Jump to content


Photo

Questions From The Welcome Section On Validity Of Evolution


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
33 replies to this topic

#1 Paul of Eugene OR

Paul of Eugene OR

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 70
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Eugene, Oregon

Posted 08 April 2012 - 06:44 PM

The following was posted to me in the welcome section and I thought I might as well answer here as there.

Hello Paul, and welcome to the forum. I hope you have many fruitful and constructive discussions here. As far as "God using evolution as His chosen means of creating us all", I feel compelled to submit that this is not a Biblical stance. Having said that, you are, of course free to your own beliefs.

But, I must also submit that your statement begs the questions:

1- If God created man in His own image, does your statement then assert that God has the image of an ape-like creature?



Thank you for your gracious query. Jesus taught us that God is a Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth. The image of God in man is not to be found in our flesh but in our spiritual nature. We are unique among all living things on earth in that we experience thinking in a transcendentally different way. We use language and the language we use is theoretically capable of expressing any possible thought. No other kind of living thing on earth has that. We can contemplate our eternal destination. No other living thing on earth can do that. We can dedicate ourselves to following God, following Truth, following the Way, following the Life. No other living thing on earth can do that.


2- And if this is the case, does this imply that man is reverted to said ape-like image when face-to-face with God at the judgment?


Huh? I lack the ability to figure out what you are asking here. But hey, I said this was NOT the case, so perhaps that's why this makes no sense to me.


3- Further, is there scriptural reference for your assertion, or is it simply your opinion forced upon the scripture?


Jesus said we are to listen to every word from God.


Matt 4:4 But He answered and said, "It is written, "MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE, BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.'"

All things were created by the word of God. You can trust the word of God as found in the stars, the rocks, and the genomes.

#2 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,673 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 09 April 2012 - 02:19 AM

The following was posted to me in the welcome section and I thought I might as well answer here as there.

[/color]

Thank you for your gracious query. Jesus taught us that God is a Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth. The image of God in man is not to be found in our flesh but in our spiritual nature. We are unique among all living things on earth in that we experience thinking in a transcendentally different way. We use language and the language we use is theoretically capable of expressing any possible thought. No other kind of living thing on earth has that. We can contemplate our eternal destination. No other living thing on earth can do that. We can dedicate ourselves to following God, following Truth, following the Way, following the Life. No other living thing on earth can do that.



Back when I was a Christian this is what I was taught. We have the ability like God to create works of art and feats of engineering



However this doesn't support the Theistic evolutionist stance in that we can come from apes since... How can we display such feats when we were, (apparently) still evolving? So you believe there was a time when we were not made in Gods image?
  • Paul of Eugene OR likes this

#3 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 09 April 2012 - 05:37 AM


The following was posted to me in the welcome section and I thought I might as well answer here as there.


Hello Paul, and welcome to the forum. I hope you have many fruitful and constructive discussions here. As far as "God using evolution as His chosen means of creating us all", I feel compelled to submit that this is not a Biblical stance. Having said that, you are, of course free to your own beliefs.

But, I must also submit that your statement begs the questions:

1- If God created man in His own image, does your statement then assert that God has the image of an ape-like creature?



Thank you for your gracious query.


Indeed, and I thank you for replying as well.


Jesus taught us that God is a Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth. The image of God in man is not to be found in our flesh but in our spiritual nature.


God is indeed a Spirit, and we are to worship Him in Spirit and in Truth. But, accordingly God indeed has a body (albeit a spiritual body, as:

First – God walked with Adam and Eve in the Garden, in the cool of the day. This implies a body.

Second – He has a throne, and a throne implies a seat, and both imply a body in order to utilize said thrown.

Third – During the judgment, we shall either STAND before God (the unsaved), or STAND before Jesus (the saved) to be judged, which implies that we shall have bodies as well.

Fourth – After the judgment, we shall bow down before God on His throne, which implies that we shall have bodies as well.

Fifth – Jesus appeared in His resurrected body, before the Apostles and other believers (some five thousand plus according to Paul) and continued His ministry for a period of time, before He ascended into heaven in said resurrected body.

Sixth – In his apologetic before the Sanhedrin, Stephen said that he saw Jesus STANDING next to God, which implies a body as well.

Conclusion – There are many more example, but from the above alone we can conclude that we indeed have a body in heaven, and this body was created (according to God) in the image OF God. Therefore God has a body as well, and the image of Ihs body is that which we were created to resemble.


We are unique among all living things on earth in that we experience thinking in a transcendentally different way.


Indeed, and this isn’t at all, at odds with God having a body.


We use language and the language we use is theoretically capable of expressing any possible thought.


Indeed, and this isn’t at all, at odds with God having a body.God gave us the ability of language and logic and the further ability to utilize both, so that He could communicate His language and though to speak to us in a manner that we would understand His ideas.


No other kind of living thing on earth has that. We can contemplate our eternal destination. No other living thing on earth can do that. We can dedicate ourselves to following God, following Truth, following the Way, following the Life. No other living thing on earth can do that.


Indeed, and this isn’t at all, at odds with God having a body.

#4 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 09 April 2012 - 05:40 AM



2- And if this is the case, does this imply that man is reverted to said ape-like image when face-to-face with God at the judgment?



Huh? I lack the ability to figure out what you are asking here. But hey, I said this was NOT the case, so perhaps that's why this makes no sense to me.



The evolutionist somehow believes that we “evolved” from an ape-like creature. Therefore, since God indeed has a body, and we were originally created in the image of that body, God must (by evolutionary reasoning) looks like that ape-like image.



3- Further, is there scriptural reference for your assertion, or is it simply your opinion forced upon the scripture?



Jesus said we are to listen to every word from God.

Matt 4:4 But He answered and said, "It is written, "MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE, BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.'"

All things were created by the word of God. You can trust the word of God as found in the stars, the rocks, and the genomes.


Indeed, and this isn’t at all, at odds with God having a body. But we must also understand up fron that Matt 4:4 in NO WAY supports evolution at all (and that was the question).

Further, doesn’t it follow:

First – If God has a “mouth” for every to proceed from.

Second – We MUST have ears to hear His words

Third – God must also have ears to hear our prayers, question and comments (feedback).

Conclusion – God, then, MUST have the original body with a mouth and ears (etc…) that we were designed in reference to?

#5 Paul of Eugene OR

Paul of Eugene OR

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 70
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Eugene, Oregon

Posted 09 April 2012 - 10:35 AM

Indeed, and I thank you for replying as well.


God is indeed a Spirit, and we are to worship Him in Spirit and in Truth. But, accordingly God indeed has a body (albeit a spiritual body, as:

First – God walked with Adam and Eve in the Garden, in the cool of the day. This implies a body.

Second – He has a throne, and a throne implies a seat, and both imply a body in order to utilize said thrown.

Third – During the judgment, we shall either STAND before God (the unsaved), or STAND before Jesus (the saved) to be judged, which implies that we shall have bodies as well.

Fourth – After the judgment, we shall bow down before God on His throne, which implies that we shall have bodies as well.

Fifth – Jesus appeared in His resurrected body, before the Apostles and other believers (some five thousand plus according to Paul) and continued His ministry for a period of time, before He ascended into heaven in said resurrected body.

Sixth – In his apologetic before the Sanhedrin, Stephen said that he saw Jesus STANDING next to God, which implies a body as well.

Conclusion – There are many more example, but from the above alone we can conclude that we indeed have a body in heaven, and this body was created (according to God) in the image OF God. Therefore God has a body as well, and the image of Ihs body is that which we were created to resemble.


Indeed, and this isn’t at all, at odds with God having a body.


Indeed, and this isn’t at all, at odds with God having a body.God gave us the ability of language and logic and the further ability to utilize both, so that He could communicate His language and though to speak to us in a manner that we would understand His ideas.


Indeed, and this isn’t at all, at odds with God having a body.


Do you believe God is omniscient, omnipresent, ominipotent? If so, you don't believe God has a body, because God is in all places at once, and this is only compatible with God being a Spirit.

However, we have the incarnation, that is, God became one of us as part of our redemption.

Hence, after God condescends to become one of us in Jesus, God has the body of Jesus, of course.

I accept that the appearances of God in the Old Testament are also Jesus coming to us in the likeness of our flesh. But the true essense of God is not in the likeness of our flesh, God is spirit. However, now that we are on the scene, for God to walk with us, talk with us, He takes on human form.

#6 Paul of Eugene OR

Paul of Eugene OR

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 70
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Eugene, Oregon

Posted 09 April 2012 - 10:46 AM

The evolutionist somehow believes that we “evolved” from an ape-like creature. Therefore, since God indeed has a body, and we were originally created in the image of that body, God must (by evolutionary reasoning) looks like that ape-like image.



I don't get it . Are you arguing God cannot look like us if we are evolved but can look like us if we are not evolved? That makes no sense to me. God can make Himself to be like us whether or not He created us by means of evolution.


Indeed, and this isn’t at all, at odds with God having a body. But we must also understand up fron that Matt 4:4 in NO WAY supports evolution at all (and that was the question).


Here's the reasoning.
Premise: Man shall live by every word that procedes from the mouth of god (words of Christ)
Premise: All the worlds are created by the word of God (From Genesis)
Conclusion: Evidence gleaned from the world is valid for learning true things.
Premise: Evidence gleaned from the world shows us we are evolved. (innumerable scientific papers to this effect)
Conclusion: Accepting evolution is not contrary to scripture.

That's my reasoning. You might claim its invalid, but it does involve scripture.

Further, doesn’t it follow:

First – If God has a “mouth” for every to proceed from.

Second – We MUST have ears to hear His words

Third – God must also have ears to hear our prayers, question and comments (feedback).

Conclusion – God, then, MUST have the original body with a mouth and ears (etc…) that we were designed in reference to?


Oooo . . . you are indeed a hyper literalist <--- Ad Hominem abusive . I suppose you also accept that insects including grasshoppers all have four legs <-- Non Sequitur? I defy you to give any valid scriptural reasoning, consistent with your reasoning methods above, that allow you to believe they actually have six legs.

Lev 11:22-23"These of them you may eat: the locust in its kinds, and the devastating locust in its kinds, and the cricket in its kinds, and the grasshopper in its kinds. "But all other winged insects which are four-footed are detestable to you.
NASU

I bet you suddenly turn less that rigidly literal in interpreting that passage. <-- Negative One Liner

Edited for emphasis (Ron)

#7 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 09 April 2012 - 01:46 PM



Indeed, and I thank you for replying as well.
God is indeed a Spirit, and we are to worship Him in Spirit and in Truth. But, accordingly God indeed has a body (albeit a spiritual body, as:

First – God walked with Adam and Eve in the Garden, in the cool of the day. This implies a body.

Second – He has a throne, and a throne implies a seat, and both imply a body in order to utilize said thrown.

Third – During the judgment, we shall either STAND before God (the unsaved), or STAND before Jesus (the saved) to be judged, which implies that we shall have bodies as well.

Fourth – After the judgment, we shall bow down before God on His throne, which implies that we shall have bodies as well.

Fifth – Jesus appeared in His resurrected body, before the Apostles and other believers (some five thousand plus according to Paul) and continued His ministry for a period of time, before He ascended into heaven in said resurrected body.

Sixth – In his apologetic before the Sanhedrin, Stephen said that he saw Jesus STANDING next to God, which implies a body as well.

Conclusion – There are many more example, but from the above alone we can conclude that we indeed have a body in heaven, and this body was created (according to God) in the image OF God. Therefore God has a body as well, and the image of Ihs body is that which we were created to resemble.


Indeed, and this isn’t at all, at odds with God having a body.


Indeed, and this isn’t at all, at odds with God having a body.God gave us the ability of language and logic and the further ability to utilize both, so that He could communicate His language and though to speak to us in a manner that we would understand His ideas.


Indeed, and this isn’t at all, at odds with God having a body.



Do you believe God is omniscient, omnipresent, ominipotent?


Absolutely! God is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent.


If so, you don't believe God has a body, because God is in all places at once, and this is only compatible with God being a Spirit.


So, you’re saying that God can be omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, and yet He is incapable of having a body? Can you provide the logic that intimates the God that created this universe cannot have a spiritual body, and be omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent?

I’ll tell you what; I’ll let God be God, and I’ll simply be His servant.


However, we have the incarnation, that is, God became one of us as part of our redemption.


Yes, indeed, the third of the triune God (God the Son), hence the “we” reference in Genesis.



Hence, after God condescends to become one of us in Jesus, God has the body of Jesus, of course.


Yes, indeed, the third of the triune God (God the Son), hence the “we” reference in Genesis. In fact, in Revelations, John the Apostle witnesses that Jesus had writing on His leg. And, of course, if Jesus had a leg, he had a body.



I accept that the appearances of God in the Old Testament are also Jesus coming to us in the likeness of our flesh.


Then you would be proceeding on an assumption, as SOME appearances are BELIEVED to be that of Jesus, but to say ALL, is nothing more than a presupposition on your part.


But the true essense of God is not in the likeness of our flesh, God is spirit. However, now that we are on the scene, for God to walk with us, talk with us, He takes on human form.


Unfortunately for your assertion, the scripture says that we were created “in His Image”. And as I provided in abundance, God has body parts, so it ONLY follows that God has a body.






The evolutionist somehow believes that we “evolved” from an ape-like creature. Therefore, since God indeed has a body, and we were originally created in the image of that body, God must (by evolutionary reasoning) looks like that ape-like image.



I don't get it . Are you arguing God cannot look like us if we are evolved but can look like us if we are not evolved? That makes no sense to me. God can make Himself to be like us whether or not He created us by means of evolution.


No Paul, I think you do indeed get it… Anyway, I’m saying that GOD said we were created in His image. Evolutionists claims that man evolved from an ape-like creature. The Bible nowhere makes such a claim, or gives any support for such a claim, therefore either God looks like an ape-like creature, or the evolutionary claim is bunk (i.e. foundationless).

Further, the God of the Bible is not a capricious God, so claiming “God can make Himself to be like us whether or not He created us by means of evolution” is itself not scripturally founded, is nothing more than a hypothesis, and is nothing but the fallacious “straw man” assertion . Also, there is no Biblical support for your hypothesis that God would change his image on a whim.

Therefore, either scripture is correct, or your attempt to change it to fit the macro-evolutionary hypothesis is correct. I’ll put my eternity on the scripture, you can put yours wherever you want. I would further remind you to read the forum rules on “Equivocation”.



Indeed, and this isn’t at all, at odds with God having a body. But we must also understand up fron that Matt 4:4 in NO WAY supports evolution at all (and that was the question).


Here's the reasoning.
Premise: Man shall live by every word that procedes from the mouth of god (words of Christ)
Premise: All the worlds are created by the word of God (From Genesis)
Conclusion: Evidence gleaned from the world is valid for learning true things.
Premise: Evidence gleaned from the world shows us we are evolved. (innumerable scientific papers to this effect)
Conclusion: Accepting evolution is not contrary to scripture.

That's my reasoning. You might claim its invalid, but it does involve scripture.



Yes, it does involve scripture, but your attempted rationale doesn’t follow from the scripture that you are attempting to link it to.

This is what’s known as a “Non Sequitur” as absolutely nothing in Matt4:4 provides evidence for macro-evolution. In fact, all it really provides (in context) is that God has a mouth, and from His mouth comes the words that we are to live by. Below is a far better, and more accurate syllogism concerning said scripture.

Premise 1 – Paul wants to link macro-evolution to the Bible via scripture.
Premise 2 – The scripture Paul used provides that God has a mouth.
Premise 3 – It follows then, that if God has a mouth, God has a body.
Premise 4 – God said that man was created in His image.
Premise 5 – It follows then, that if man was created in Gods Image, and man has a body, than God has a body.
Premise 6 – God’s word says that He is a spirit.
Premise 7 – There is absolutely NO reason to believe that a spirit cannot have a body.
Premise 8 – In Genesis, God said that He walked with Adam and Eve in the cool of the.
Premise 9 – If God walked, it stands to reason the He had legs; and if God had legs, it stands to reason that He has a body.
Conclusion – ALL scripture adduced provides that God has a Body. Further, Paul has not provided any evidence contrary to this!


Indeed, and this
Further, doesn’t it follow:

First – If God has a “mouth” for every to proceed from.

Second – We MUST have ears to hear His words

Third – God must also have ears to hear our prayers, question and comments (feedback).

Conclusion – God, then, MUST have the original body with a mouth and ears (etc…) that we were designed in reference to?



Oooo . . . you are indeed a hyper literalist.



A “hyper literalist” Paul? Really??

First – I’m not sure you actually understand what a Biblical literalist really is (as most Theistic Evolutionist follows the misinterpretation).
Second – Using an Ad Hominem abusive directed toward me is really not a good idea in this forum.


Indeed, and this I suppose you also accept that insects including grasshoppers all have four legs? I defy you to give any valid scriptural reasoning, consistent with your reasoning methods above, that allow you to believe they actually have six legs.



Why would you even say that, and what does it even have to do with the conversation?

Further , when you make a fallacious accusation against a forum member, especially against an administrator at this site, you may find that your stay will be far shorter than you anticipated.


Indeed, and this Lev 11:22-23"These of them you may eat: the locust in its kinds, and the devastating locust in its kinds, and the cricket in its kinds, and the grasshopper in its kinds. "But all other winged insects which are four-footed are detestable to you.
NASU

I bet you suddenly turn less that rigidly literal in interpreting that passage.



Not at all Paul…What does eating locust have to do with your misinterpretation of Matt 4:4?

#8 Paul of Eugene OR

Paul of Eugene OR

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 70
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Eugene, Oregon

Posted 09 April 2012 - 02:35 PM

Absolutely! God is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent.


So, you’re saying that God can be omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, and yet He is incapable of having a body? Can you provide the logic that intimates the God that created this universe cannot have a spiritual body, and be omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent?


I’ll tell you what; I’ll let God be God, and I’ll simply be His servant.



My logic is simple. If God is omnipresent, then God is not a body of flesh <Non Sequitur> in the same was as I am a body of flesh, because we'd all be stuck trying to walk around inside a body of flesh which we could not do . . . . therefore, God is a spirit, just like Jesus said.



Then you would be proceeding on an assumption, as SOME appearances are BELIEVED to be that of Jesus, but to say ALL, is nothing more than a presupposition on your part.


And if Jesus is truly God, how could some of the appearances NOT be of Jesus? <Clear cases of misrepresentation>




Unfortunately for your assertion, the scripture says that we were created “in His Image”. And as I provided in abundance, God has body parts, so it ONLY follows that God has a body.


Well, let me be perfectly clear about this. We are created in the image of God. But the image of God in man is not in the two eyes, the two feet, the one head. Instead, the image of God in man is our soul, our mind, our spiritual nature.

Consider the cherubim:


Isa 6:2-3 Seraphim stood above Him, each having six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew.
And one called out to another and said, "Holy, Holy, Holy, is the LORD of hosts, The whole earth is full of His glory."

