remain in your sin. Jesus said to those who claimed to believe in him yet didn't follow Him, "Why do you call me Lord, Lord, but do not do what I say?" Their actions showed that they really had not believed in Him as their Lord and Savior. True faith effects our life, our values, our words, our thoughts, and our actions. If we truly have come to know Him, He will change us little by little. I'm just saying that your attitude towards other Christians here and your choice of language is not loving and doesn't seem to be what Jesus would desire of His disciples. But I'll let you decide that for yourself. I have let my emotions get the best of me as well. No one is perfect. I'm just saying, even if you vehemently disagree, there is no reason to get nasty to your Christian brothers or to the Darwinists.tjguy
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
03:13 AM
3
03
13
AM
PDT
tjguy:
Mapou, you call yourself a Christian, but you don’t believe Jesus is God.
That is a bold faced lie.
You conveniently dismiss whatever verses do not fit your particular beliefs. You use language that is not fitting for followers of Jesus and treat others who disagree with you rudely. You deny the plain meaning so Scripture and make up your own personal view of the Bible. Then you have the nerve to threaten others with judgment who do not accept your views. And you see no problems with that!
You have no right to indoctrinate others into believing that your understanding of the Bible is the correct one. As a follower of Jesus, I smoke pot, I drink beer and wine and I hang around prostitutes, homosexuals and drug addicts. That's what I do. Why? Because they make no pretense of being righteous like some other people I know. Two of my favorite characters in the Bible are Rahab the prostitute and the woman with the alabaster perfume box who washed Jesus's feet with her hair.Mapou
February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
10:31 PM
10
10
31
PM
PDT
tjguy @48, I reject your argument because I don't believe there ever was a first couple. It is my firm conviction that the Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden story is 100% allegorical. The tree of life, the tree of knowledge, the devious talking snake (this alone should be a big clue), the angels with the flaming swords, etc., it is all allegorical, IMO. I disagree with New Testament accounts of a first couple. I strongly suspect that some jackasses in the early Christian Church inserted their own cr*p in the New Testament that don't belong there. The only book they did not mess with, IMO, was the book of Revelation because they had no clue what it meant and they still don't. I disagree with the concept of an original sin by a first couple. I think it's all BS. The garden of Eden story is just a symbolic way of showing that humans were given a chance to prove their righteousness and they failed the test. That is my view. Take it or leave it.Mapou
February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
10:06 PM
10
10
06
PM
PDT
My comments . . . Trinity. The word is not used in the Bible, but there seems to be an intimate relationship between facets of God. God is only described, not dissected in the Bible, so the probability for the details of God to be incomprehensible to us is 100%. YEC. I wasn't there and neither was anyone else, so we have changeable scientific speculation on the one hand, and purported revelation on the other. Isn't the latest OOL theory that life started about 9 billion years ago? Yeah, go figure. Christianity. Many people claiming to be Christians do not exhibit any of the qualities of Jesus. There's a profound lack of peace, joy, love, generosity, and wisdom in their lives. If I nail a sign to a tree that reads "Horse," it does not make the tree a horse. Evolutionary mythology. Everyone has some goofy ideas. Here's mine. Early on after the OOL, symbiotic relationships began to form between organisms, providing a competitive advantage over solo organisms. Variation began as random mutation, followed by meiotic cell division and recombination, which was a precursor to sexual reproduction. Eventually, the symbiotic relationships evolved into two types: the Variants and the Actors. * Variants. These organisms had extremely high reproduction rates and mutation rates, which was the primary source of genetic variation on Earth. Evolution was rapid in the Variants. Key to their survival was the sharing of genetic information with the Actors, who in turn, provided a safe, consistent, and optimal environment for the Variants. Eventually, the Variants evolved into common gut flora, losing nearly all of their symbiotic evolutionary function. * Actors. These organisms were the recipients of a rich source of genetic variation that they used for specialization for the benefit of the Variants, and in competition with other sets of Actors. We recognize specialized Actors today as internal organs and systems that have completely lost their independence. Actors typically mutate and reproduce far too slowly to have evolutionary significance. Now, off we go to hunt for data to support this brilliant new theory. Thousands of experiments and research papers will be created to piece together in a Frankenstein manner a Plausible Story. If I can stimulate a religious backlash, I'll soon have millions of devoted followers. Statues will be cast in my honor, universities will name buildings after me, long strings of people waiting to be processed like DNA will be called "queues" in my honor! -QQuerius
February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
09:30 PM
9
09
30
PM
PDT
Mapou says to Jguy: "You know, I suspect you are some kind of Bible preacher. If so, you should either resign your position or start teaching your congregation to stop taking your word for what the Bible means and do their own research and reach their own conclusions. Otherwise, you are in danger of the judgement. Those who lead the little ones astray will be held accountable and there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. You’ve been warned." Wow! Isn't it interesting what passages he accepts and what ones he rejects?! Now Jguy is in danger of the judgment for not believing Mapou's unique interpretation of Gods Word, but instead teaching/believing I the tried and true doctrines that have defined Christianity since Jesus' time. Amazing! To arrive at that conclusion, how many hundreds of verses does he have to deny? Mapou, you call yourself a Christian, but you don't believe Jesus is God. You conveniently dismiss whatever verses do not fit your particular beliefs. You use language that is not fitting for followers of Jesus and treat others who disagree with you rudely. You deny the plain meaning so Scripture and make up your own personal view of the Bible. Then you have the nerve to threaten others with judgment who do not accept your views. And you see no problems with that! Hmm. Please forgive us if we do not join your group/cult. Jn 7:17 "Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth." Jesustjguy
February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
08:31 PM
8
08
31
PM
PDT
tjguy, Many of the "church fathers" made statements that flatly disagree with you with regards to the trinity, i.e, the philosophical Nicean type trinity dogma. At any rate, I did not say that Jesus was not "divine." Nor did I say he was "not God." I said the trinitarian dogma is false. Your bias just took it too far. I happen to think that there are vast numbers of beings who belong to the "Yahweh Elohim" group (yes, it's a group), and Jesus is surely one of them, in fact, the most important one with regards to this earth. So before you throw stones at me for rejecting "Jesus as God" you might want to find out what I think first.CentralScrutinizer
February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
07:37 PM
7
07
37
PM
PDT
CentralScrutinizer makes this bold proclamation to Joe: "Joe, you can be a Christian and reject trinitarianism." You and Mapou may think that the deity of Christ is a non issue, but again, here you are going against the historical teaching of the Church and interpretation of Scripture. Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father but by me." Jesus argued for his own divinity at times, accepted worship, fulfilled prophecies that speak of Him as God, forgave sins(which only God can do), etc. Besides, Jesus is the Word and the Word is God. The divinity of Christ is perhaps the most common area where cults go astray. Your proclamations and beliefs are not supported by Gods Word or historical Christianity. It's hard for me to believe that God would have allowed so many "believers" to go astray for so much of history. If only Central & Mapou had been there to prevent the Church from going astray!tjguy
February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply