Jesus’ ministry on Earth was very specifically about inclusion - of Samaritans, ceremonially unclean women, cripples, lepers, tax collectors, Roman centurions. Everyone the ‘righteous’ of His day considered beyond the pale.
Any humans setting themselves up as excluders need to reflect very carefully on whether their mission is consistent with His or contradictory to it.
You misunderstood me (probably because I used “reasoning” instead of “approach”). I did not mean to argue that religions are devoid of reasoning, but that beliefs which come to be accepted as doctrines are evaluated via pure reasoning which differs from the scientific approach that employs empiricism and logical reasoning. That’s why there are different theologies within Christianity and they have divided the Church into different groups.
Even the “basic assumptions” you refer to are purely the products of human reasoning, not something you can verify.
True, not everything goes, but everything can go.
That’s why they all suffer the same problems as theology. But theology isn’t exactly like morality and ethics. Theistic theology assumes that God(s) exist(s). That means theological claims should be subjected to verification by these Gods. Strangely, these Gods keep quiet (including the Christian one), allowing “many things to go”.
During the tumultuous period prior to the split of the Church, if God had intervened and set matters straight by purging out false theologies, then there wouldn’t be any differing theologies today.
Welcome to the world of the YEC. Evolutionary theory conflicts with a fully literal interpretation of the Genesis accounts, but they choose to believe it anyway. To them, science developed by human minds, cannot exclude God’s hands from the direct creation of everything.
That’s why “everything can go” in religion. All you need is faith.
What I meant was that, at the time they were written, the YEC flavor of creationism was dominant. If you claimed at the time that God directed the creation of man from an ape-like ancestor, you would most likely have been seen as a heretic. That implicitly affirms special creationism.
Aha, you see the problem now. Its my theology versus yours. We could spend hours arguing on the topic, using proof texts or checking to see which Church Fathers agree with our particular viewpoints, but we would never know who is really right.
The same applies to the YEC versus TE squabbles. I certainly reject YEC, just as you, and we have science on our side, but it is not enough to settle it. The science could be misleading us, so its only God that is the final arbiter of truth.
The creeds certainly required creationism. If you lived at the time, you would most likely have seen this part of the Apostle’s creed as affirming the YEC or OEC flavour of creationism:
There would have been no need to state it, since it was the dominant view back then. Everyone would have just assumed it was what the creeds referred to.
The vast majority of the Early Church believed in special creationism, so we wouldn’t expect that distinction between the minority natural and majority supernatural creationists to have been visible at the time. Similarly, prior to Copernicus, most of the Church supported the claim that the earth was the center of the universe, so even if there were heliocentrists, they would have been a poorly visible minority.
Galileo was forced to recant, same as Copernicus because their claims clashed with dominant Church theology. One doesn’t have to imagine much on what could have happened to Darwin if he proposed his ideas at the time.
When you read the creeds, you believe it affirms theistic evolution, when YECs read the creeds, they believe it affirms special creationism. “Everything can go”.
The story of Korah, Dathan and Abiram (Numbers 16) provides a good example of where people who fall prey to the lies of false teachers will be destroyed, if they don’t renounce those teachings.
I did not mean “question” in the sense you think. By question, I meant doubt. Modern science questions or doubts the miraculous claims of Jesus, so to be consistent as someone who accepts science, you must doubt these events really happened since they violate the known laws of physics. However, the more religious scientist-Christians don’t doubt it happened.
This is not enough. Alexander and Hymenaeus believed this, but they had other doctrines that were not consistent with what came from the Apostles, and they were condemned for it.
All of this is true, but we can reasonably decide if someone is doomed to destruction. Hitler, for instance, is certainly not going to heaven, neither is Pol Pot.
I agree, but some people think otherwise and they could be right. That’s all I am saying.
The bible in full warns of this, but not in terms of it being sin. The appearance of Jesus and the new covenant of salvation through Him, along with the gift of the Holy Spirit makes it evident that believers that follow false teachings never knew Him, and therefore are not losing their salvation, but never had it in the first place. Jesus warns that the path to eternal life is very narrow, and most will not attain it, which means that most will be destroyed. Following the teaching of anyone other than Jesus will lead to death…
Matthew 23:8 - But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren.
I wouldn’t say they are “more religious”, I would say they know the truth, and they know that the truth is not based in facts.
Condemned by whom? Only One has the power to save or condemn, that is Jesus. However, I agree that it is not enough, you also have to live a life consistent with the teachings of Jesus.