They too are in the image of God. <Clear cases of misrepresentation>

No Paul, I think you do indeed get it… Anyway, I’m saying that GOD said we were created in His image. Evolutionists claims that man evolved from an ape-like creature. The Bible nowhere makes such a claim, or gives any support for such a claim, therefore either God looks like an ape-like creature, or the evolutionary claim is bunk (i.e. foundationless).


And another point to make is that even if God have His own physical body as a target to copy as He fashioned us, this does not preclude Him from using evolution as a means to fashion us <Non Sequitur> . In such a case we would expect to see the evolutionary method resulting in one line among the many that more and more closely resembled His target for His image until - Bingo <Clear cases of misrepresentation> ! The process was complete.

That is not my opinion about God's body and God's image, but it is a logical possibility that could be entertained. <Clear cases of misrepresentation>

Further, the God of the Bible is not a capricious God, so claiming “God can make Himself to be like us whether or not He created us by means of evolution” is itself not scripturally founded, is nothing more than a hypothesis, and is nothing but the fallacious “straw man” assertion . Also, there is no Biblical support for your hypothesis that God would change his image on a whim.



Well, you go ahead and believe God cannot change His image and I'll go ahead and believe God can appear in any form He chooses to and we'll just let it go at that.


Therefore, either scripture is correct, or your attempt to change it to fit the macro-evolutionary hypothesis is correct. I’ll put my eternity on the scripture, you can put yours wherever you want. I would further remind you to read the forum rules on “Equivocation”.



How can I set forth alternate possibilities for the sake of discussion and not be breaking forum rules on "equivocation"? <Complaining about board moderation>


Yes, it does involve scripture, but your attempted rationale doesn’t follow from the scripture that you are attempting to link it to.

This is what’s known as a “Non Sequitur” as absolutely nothing in Matt4:4 provides evidence for macro-evolution. In fact, all it really provides (in context) is that God has a mouth, and from His mouth comes the words that we are to live by.


Well, of course, we disagree, don't we? Is this a surprise, somehow? I'll continue to believe my logic there is sound, you continue to believe it is not.

Below is a far better, and more accurate syllogism concerning said scripture.

Premise 1 – Paul wants to link macro-evolution to the Bible via scripture.
Premise 2 – The scripture Paul used provides that God has a mouth.
Premise 3 – It follows then, that if God has a mouth, God has a body.
Premise 4 – God said that man was created in His image.
Premise 5 – It follows then, that if man was created in Gods Image, and man has a body, than God has a body.
Premise 6 – God’s word says that He is a spirit.
Premise 7 – There is absolutely NO reason to believe that a spirit cannot have a body.
Premise 8 – In Genesis, God said that He walked with Adam and Eve in the cool of the.
Premise 9 – If God walked, it stands to reason the He had legs; and if God had legs, it stands to reason that He has a body.
Conclusion – ALL scripture adduced provides that God has a Body. Further, Paul has not provided any evidence contrary to this!


Again, we simply disagree as to the forms being used in scripture. Does God or does God not have wings? <Clear cases of misrepresentation>


Ps 57:1 Be gracious to me, O God, be gracious to me,
For my soul takes refuge in You;
And in the shadow of Your wings I will take refuge
Until destruction passes by.

Is our image of God incomplete, as we lack wings? <Clear cases of misrepresentation>

I say nay, these are poetic references, all of them. <Clear cases of misrepresentation>



Clarification with emphasis on forum rules violations AND blatant fallacious claims. (Admin Ron)







A “hyper literalist” Paul? Really??

First – I’m not sure you actually understand what a Biblical literalist really is (as most Theistic Evolutionist follows the misinterpretation).
Second – Using an Ad Hominem abusive directed toward me is really not a good idea in this forum.

Why would you even say that, and what does it even have to do with the conversation?

Further , when you make a fallacious accusation against a forum member, especially against an administrator at this site, you may find that your stay will be far shorter than you anticipated.


I beg your pardon, I did not realize that when you engaged me in debate you were also retaining all the prerogatives of your position as moderator as well. Very well, I shall attempt to keep that in mind.

Not at all Paul…What does eating locust have to do with your misinterpretation of Matt 4:4?


Nothing at all, it has to do with being literal in interpreting the Bible, the very thing you seem to want me to do. I'm speaking of the number of legs attributed to the locusts and in addition attributed to all other flying insects, which number is clearly stated as four.

I don't see how one can follow such slavishly literal ways of interpreting statements about God speaking with His mouth and still accept that flying insects have more than four legs. But perhaps you DO accept that flying insects are four-legged. I don't know, yet, that you don't, and in that case perhaps you do remain consistent in your biblical interpretations.

Most people interpreting this scripture about the insects being four-legged agree that insects are truly six legged and this passage is to not be interpreted literally, but it should be understood in some non literal fashion, perhaps counting the use of the phrase as an idiom, for example.

