What Really Matters

_{Cornelius Hunter

January 29, 2013

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

I believe there are big problems with evolution. But I could be wrong. Or perhaps I’m right but some form of evolution is nonetheless true. Evolutionists, on the other hand, are much more certain and there is a never-ending drum roll of high truth claims from their camp. These truth claims are unwarranted and it is them, rather than the theory itself, that are the problem. So I’m not so much concerned about the theory itself as I am about the certainty with which it is presented. Read more

Comments

HMMM Joe, quoting out of context is sure becoming a pattern with you isn't it: For instance the full context of Romans 3:7 reads: 7 Someone might argue, “If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?” 8 Why not say—as some slanderously claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is just! Sort of changes the whole meaning of the verse from what you wanted to convey doesn't it Joe? So Joe, all scriptures aside, do you personally think it is OK to deceive people into believing a religion as Islam says it is OK?bornagain77_{February 1, 2013
February
02
Feb
1
01
2013
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT}

Regarding what you said About Islam I have referred to several books above so no need to waste my time with that. You can add to that the works of non Muslims Karen Armstrong and John Esposito. I did not join these threads to do dawah. I had to identify myself as a Muslim because people were and would of continued to assume and address me as if I was a Christian. Then Bornagain77 start testing and goading me with how one can come right with God and sin bla , bla, bla and that is how it got going. As a result I was led naturally on the defensive . Due to the hostility I have received by some I mean it when I say I will not reply to anyone again regarding the subject. At the end of the day no one will manage to shake my faith and lead me to go backwards to the Trinitarian worship of Jesus as God who died on the cross for our sins. So to you your Religion and to me mine.JoeMorreale1187_{February 1, 2013
February
02
Feb
1
01
2013
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT}

Paul - The real founder of Christianity A man who never met Jesus pbuh and was not one of his disciples and in conflict with the early church particularly James the brother and then claimed to have seen the risen Christ on the road to Damascus and receiving inspiration from there onwards. Can his testimony be trusted ? Acts 9:7 And the men who journeyed with him STOOD SPEECHLESS, HEARING A VOICE but seeing no one. Acts 22:9 "And those who were with me indeed saw the light and were afraid, but they DID NOT HEAR THE VOICE of him who spoke to me." Acts 9:7 .......Stood speechless Acts 26:14. ........WE ALL HAD FALLEN TO THE GROUND...... II Corinthians 11:14-15 Paul says " ........SATAN himself transforms himself into an angel of light . Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness ......" SO WHO WAS PAUL TALKING TO ? AN ANGEL OF LIGHT OR SATAN?! Perhaps some big clues are in the fact that Jesus came to FULFILL the LAW OF MOSES and Paul taught new doctrines contrary to that . After the alleged vision Paul continued to make havoc with the Church ( James n co) but this time from WITHIN. Paul says its okay to LIE for the glory of God ( and Bornagain77 quotes the reliance of the travel to me?!) Romans 3:7 " FOR IF THE TRUTH OF GOD HATH MORE ABOUNDED THROUGH MY LIE UNTO HIS GLORY ;WHY YET AM I ALSO JUDGED A SINNER". Paul himself invited criticism of the Crucifixion of the mysteries constructed thereabout. He says I Corinthians 1:22-23. " For Jews request a SIGN , and Greeks WISDOM; but we preach Christ crucified , to the Jew a STUMBLING BLOCK and to the GENTILES FOOLISHNESS." Or In other words " We preach something without signs and without wisdom - who is with us?! Paul 's tactics in preaching I Corinthians 9:19-23 "For though I am free with respect to all , I have made myself a slave to all so that I might win more of them; To the Jews I became as a Jew , in order to win Jews . To those under the Law ( though I MYSELF am not under the Law) so that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one OUTSIDE the Law ( Though I am not free from GOD'S Law but am under CHRIST's law ) so that I might win those outside the Law. To the weak I have become weak so that I might win over the weak . I HAVE BECOME ALL THINGS TO ALL PEOPLE , THAT I MIGHT BY ALL MEANS SAVE SOME." Some inspiration this guy was under ah?! History and logic shows that Paul's version of Christianity came to dominate because the large following he got from amongst the Pagan Gentiles who found his doctrines appealing. The political and military might of the Roman Empire and the infamous Council of Nicea then did the rest...... So do as I do and follow Jesus and not Paul and the Pagan Roman/Greek Churches that were built around him. As a result you it should lead you to Islam.JoeMorreale1187_{February 1, 2013
February
02
Feb
1
01
2013
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT}

