PaulBurnett,
------Of course God has evolved. From His origin as a local mountain storm god (who had His own room in Solomon’s Temple where He could demonstrate His avatar of a storm cloud), Yahweh/Jehovah has evolved from the bloody-minded wrathful god of the Old Testament to the New Testament’s God of love. Anybody who reads the Bible can see this evolution.
That's not evolution my friend. There was no replication nor mutation, but rather a conscious entity doing whatever it wills. If you're saying that any change whatsoever is evolution, that would mean anything that ever did anything, and nothing would count against it. It would be vacuous. Besides, metaphysical or supernatural change is not evolution.Clive Hayden
July 25, 2009
July
07
Jul
25
25
2009
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT
Andrew Halloway's book review demonstrates the scientific underpinnings of intelligent design design as discussed here. It ends: "Thankfully, the return of Christ himself will end the reign of this ultimate tyrant, and reveal the Truth in all his glory."
Of course God has evolved. From His origin as a local mountain storm god (who had His own room in Solomon's Temple where He could demonstrate His avatar of a storm cloud), Yahweh/Jehovah has evolved from the bloody-minded wrathful god of the Old Testament to the New Testament's God of love. Anybody who reads the Bible can see this evolution.PaulBurnett
July 25, 2009
July
07
Jul
25
25
2009
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT
BTW, Wright is wrong about God. The theology of the Old Testament is perfectly consistent with the New. What evolved was the religious sensibility of the believers. Different thing altogether, and part of the story.
More here:
http://freshsensibility.com/Allanius/index.htmlallanius
July 25, 2009
July
07
Jul
25
25
2009
12:07 AM
12
12
07
AM
PDT
Not only that, but God is evolving into someone very much like Robert Wright!allanius
July 24, 2009
July
07
Jul
24
24
2009
11:53 PM
11
11
53
PM
PDT
What has been commonly misinterpreted as do no violence is really thou shalt not murder.
Man has built a tradition of passivity around this and has made God's Word of no effect.
It has, in today's society become a useless, uninterpretable mass of words that offer for some "good moral teaching" but nothing more.
Just the way Satan likes it.
1 Peter 5:8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:IRQ Conflict
July 24, 2009
July
07
Jul
24
24
2009
10:29 PM
10
10
29
PM
PDT
TM English
“One obvious meaning in the words of Jesus is that we should not harm others — not even in state-sponsored wars. The stupid invocation of proof texts to get around the clear message and “justify” violence is awful.”
Remember, knowledge "puffeth up".
Have you heard the phrase "Scripture interprets Scripture"?
Romans 13:2 2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. 5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. 6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.
2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.IRQ Conflict
July 24, 2009
July
07
Jul
24
24
2009
10:22 PM
10
10
22
PM
PDT
T M English,
If I understand at all what you're saying I think I can sympathize in a small way. However, either the words of the Bible are true or they are not. I despise "proof texts" mostly because they totally disregard other "proof texts". Truth, like a bird, needs two wings to fly, not just one.
Nonetheless, if the Bible isn't true and can't be relied upon---"it's just our evolving understanding of God, not necessarily the absolute truth"---then we are hopeless. That isn't the argument for why I believe the Bible to be the inspired and true word of God, mind you.
I guess a fairly clear way of looking at it is this: If the Bible is true, then in Christ we would necessarily be seeing the most perfect revelation and manifestation of God possible, at least in human bodily form. In the gospels we see not only the revelation of God, the sum of the parts as it were, but we can see some of the parts, as well. One thing we see is a method of God's revelation of Himself. Christ didn't seek to clearly lay out and explain things in detail. He taught in parables, for example, and then paradoxically said that "these things are hidden from the wise and prudent but revealed unto babes." Here we see a method, and I believe we can glean a reason for the method as well, that those who are not predisposed to not want to see and believe because it is counter to some vested and cultivated interest, can see. Even the most simple(ton) and unlearned can see, if they want to. God leaves the burden of proof of our desire for Him to us. The whole journey, however, is the same; we must continually desire, and make effort, to see.
The Bible is true, but we see in the Pharisees an ability to take truth and make it much less than true.
"One obvious meaning in the words of Jesus is that we should not harm others — not even in state-sponsored wars. The stupid invocation of proof texts to get around the clear message and “justify” violence is awful."