Perhaps you are consistent and don't do that. Let me know.

#9 Remnant of The Abyss

Remnant of The Abyss

    Bible Inerrantist

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 178 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Raised Catholic and became born again in college. Now I'm non denominational.
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Southern USA

Posted 09 April 2012 - 03:40 PM

However, we have the incarnation, that is, God became one of us as part of our redemption.

Hence, after God condescends to become one of us in Jesus, God has the body of Jesus, of course.

I accept that the appearances of God in the Old Testament are also Jesus coming to us in the likeness of our flesh. But the true essense of God is not in the likeness of our flesh, God is spirit. However, now that we are on the scene, for God to walk with us, talk with us, He takes on human form.


Jesus is God. He's part of the Trinity, yet still God. You state "But the true essense of God is not in the likeness of our flesh, God is spirit". I agree that The Holy Spirit does not have the likeness of our flesh. However Jesus Christ, the "Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End" Rev 22: 12-16, the eternal Jesus Christ states this:

Mt. 14:24, 25
This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them. “I tell you the truth, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God."

It is clear to me that Christ will maintain His human form in Heaven. I also believe that we will forever see the price He paid for our sins when we see the wounds He suffered on Calgary, the very wounds that were witnessed by Thomas after the resurrection John 20:26-29.

Following this reasoning, it's also clear to me that man was made in the image of God, the same image of Jesus Christ. So I agree with Ron that this image is not the image which can be conjured up by the evolutionist's assertion, by implication, that God has the image of an ape-like creature.

#10 Paul of Eugene OR

Paul of Eugene OR

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 70
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Eugene, Oregon

Posted 09 April 2012 - 03:45 PM

Jesus is God. He's part of the Trinity, yet still God. You state "But the true essense of God is not in the likeness of our flesh, God is spirit". I agree that The Holy Spirit does not have the likeness of our flesh. However Jesus Christ, the "Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End" Rev 22: 12-16, the eternal Jesus Christ states this:

Mt. 14:24, 25
This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them. “I tell you the truth, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God.

It is clear to me that Christ will maintain His human form in Heaven. I also believe that we will forever see the price He paid for our sins when we see the wounds He suffered on Calgary, the very wounds that were witnessed by Thomas after the resurrection John 20:26-29.


I completely agree with this post.

#11 Remnant of The Abyss

Remnant of The Abyss

    Bible Inerrantist

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 178 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Raised Catholic and became born again in college. Now I'm non denominational.
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Southern USA

Posted 09 April 2012 - 03:48 PM

I completely agree with this post.


Thanks. Sorry I added something in the Edit that you missed. Still agree?

#12 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 09 April 2012 - 03:59 PM


I beg your pardon, I did not realize that when you engaged me in debate you were also retaining all the prerogatives of your position as moderator as well. Very well, I shall attempt to keep that in mind.

Somehow you’re assuming that during our conversation you can abuse common courtesy and forum rules simply because we were discussing scripture and logic? You thought that somehow my being an administrator here was null and void during conversations, and you could be rude without any repercussions?

I would wonder where you might have picked up such notions. Do you converse like this in non-virtual relationships as well?

#13 Remnant of The Abyss

Remnant of The Abyss

    Bible Inerrantist

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 178 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Raised Catholic and became born again in college. Now I'm non denominational.
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Southern USA

Posted 09 April 2012 - 06:29 PM

Thanks. Sorry I added something in the Edit that you missed. Still agree?



Well, since I made an infallible case in logic, while at the same time using your own words and admissions to prove my point, to which you agreed with, I'll just go ahead and assume that you agree with the bottom line...

So I agree with Ron that this image is not the image which can be conjured up by the evolutionist's assertion, by implication, that God has the image of an ape-like creature.



... since the conclusion logically follows the premise and you can't argue otherwise, because unfortunately for you, you wound up getting banned via the natural selection process. :D

#14 Hawkins

Hawkins

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 159 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Hong Kong

Posted 09 April 2012 - 07:56 PM

I think that Ron is right. God's omnipresence won't avoid Him from taking a body form. Jesus will be siting at the right hand side of God the Father. Isaiah actually saw that image. And God ever showed up riding on Cherubs.

Actually, it is quite natural that He will show up with an image in the various realms. In our realm Jesus Christ can be considered as His image. And in a realm where the angels exist, the angels will have to worship God with a comprehensible image. Moreover, "spirit" by no means says that it won't take forms. "Spirit" usually means "not in our realm". So angels are spirits and they take forms, and their forms are believed to be corresponding to their categories. For example, Cherub take a two-winged form while seraphim can be six-winged.
  • Remnant of The Abyss likes this

#15 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 10 April 2012 - 04:34 AM



Absolutely! God is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent.

So, you’re saying that God can be omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, and yet He is incapable of having a body? Can you provide the logic that intimates the God that created this universe cannot have a spiritual body, and be omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent?

