Posted on 03/02/2015 7:49:16 AM PST by Salvation
There is a faction that subscribes to “God guided evolution” but in practice that is a lukewarm deus ex machina compromise that doesn’t satisfy anybody. We can add to the detail of the “fifth grade refutations” and bring them into college scope without refuting the refutations.
Please re-read what you just wrote.
There is no science or logic for what you have been taught.
sad
Are you in awe of your cleverness, your encyclopedias, your papers. Or in awe of the Creator.
One does not need to buy “woodenly literal in 20th century construals of antique language” about the scriptures to discern both purpose and miracles from them.
But even if you want to buy a “creative evolution” picture do you want to just get a quick buzz from it? Or do you see fit to give the Creator His due of glory for what He built?
How “Hard Core” are you?
Mathematicians and logicians can go a goodly way towards arguing for the uniqueness of a successful “go” at life.
Creative evolution is raised as a theory from time to time as a rival to a series of ex nihilo miracles. Here’s where one needs to look at spiritual fruits. Are the people doing this apparently moved by the Holy Spirit, or are they worshiping their own mind-pictures of a nature periodically stopped by God to spin off some new progeny, without really embracing how tantamount that would be to miracle, because the hopeful monsters that resulted would need to be jealously protected until they reached their goal.
It’s easy to be hard when one wants to play literary games without understanding context.
I am heart-core, not hard-core. Love is the overarching theme.
I’m not raising it against God. I’m explaining why I’ve come to the conclusion I have. It explains structural geology questions raised on the geology of ore bodies. It’s not a one sentence explanation however.
I am now a young earth creationist! You apparently do not like the path my life took to get here. I am sorry you are displeased. Some of us take more work, grace and forgiveness on God’s part then others. Talk about awesome.
You seem to be a dithering dancer here claiming to be first this, then that, then the other.
If this is a fancy way of saying you have considered a bunch of theories why not just say that plainly.
So fine, you have a theory about ore bodies. Why does that equate to a belief that you have proven God did not create.
there are certain things that are best explained in a different way.
These things are only available to those thoughtful seekers of truth.
Peter Gabriel - Solsbury Hill
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMwn_hnoS5Y
Again, are you sure you have really been backing away from the gallery of back patters.
OK, I took a look and I can resonate with the sentiment. As the Lord said, take up your cross and follow Him as son.
And yet following the Lord is more than just tautologically following the Lord. It is a journey of blessings, both giving and getting, and these being blessings quite characteristic of the Lord.
God is love... God is glorious. Note the difference. In the gospel context, glory bowed out of the picture for the sake of love. We never see the opposite; God is no egotist. And therefore the most glorious God became the humblest entity possible.
This is a feat that any would-be rival to the Lord would need to meet to even be a serious consideration in principle. And this goes WAY past any spiritual experience.
Again, are you sure you have really been backing away from the gallery of back patters.
I’m not sure of many things including my testimony to you.
I am a failed Christian.
I’m not trying as much as I know I should.
I wish I could be a better Christian since I know what I’m supposed to do.
Undo me
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOPdqxVP6Ow
It’s possible I have made some mistakes, but if there is one mistake I do not want to countenance, it is the idea that the Lord is less than love in some manner.
That makes me heart core, not hard core. I will follow expressions of ordinary human language including metaphor in the scripture, but I won’t consent to remake it into such an “as though” allegory that its meaning becomes irreducibly vague. God wrote it with a point and God can and will read it back again. Give me good reasons for an old earth creation view — and I have seen some pretty good ones — I will not complain. Call creation a fairy tale with no abiding meaning and I say you have lost the whole point of God being in the picture and we might as well be using Grimm’s in church.
I don’t question the love of God.
I question my ability to screw it up.
If we don’t see the Lord’s heart in all His actions, we are questioning His love.
I’ve never said that God does not exist or that I have any sort of proof. I have said that naturalistic observations must be tested against naturalistic causes. If a rock breaks my living room window I look for someone who might have thrown it before I invoke a deity.
If your window is pelted with rocks you do look for someone pelting it.
But if every rock that pelted your window caused a new window to be produced, you might conclude that yes, a god of some kind is throwing it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.