How is this not being guilty of what you are railing against? Do you think because you don't quote a text that you escape hypocrisy here? What exegesis can show that Jesus taught against state-sponsored war? Do you attempt to avoid violating your "proof text rule" by some "eisegesis rule"? And, what is your definition of violence? Some would say that Jesus was violent when overturning the moneychangers tables with whip in hand.Brent
July 24, 2009
July
07
Jul
24
24
2009
07:22 PM
7
07
22
PM
PDT
Why don’t you look in the mirror - if you’re going to call others ignorant and simpleminded?
You should read more closely if you're going to respond as you are. I said that there was "ignorance in their claims," and that there are some "very simple people." I have made ignorant claims at times, and my mother is a very intelligent woman who is, for want of education, very simple in her beliefs.
“I have problems with others who are not simple, primarily because their ignorance of alternative “True Books” is rooted in indolence and cowardice.”
I gues in all your “studies” of the bible the words meant nothing to you.
A major point of the New Atheists is that religious differences are a leading cause of war. One obvious meaning in the words of Jesus is that we should not harm others -- not even in state-sponsored wars. The stupid invocation of proof texts to get around the clear message and "justify" violence is awful. There are many fine things in the Bible, but book-belief is dangerous, and I do not hesitate to say what accounts for most cases of it.T M English
July 24, 2009
July
07
Jul
24
24
2009
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PDT
bFast,
Good point. Book-believers rarely vest as straightforward belief in their books as they would have us believe. They find elaborate ways of getting around what is inconvenient (e.g., it is harder for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven than...), and of assimilating mainstream culture.
In contrast, the mystic traditions in religions and ways around the world seem to converge on one Ultimate Something. People separated by distance and time have had remarkably similar things to say about their direct experience of... it goes by many names, but that doesn't mean it is many things.
I'm not claiming that everyone is worshiping the same god. What I'm saying is that we all have direct access to what Tillich called the ground of all being, and that we must use the light we obtain through experience of it to illuminate the texts that have come down to us.T M English
July 24, 2009
July
07
Jul
24
24
2009
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT
TM English
I normally don't get involved in religious dispustes on here, but your last post is the most pompous and insulting post I have seen on this blog.
Why don't you look in the mirror - if you're going to call others ignorant and simpleminded? I take particular exception to this:
"I have problems with others who are not simple, primarily because their ignorance of alternative “True Books” is rooted in indolence and cowardice."
I gues in all your "studies" of the bible the words meant nothing to you.CannuckianYankee
July 24, 2009
July
07
Jul
24
24
2009
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT
T M English, "The evolution of God — more accurately, the evolution of man’s apprehension of God"
I think that this is the point where evolution (change) does happen. I don't have any reason to believe that God himself changes. In my 50 years of watching the evangelical church change, I can clearly see our apprehension of God changing almost like the wind.bFast
July 24, 2009
July
07
Jul
24
24
2009
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT
Proof texts are for simpletons.
Having earned two degrees from a Southern Baptist institution, I can tell you from considerable experience that the vast majority of people who vest "faith in the authority of the Bible" have not studied the text critically. I did so as an undergrad planning on entering some form of full-time Christian service, sure in advance that the Bible could withstand any degree of scrutiny. I was sorely disappointed. There was no way for me conclude anything but that the Bible is a document of men attempting to apprehend God.
The evolution of God -- more accurately, the evolution of man's apprehension of God -- is manifest in the Bible itself. Our Father who loves us and forgives us is neither the God of the Prophets nor the God of Abraham. One needs only to compare the depiction of God in the Pentateuch and the Prophets and the Gospels. Trotting out a verse that says what you'll find is a sad substitute for actually looking. It is theology that unifies the depictions of God in that anthology of books known the Bible, not the anthology itself.
There are various books that say, "Everything in this Book is True." Most book-believers have read only one of them, and thus there is no denying that there is ignorance in their claims, even if correct, that God is revealed in only one True Book. And I forgive that ignorance in very simple people. I have problems with others who are not simple, primarily because their ignorance of alternative "True Books" is rooted in indolence and cowardice. Which book such people assert is holy is almost always an accident of birth, not a matter of informed choice. (Spare me the rare exceptions.)T M English
July 24, 2009
July
07
Jul
24
24
2009
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT
"I am the LORD, I change not."
Malachi 3:6bornagain77