I’ll tell you what; I’ll let God be God, and I’ll simply be His servant.



My logic is simple. If God is omnipresent, then God is not a body of flesh in the same was as I am a body of flesh, because we'd all be stuck trying to walk around inside a body of flesh which we could not do . . . . therefore, God is a spirit, just like Jesus said.



First – No one claimed that God’s has a body of flesh, this is where your logic fails, because you are misinterpreting (purposefully or not) what was being said.

Second – There are numerous scriptures that state God WALKED. Ergo, I’ll let the scripture be more knowledgeable than I am.

Third – This in no way detracts from God being a Spirit, nor does it detract from God being omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent.



Then you would be proceeding on an assumption, as SOME appearances are BELIEVED to be that of Jesus, but to say ALL, is nothing more than a presupposition on your part.



And if Jesus is truly God, how could some of the appearances NOT be of Jesus?


Because, in many cases there is no inference that it was Jesus; in some cases it is clearly stated that it was an Angel, In some cased it was clear that it was the Holy Spirit, and in some cases it is clearly stated that it was God.

Jesus is but ONE third of the God triune.

Further, your ASSUMPTION then begs the question; are you saying that God is incapable of appearing to man himself? You, yourself, freely admitted that He is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent; but your assertion is placing limits on Him. No, you cannot have it BOTH ways.



Unfortunately for your assertion, the scripture says that we were created “in His Image”. And as I provided in abundance, God has body parts, so it ONLY follows that God has a body.



Well, let me be perfectly clear about this. We are created in the image of God. But the image of God in man is not in the two eyes, the two feet, the one head. Instead, the image of God in man is our soul, our mind, our spiritual nature.

Consider the cherubim:


Isa 6:2-3 Seraphim stood above Him, each having six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew.
And one called out to another and said, "Holy, Holy, Holy, is the LORD of hosts, The whole earth is full of His glory."

They too are in the image of God.


No, they are not. Man is the only creature that God said was created in His image. You are outreaching further than most liberal theologians here; and you are doing so simply to cover for a misrepresentation that you have no actual scriptural evidence for.

#16 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 10 April 2012 - 04:35 AM



No Paul, I think you do indeed get it… Anyway, I’m saying that GOD said we were created in His image. Evolutionists claims that man evolved from an ape-like creature. The Bible nowhere makes such a claim, or gives any support for such a claim, therefore either God looks like an ape-like creature, or the evolutionary claim is bunk (i.e. foundationless).



And another point to make is that even if God have His own physical body as a target to copy as He fashioned us, this does not preclude Him from using evolution as a means to fashion us. In such a case we would expect to see the evolutionary method resulting in one line among the many that more and more closely resembled His target for His image until - Bingo! The process was complete.

That is not my opinion about God's body and God's image, but it is a logical possibility that could be entertained.


This is a straw man, as no one stated that God had “His own physical body”. And no, it doesn’t “preclude Him from using evolution as a means to fashion us”; BUT, the problem you’re having is that there is absolutely NO scriptural evidence supporting your assertion; it is based solely on evolutionary presupposition. Further, God said on which DAY (YOM) He created man; He did something totally different on the next DAY (YOM), therefore there is absolutely NO TIME for your macroevolution hypothesis.

So BINGO! Your assertion is illogical…



Further, the God of the Bible is not a capricious God, so claiming “God can make Himself to be like us whether or not He created us by means of evolution” is itself not scripturally founded, is nothing more than a hypothesis, and is nothing but the fallacious “straw man” assertion . Also, there is no Biblical support for your hypothesis that God would change his image on a whim.



Well, you go ahead and believe God cannot change His image and I'll go ahead and believe God can appear in any form He chooses to and we'll just let it go at that.



Juvenile replies to cover for a faulty assertion is not befitting honest debate.



Therefore, either scripture is correct, or your attempt to change it to fit the macro-evolutionary hypothesis is correct. I’ll put my eternity on the scripture, you can put yours wherever you want. I would further remind you to read the forum rules on “Equivocation”.



How can I set forth alternate possibilities for the sake of discussion and not be breaking forum rules on "equivocation"?



Quite simply, be honest in your conversation. Don’t attempt to rewrite scripture (and history) to meet your worldview, and twisting God to meet your philosophical needs.

#17 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 10 April 2012 - 04:39 AM



Therefore, either Yes, it does involve scripture, but your attempted rationale doesn’t follow from the scripture that you are attempting to link it to.

This is what’s known as a “Non Sequitur” as absolutely nothing in Matt4:4 provides evidence for macro-evolution. In fact, all it really provides (in context) is that God has a mouth, and from His mouth comes the words that we are to live by.


Well, of course, we disagree, don't we? Is this a surprise, somehow? I'll continue to believe my logic there is sound, you continue to believe it is not.