No, we do not decide at all. There is One judge, there is no jury. Only Jesus knows and we are commanded to not judge anyone (Matthew 7). As Christians we are called to live lives worthy of salvation as an example for those that might be saved in their last moments (1 Peter 2:12). God’s mercy, grace and forgiveness are available to all and some of the most evil people on earth have received the gift of life before dying. All of heaven rejoices when these people repent.
Luke 15:7 - I say to you that likewise there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine just persons who need no repentance.
This is the doubt that leads to destruction…if you agree, walk in confidence that you know the truth. The people that think otherwise are not right, they don’t know Jesus. Jesus never taught that understanding science is sin (prove me wrong). Scientists doubt and question to find facts (that change with time), the truth will never change (John 14:6)(1 Peter 1:23-25).
James 1:5-7 - 5 If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him. 6 But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for he who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven and tossed by the wind. 7 For let not that man suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord;
John 20:29 - 29 Jesus said to him, [a]“Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
Scientific discoveries strongly suggest that life on earth has a very, very long history and that therefore, God did not create the earth and living organisms in six literal days.
Incidentally, the Bible does not say the earth itself was created on the first day - not even Exodus 20 says that - the earth already existed when the “six days” of creation began.
The demonic doctrine is not that Genesis is a figurative account of pre-Adamic history, but that life on earth is the result of a purely natural process and did not need a Creator God to exist.
8 posts were split to a new topic: Is Acceptance of Evolution a Cult? Discuss
Wow, that’s disturbing.
God punishes people for their sins. He punished Adam and Eve for their disobedience, David for his adultery, and Israel for her incessant idolatry. For God to punish believers who take in false teachings, it means he views that as sinful, since they would end up as new teachers of those false teachings or begin to practice what the false teachings posit.
I disagree. Apostates start out in the truth, but eventually depart from it. They were saved, but adopting and teaching perversions of the true gospel they received, condemns them eternally.
If what you think is true is not based on facts, then its not true, whether its a scientific or theological issue. A chemist or biochemist who believes Jesus could turn water into wine without mixing with anything, is no different from a snake oil salesman who believes alkaline water can cure cancer: both are similar in the sense that they believe these things despite having no support whatsoever from science.
Both men taught the resurrection had already taken place, which went against what Jesus and the apostles preached. That’s apostasy and apostasy leads to condemnation. Its deductive reasoning.
So Osama Bin Laden, Hitler and Pol Pot won’t be eternally condemned?
Thanks for conceding here. Its quite clear we believe some people will be condemned without knowing Jesus’s thoughts on the matter. Osama, Hitler and Pol Pot did not ask for God’s mercy before their death, sealing their eternal fate.
Trust me, you don’t even know if you are right.
I never argued that understanding science is a sin. That’s a strawman.
Scientists don’t try to find facts, they seek to develop coherent and well-tested explanations of the natural world. These explanations are called theories and they make predictions too. Theories may change or get discarded altogether, but the more a theory survives testing, the less likely it is to be discarded in the future. Evolutionary theory is among the most resilient of explanations in the realm of science.
You seem to think Christianity holds the truth, how do you know?
John 9:39-41 - 39 And Jesus said, “For judgment I have come into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may be made blind.” 40 Then some of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these words, and said to Him, “Are we blind also?” 41 Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, ‘We see.’ Therefore your sin remains.
Truth and fact are hugely different. There is really no scientific “truth”, unless it is applied theologically. Conversely, there is really no theological “fact”, unless it is applied scientifically. It is truth that Jesus is the Son of God and God at the same time, it cannot be proven as a fact. It is a fact that mathematically, 2+2=4…the truth is that math is relative to whatever structure man creates, and could be written in an infinite number of ways.
James 4:12 - There is one Lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy. Who are you to judge another?
I know Jesus, and Jesus knows me…in that I know that I am right. Nothing else really matters.
Jesus is the truth (John 14:6), Jesus is the Word (John 1:1)…I have no problem with evolution, I don’t think the fact of evolution conflicts with the truth in Jesus.
Just curious, this is in no way an attack…what is a Catholic Agnostic? Aren’t they contrary?
Do I believe Jesus is really real? I don’t know, why? No one has any evidence to show this is true.
Is there a chance he could be real? Yes. Then I am a Christian based on that possibility.
How does this relate to the point you replied to?
For all practical purposes, scientific facts are truths. For example, It is true/factual that DNA is the molecule of inheritance or that enzymes are biocatalysts.
What do you mean by “theologically applied”?
Again what does this mean?
