• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Theistic Evolution?

leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
q konn said:
The top quote, was my answer to your query. That question was already asked,
Click to expand...
My question was how do you differentiate God from things like "love" and "light"? How do you define God in a way that doesn't merely equate God with things we already know to exist.
 
SkepticThinker

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Theunis said:
I think that sometimes when there is no proof either way, one should take some things at face value, to stop unnecessary speculations and arguments,
We can theorize or think that things may be a metaphor but because of the lapse of time we cannot say for sure if it is so or not.
For instance there is nothing in evolution to be found concerning the origin of the human species. There have been attempted frauds such as sticking arms onto ape skeletons in unnatural positions but scientists have debunked such attempts.

Where we find fanatics, who are the curse of lucid thoughts and humanity, we will find that they will always resort to heated debates without really saying anything constructive.

I give no references for this is only my opinion.
Click to expand...
What???
 
leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Fool said:
the bible doesn't define god differently than love or light; if god is omnipresent
Click to expand...
That's not true. God, in the Bible, is describes as a conscious being/entity. "Love" and "light" are both inanimate, in that they don't "think" or "act" in any way. So, defining God as "love" and "light" isn't nearly enough.
 
D

Deidre

Well-Known Member
leibowde84 said:
That's not true. God, in the Bible, is describes as a conscious being/entity. "Love" and "light" are both inanimate, in that they don't "think" or "act" in any way. So, defining God as "love" and "light" isn't nearly enough.
Click to expand...

Think that there really are not enough viable and qualifying 'definitions' from a human understanding to describe God. :)
 
Fool

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
leibowde84 said:
That's not true. God, in the Bible, is describes as a conscious being/entity. "Love" and "light" are both inanimate, in that they don't "think" or "act" in any way. So, defining God as "love" and "light" isn't nearly enough.
Click to expand...
forms are inanimate. it is the spirit, the mind, that quickeneth.

nothing can exist apart from the ABSOLUTE. in the book of uncovering = revelation = to reveal. philadelphia(brotherly love) is the 6th church with nothing against them. love fulfills the Law. nothing can be above the Law. But the Law is not a respecter of person; which is why Laodicea is the 7th church, or justice of the people.

God is omnibenevolent.
jeremiah 31:3
 
leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Fool said:
forms are inanimate. it is the spirit, the mind, that quickeneth.

nothing can exist apart from the ABSOLUTE. in the book of uncovering = revelation = to reveal. philadelphia(brotherly love) is the 6th church with nothing against them. love fulfills the Law. nothing can be above the Law. But the Law is not a respecter of person; which is why Laodicea is the 7th church, or justice of the people.

God is omnibenevolent.
jeremiah 31:3
Click to expand...
You still haven't defined what God is, though.
 
Guy Threepwood

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
Deidre said:
Just curious as to your thoughts on this. Often, people believe in either/or. Either one believes in the theory of evolution or believes in creationism. But, is it acceptable for lack of a better word, for a Christian to believe that God is the impetus behind Darwin's theory of evolution? Or, is this why ''theistic evolution'' came about? (in order for there to be a bridge (of sorts) between both schools of thought)

Looking forward to your thoughts on the topic.
Click to expand...

For Darwin, any evolution that had to be helped over the jumps by God was no evolution at all. It made a nonsense of the central point of evolution. Dawkins: The Blind Watchmaker (1996) p.249

As a creationist, I would concur with Dawkins and Darwin on this!
 
D

Deidre

Well-Known Member
D

Deidre

Well-Known Member
Guy Threepwood said:
For Darwin, any evolution that had to be helped over the jumps by God was no evolution at all. It made a nonsense of the central point of evolution. Dawkins: The Blind Watchmaker (1996) p.249

As a creationist, I would concur with Dawkins and Darwin on this!
Click to expand...

Suppose God was the impetus behind evolution though? Darwin wasn't an atheist. :blush:
 
leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Theunis said:
For instance there is nothing in evolution to be found concerning the origin of the human species. There have been attempted frauds such as sticking arms onto ape skeletons in unnatural positions but scientists have debunked such attempts.
Click to expand...
You don't actually believe this, right? There is a plethora of evidence for human evolution.
B7DKhTRCMAAIaUA.jpg
 
Guy Threepwood

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
Deidre said:
Suppose God was the impetus behind evolution though? Darwin wasn't an atheist. :blush:
Click to expand...

I think this comes down to the semantics of what 'evolution' means, if it can mean anything from a purely arbitrary naturalistic blind chance driven process... to a process of creating predetermined life forms according to the specific design goals of an intelligent creator ... the word doesn't really have much inherent meaning anymore does it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top