How many here on RF are Theistic Evolutionist?

[sandy whitelinger]

This is from AIG’s statement of faith.

Good thing I don't go to their church.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Why would you intentionally disrespect someone on the forum whose only apparent offense is that they disagree with you?

Not at all, his post was just an unverfied soliliqy. When asked to explain himself he went on another unverified soliliqy.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Good thing I'm not Jewish, eh. Those commandment were predicated with, "Speak unto the children of Abraham..."

Well, the Bible clearly describes God tellinng his people that these were his will. Didn't you say in an earlier post that:

The God of the Bible is described by the Bible. to decline some of the description of that God and attribute other characteristics or actions to Him is only fabricating your own god.

So, if the Bible describes God as being in favor of these actions, how can you decline that description?

Or, if you are claiming that these commands from God only apply to Jews, are you saying that Jewish people should be killing gays, etc. to please God?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Not at all, his post was just an unverfied soliliqy. When asked to explain himself he went on another unverified soliliqy.

Thanks for brining this up. People, if I've told you once, I've told you a thousand times - you've got to verify your soliloquies for christ's sake.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Well, the Bible clearly describes God tellinng his people that these were his will. Didn't you say in an earlier post that:

So, if the Bible describes God as being in favor of these actions, how can you decline that description?

Or, if you are claiming that these commands from God only apply to Jews, are you saying that Jewish people should be killing gays, etc. to please God?

Are you claiming that God does not applydifferent laws to fluid situations.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Not at all,

Huh? The first words in your post were "With no due respect, your(sic) full of crap." How do you phrase things when you intentionally disrespect someone?

his post was just an unverfied soliliqy. When asked to explain himself he went on another unverified soliliqy.

Well, every post here is a soliliquy. I don't see a lot of "co"posting.

I don't think Fantome's post was out of order. To review:

Originally Posted by fantôme profane
Science observes certain similarities in different species, as well as a wide variety of diversification. These are observations, this is what we call evidence. It is not a conclusion. Science take this evidence and tries to find a valid explanation for the evidence.

Fanotome is right, Sandy. If you are looking for verification, again, a quick perusal of this Wikipedia article will help.

The problem is that many creationists don’t know the difference between evidence and conclusions. You post demonstrates this perfectly.

​

Your post did talk about data as though it were conclusions...

 

[Beaudreaux]

thanks for brining this up. People, if i've told you once, i've told you a thousand times - you've got to verify your soliloquies for christ's sake.

lmao!!!!

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Huh? The first words in your post were "With no due respect, your(sic) full of crap." How do you phrase things when you intentionally disrespect someone?


Well, every post here is a soliliquy. I don't see a lot of "co"posting.

I don't think Fantome's post was out of order. To review:

Fanotome is right, Sandy. If you are looking for verification, again, a quick perusal of this Wikipedia article will help.


​

Your post did talk about data as though it were conclusions...

My bad, I thought you were critiquing my critique of another post.

As to fantome's post, I am just critiquing science's demagoging it's own methods and vocabulary to the detriment of other phenomena.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Are you claiming that God does not applydifferent laws to fluid situations.

Are you saying that homosexuality is a fluid situation?

[Oh God!...must....resist....inappropriate....play on words......]

Seriously, though, how could you be comfortable worshipping a God who has situational ethics. As you already know, God does not change (Malachi 3:6) . Neither would his stance on moral law. There is nothing in the New Testament that says you should NOT kill homosexuals. Why do you reject something that God clearly commanded his people to do? I once read a post that described this sort of approach:

You wish to say that the God of the Bible is real but that the Bible explains Him erroneously. It's a cop-out.

Or are you saying that the commandments God gave to the Jews are NOT meant for everyone else? Like especially 10 really popular ones. Help me understand you here.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Are you saying that homosexuality is a fluid situation?

[Oh God!...must....resist....inappropriate....play on words......]

Seriously, though, how could you be comfortable worshipping a God who has situational ethics. As you already know, God does not change (Malachi 3:6) . Neither would his stance on moral law. There is nothing in the New Testament that says you should NOT kill homosexuals. Why do you reject something that God clearly commanded his people to do? I once read a post that described this sort of approach:


Or are you saying that the commandments God gave to the Jews are NOT meant for everyone else? Like especially 10 really popular ones. Help me understand you here.

You show no signs of wishing any understanding. I show no more signs of deflecting this topic.

 

[Beaudreaux]

You show no signs of wishing any understanding. I show no more signs of deflecting this topic.

 

[Beaudreaux]

You show no signs of wishing any understanding. I show no more signs of deflecting this topic.

Look, I'm sorry if my whimsey upset you, but I try to keep things light on R.F. I won't do it again.