The problem is, you have provided absolutely nothing to show you are using logic. The point is that I can prove where your attempt at logic fails, AND where mine is sound.



Below is a far better, and more accurate syllogism concerning said scripture.

Premise 1 – Paul wants to link macro-evolution to the Bible via scripture.
Premise 2 – The scripture Paul used provides that God has a mouth.
Premise 3 – It follows then, that if God has a mouth, God has a body.
Premise 4 – God said that man was created in His image.
Premise 5 – It follows then, that if man was created in Gods Image, and man has a body, than God has a body.
Premise 6 – God’s word says that He is a spirit.
Premise 7 – There is absolutely NO reason to believe that a spirit cannot have a body.
Premise 8 – In Genesis, God said that He walked with Adam and Eve in the cool of the.
Premise 9 – If God walked, it stands to reason the He had legs; and if God had legs, it stands to reason that He has a body.
Conclusion – ALL scripture adduced provides that God has a Body. Further, Paul has not provided any evidence contrary to this!


Again, we simply disagree as to the forms being used in scripture. Does God or does God not have wings?


No, the difference is that you are attempting to string together non sequiturs as if “saying so, makes it so”; and logic simply doesn’t proceed that way.

And no, God does not have wings.


Ps 57:1 Be gracious to me, O God, be gracious to me,
For my soul takes refuge in You;
And in the shadow of Your wings I will take refuge
Until destruction passes by.

Is our image of God incomplete, as we lack wings?

I say nay, these are poetic references, all of them.



Once again, your attempt at logic does not follow from your premise. The book of Psalms is written in poetic language (prose and verse) as opposed to Genesis chapters One through Three (for example) which are written as literal.



A “hyper literalist” Paul? Really??

First – I’m not sure you actually understand what a Biblical literalist really is (as most Theistic Evolutionist follows the misinterpretation).
Second – Using an Ad Hominem abusive directed toward me is really not a good idea in this forum.

Why would you even say that, and what does it even have to do with the conversation?

Further , when you make a fallacious accusation against a forum member, especially against an administrator at this site, you may find that your stay will be far shorter than you anticipated.



I beg your pardon, I did not realize that when you engaged me in debate you were also retaining all the prerogatives of your position as moderator as well. Very well, I shall attempt to keep that in mind.


This was addressed in detail in a previous post.

#18 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 10 April 2012 - 04:45 AM



Not at all Paul…What does eating locust have to do with your misinterpretation of Matt 4:4?



Nothing at all, it has to do with being literal in interpreting the Bible, the very thing you seem to want me to do. I'm speaking of the number of legs attributed to the locusts and in addition attributed to all other flying insects, which number is clearly stated as four.



The above is a “straw man” tactic utilized by liberal theologians and their adherents (those who follow them, and some do so blindly). What is funny here, is that Paul even admitted that it was out of context. He was simply promulgating his misintrepretation. They (the liberal theologians and their adherents ) will attempt to assert that the Biblical Literalists take the Bible in its entirety as literal, but this is nothing more than a red herring to cover for their lack of scriptural evidence to back their assertions. And, as you’ll notice, Paul went as far as to call me a “hyper literalist” (Ad Hominem), and yet he doesn’t know enough about me to make any such assertion.

Anyway, their accusation is nothing but a slogan, and could not be further from the truth! The Biblical literalist does not assume ALL of scripture is to be taken “literally”, the Biblical literalist assigns correctly that which is literal and that which is allegorical.

For example:
Written as Literal – Genesis chapters One through Three, God’s Laws and lineages in Leviticus and Deuteronomy (etc…)

Written as “Allegorical” – Psalms, Proverbs, the Parables of Jesus (etc…)

And much of this is taken on linguistic studies, and historical studies.


I don't see how one can follow such slavishly literal ways of interpreting statements about God speaking with His mouth and still accept that flying insects have more than four legs. But perhaps you DO accept that flying insects are four-legged. I don't know, yet, that you don't, and in that case perhaps you do remain consistent in your biblical interpretations.


One again, Paul made assertions that he had absolutely no substantiation for. And, he used another Ad Hominem (Slavish) AND red herring (insect analogy), neither of which I adhere to (therefore another non sequitur).

He has absolutely NO idea what I adhere to, and was therefore lashing out blindly because he couldn’t logically or scientifically defend his blind assertions.

#19 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,330 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Pretending he used to be a science teacher
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 13 April 2012 - 06:52 PM

Hmm, I'm not suprised at this. In the many debates I engaged in on C.A.R.M. with the God hating atheists and skeptics who are tolerated their, Paul would always take sides with them against us creationists. He did so shamelessly.

May the Lord open his eyes to the truth. God was not ever an ape and neither was man.

#20 Tubal

Tubal

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 69 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Massachusetts

Posted 25 April 2012 - 01:44 PM

I want to comment on what Paul said. The Bible does say that insects had 4 legs, but we have to understand what was a leg to them.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users