I repeat, if what you think is true is not based on facts, then it is basically an assertion. If you tell me Jesus is the Son of God and God at the same without any means of verifying that claim, then I could equally claim that Jesus is not the Son of God or that he is the lowliest angel in heaven without supporting it.
It is true and factual that 2 + 2 would equal four whether man existed or not. It is not relative to human artificial constructs.
That same Lawgiver told us that unrepentant killers would be condemned. Osama, Hitler and Pol pot were unrepentant killers, therefore they are condemned.
How do you know Jesus loves you?
How do you know Jesus is the truth?
James 1:5-8 - 5 If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him. 6 But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for he who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven and tossed by the wind. 7 For let not that man suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; 8 he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.
Thanks for the conversation. Doesn’t make much sense to continue as we are pretty far apart on the fact vs truth argument. I don’t see much truth in scientific facts, I see facts that are generated by man and that change as man learns. I also don’t see many facts in the truth that comes from God, it is the unseen that strengthens my faith in the one that endures forever, who was and is and is to come…which is not a factual statement, but is true (to me) nonetheless. Perhaps just semantics, but I see science and theology as completely separate conversations. Science addressing fact and theology addressing truth.
I think that our method of True/false exams has skewed the meaning of truth. It would be more accurate to have Fact/False exams…but then we would have to write the whole word, or maybe Fact/Not Fact…more efficient for man to just skew the meaning of truth…haha
And you are correct that I cannot verify any claims regarding God. I can only point toward scripture to help guide someone seeking the truth. Each person has to find the truth on their own, the revelation that comes is a gift from God for those who seek Him in repentance.
Hi micheal,
As far as i know, a lot of people who are YECs also believe in the doctrine of perseverance of the Saints (colloquially known as “once saved, always saved”).
This means that, it would be impossible for a true believer to be deceived to the extent that they loose their salvation and undergo judgement.
So, how do they resolve both ideas. Are they claiming that the people who hold to evolution were never saved in the first place?
Maybe @r_speir can also pitch in.
Let’s assume God is vexed with all of us.
Isn’t that why Jesus had to die for us on the cross?
None of us are perfect enough to enter heaven on our own merits. If we rely on our own merit, we are all guaranteed to be condemned to hell.
We are saved by faith in Jesus. i.e if we give our lives to Jesus and agree to follow Him as our Lord, we will be saved (Romans 10). When we believe, Jesus gives us the holy Spirit as a seal/guarantee so that we know He will redeem us when He returns (2 Cor 1:22). Our mandate is to continue in the faith and walk in obedience to the Spirit of God.
This does not involve a check sheet of beliefs (except for the basic things required to sustain faith). It involves a lifestyle of commitment.
This is not likely. The verses you quote don’t claim that Satan controls nature. his control is over the political/social systems of this world through the people of the world.
Having said that, it’s definitely possible for Satan to use evolutionary Science and human beings to promote worldviews that deny God. But then, Satan can do the same thing with the Bible. he can twist the teachings of the word of God to deceive people.
Its also possible for Christian’s to be deceived into denying God’s power and adopt a more or less deistic perspective on God.
In my view, the greatest danger of TE, is to slide into deism for all practical purposes.
I am a Roman Catholic, and I don’t believe this. You can lose your salvation. Anyway I don’t want to push it further. I came to PS for mostly scientific discussions, not to banter on theological differences which may never be resolved.
How did Satan kill Job’s kids?
True. That’s why I also ask fellow Christians how they know Satan has not been deceiving mankind all this while. What if God is really not interested in humanity, and the devil took advantage of his disinterest to play a sick game on us?
That’s why I am agnostic.
This is not necessarily true. If the God of the Old Testament could needlessly kill the Jews because their King took a census, then there is nothing stopping that bloodthirsty God from using a “wicked” process like evolution to produce the diversity of life today.
You can’t be both…they are contrary. You are most likely agnostic and not Catholic if you doubt God’s existence. Going to church does not make you Catholic…belief does.
You can be both. You are practically agnostic (or better still atheistic) with regards to Islam or Zeus worship, and still a Christian.
In my case, I recognize I cannot demonstrate the existence of God (which is troubling to me), and that no one else can, so if I am asked whether God exists, I would say I don’t know (agnosticism). However, since there is a possibility that he is real, I am a Christian based on that possibility.
As @Mark10.45 said, the above statements are self contradictory.
You seem to believe in the existence of God and Satan. What are you agnostic about?
God’s intentions?
What is fact and truth to you?
I understand there is a possibility that both entities are real and I act on that possibility (making me a Christian), but I do not know if they are actually real (making me an agnostic).