I am of course serious about understanding your position. You claimed to take the entire Bible seriously and you decried people who get their ideas about God from anywhere else. I then presented you with some tough Biblical verses to swallow for someone with today's secular mentality. I never thought that YOU would reject those verses for that same reason.

 

[Allfather]

Wow, this thread got some attention while I was in class....

.I am of course serious about understanding your position. You claimed to take the entire Bible seriously and you decried people who get their ideas about God from anywhere else. I then presented you with some tough Biblical verses to swallow for someone with today's secular mentality. I never thought that YOU would reject those verses for that same reason.

I'm going to agree with beaudreaux here. There are obvious contradictions in your logic, and if I/we are misunderstanding I would love to know what your POV is.

The God of the Bible is described by the Bible. to decline some of the description of that God and attribute other characteristics or actions to Him is only fabricating your own god.

Are you claiming that God does not applydifferent laws to fluid situations.

According to your first post, I cannot claim that God applies different laws to fluid situations. In fact, with an absolutist view of God, I must accept that there are no fluid situations. These would simply be fabricated by man. I can make no assumptions or conjectures outside of religious text (i.e. a belief that God changes laws given a circumstance) Otherwise, this would result.

...looking at a set of circumstances...that has absolutely no basis in scripture....say[ing] the Bible explains [God] erroneously....It's a copout

To be confined by your own scripture and then make assumptions of conjecture, which you have already spoken against, with the purpose of making it fit your thinking, is a copout.

Once again, please explain if you are misunderstood

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Look, I'm sorry if my whimsey upset you, but I try to keep things light on R.F. I won't do it again.

I am of course serious about understanding your position. You claimed to take the entire Bible seriously and you decried people who get their ideas about God from anywhere else. I then presented you with some tough Biblical verses to swallow for someone with today's secular mentality. I never thought that YOU would reject those verses for that same reason.

It's totally off topic.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Wow, this thread got some attention while I was in class....



I'm going to agree with beaudreaux here. There are obvious contradictions in your logic, and if I/we are misunderstanding I would love to know what your POV is.





According to your first post, I cannot claim that God applies different laws to fluid situations. In fact, with an absolutist view of God, I must accept that there are no fluid situations. These would simply be fabricated by man. I can make no assumptions or conjectures outside of religious text (i.e. a belief that God changes laws given a circumstance) Otherwise, this would result.



To be confined by your own scripture and then make assumptions of conjecture, which you have already spoken against, with the purpose of making it fit your thinking, is a copout.

Once again, please explain if you are misunderstood

You are confusing who God is with what He does.

 

[Allfather]

You are confusing who God is with what He does.

We define who God is by what he does. That is one of the biggest arguments for intelligent design is it not, we do not see God but we see his effects? Why would God "be" anything other than what does, especially when the only access to God is by his action. Otherwise, it would be a contradiction on God's part, which I don't think is logically sound to assume.

They are one in the same, IMO, and the contradiction still remains

 

[painted wolf]

I'm just going to dip my toe in here and point out that I am a theist.
I'm also a biologist, which makes me an "evolutionist". (In the same way as I am a "germist" and "gravitationist")

Fortunately my religion is not bound to the literal interpretation of poetic works.

wa:do

 

[sandy whitelinger]

We define who God is by what he does. That is one of the biggest arguments for intelligent design is it not, we do not see God but we see his effects? Why would God "be" anything other than what does, especially when the only access to God is by his action. Otherwise, it would be a contradiction on God's part, which I don't think is logically sound to assume.

They are one in the same, IMO, and the contradiction still remains

God saw fit to deal with the children of Abraham differently than He did the rest of the world. That is not a contradiction of who He is.

 

[lunamoth]

I'm just going to dip my toe in here and point out that I am a theist.
I'm also a biologist, which makes me an "evolutionist". (In the same way as I am a "germist" and "gravitationist")

Fortunately my religion is not bound to the literal interpretation of poetic works.

wa:do

ditto all of the above.

 

[Allfather]

God saw fit to deal with the children of Abraham differently than He did the rest of the world. That is not a contradiction of who He is.

That is not the same as what we are speaking about in the case of this argument. You said that the idea of what is being called theistic evolution is a silly concept. You then said that was a copout to have any speculation that wasn't directly founded in scripture. You then said that attributing characteristics that are not founded in scripture is fabricating God. This has all been quoted in previous posts several times.

Then, you say that you are glad you are not Jewish, and you are either saying that the characteristics mentioned by Beaudreaux do not apply to you and you reject the description, or that God "was" not what he "did". The first option is not in line with your previous statement, and the second option simply does not make sense.

This is a clear contradiction