JM: I am sorry. You are now spewing all sorts of accusations, and don't seem to be willing to be accountable and civil. In fact, I am now wondering whether you are a very familiar figure to me, a sent Islamist Dawah -- folks, literally, call to surrender on ultimate pain of attack by Jihad -- advocate, maybe someone who has been won as a convert and then ~~trained~~ [indoctrinated] to some extent and sent out as a footsoldier in the information and communication media battlespace. I tried to hint to you yesterday that you would run into problems if you kept on in the lines you were coming with, and it seems you refuse to do so. Very well, you will need to feel some pain in order to learn to back off and think again. I will therefore raise a few points, not by way to pulling this thread off track again, but to make it fairly clear that spewing false accusations about fraud and lies etc, is not the right way to deal with people who are informed. So, For record and reference: 1 --> Most people do not know what the Quran actually teaches about Jesus, so here goes, snipping from a 101 here that is known to be accurate based on review by former Muslims and practicing Christian ministers, not just from reading and researching then compiling notes, i.e. this has been peer reviewed by people RAISED AS MUSLIMS who are also converts to the Christian faith and trained in theology as practicing Christian ministers of the gospel:
As Surah 4:156 – 158 records, the Quran specifically denies the crucifixion of Christ: “they killed him not, nor crucified him . . . . Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself.”[41] Thus, the Quran’s message is explicitly incompatible with the core gospel message: “on which [we Christians] have taken [our] stand. By this gospel [we] are saved if [we] hold firmly to the word . . . . that Christ died for our sins [--> in context, on the cross at the order of Pilate with the connivance of the corrupt Judaean elites who schemed his death after he cleansed the temple in Jerusalem that had been sacrilegiously abused by turning part of it into a marketplace for religious items] according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures . . . . And if Christ has not been raised [from the dead], our preaching is useless and so is [our] faith . . . [we] are still in [our] sins.” [1 Cor. 15:2 – 5, 14, 17.]
2 --> thus, in its central scriptural document, Islam declares itself against the historicity of the gospel, and particularly the crucifixion, which is about as well attested a fact of history as can be expected, cf here on. 3 --> In short, The prophet of Islam had a basic problem with historical facts, and here speaking in the name of God proclaims an assertion that is patently historically unjustified. So, any time an Islamic Dawah advocate comes calling, understand that he has not got a factual leg to stand on regarding the first minimal fact of the gospel, accepted by the overwhelming majority of critical scholarship. So, he is forced to fly in the face of quite evident facts. 4 --> turning the tables, such a person should be made to address the findings here and the issues with Islamic talking points here, presented by well-known researchers Nehls and Eric. these include the historical context of Islam, the account of the founder, the issues connected thereto and more. I should note that a particularly striking point I noticed in dealing with ordinary Muslims, was the story of Aisha, taken as bride at 6 years, and with marriage consummated at about age 9. While this seems to have been in accord with the custom for powerful men in Arabia at the time, it seems an obvious point that ought to have been reformed and it points to a much broader problem in how M dealt with women. At least, on his behalf it can be said that Aisha became his favourite wife, and that he reportedly died with his head in her lap when she was about 18. 5 --> We must turn to the Islamic rejection of the Christian triune, complex unity understanding of God. Surah 4:48 and 171, and 5:116 lead to the false accusation of "shirk," which functions as a serious bit of well-poisoning. Shirk is viewed as the most deadly of all sins, 4:48 describes it as unpardonable: “Allah forgiveth not that partners should be set up with Him; but He forgiveth anything else.” (The incoherence of calling for repentance from a sin defined as unpardonable is obvious.) 4:171:
O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, "Three"; desist - it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. [--> that is, we have here a silly accusation of God fathering Jesus in the sense that a human male becomes a father, at least as commonly understood. In short, whoever Allah is and whoever Mohammed was, they profoundly misunderstood the Christian teaching of the tri-unity of God. Such a basic misrepresentation is severely disqualifying.] To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs.
6 --> However, the Islamic view on the Trinity reflects Muhammad’s encounters with heretical sects in Arabia rather than the biblically rooted orthodox Christian understanding of the Tri-unity of the Godhead. [Especially see Heb. 1:1 – 14, John 1:1 – 14, Phil. 2:5 – 11, 1 Cor. 12:2 – 6, Acts 5:3 - 4.] The historic Christian teaching [read on down to deal with objections and issues] asserts that God is One, a complex unity: a unity of Eternal being, integrated with a diversity of personal manifestation: Father, Son and Spirit. (It bears noting that Son, here, is not used in the physical sense; the incarnation is not at all parallel to the pagan tales of gods and their proclivities for pretty girls.) Thus, the tension between unity and diversity in the cosmos finds its resolution in the inherent nature of the Godhead. This is mysterious, but it is not contradictory, for even water, ice and steam share a common nature while being vastly diverse as to manifestation. More profoundly, “God is Love” [1 John 4:8] — an interpersonal, relational concept — is viewed by Christians as integral to the essential nature of God. 7 --> Notice, in this context, what 5:116 puts in the mouth of Jesus:
And [beware the Day] when Allah will say, "O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, 'Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah ?'" He will say, "Exalted are You! It was not for me to say that to which I have no right. If I had said it, You would have known it. You know what is within myself, and I do not know what is within Yourself. Indeed, it is You who is Knower of the unseen.
8 --> This is so grossly inaccurate as to be incredible. Let us cite the Johannine prologue, just to get a reasonably clear view of what he Christian faith has understood since C1:
Jn 1:1 In the beginning [before all time] was the Word ([a]Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God [b]Himself. 2 He was present originally with God. 3 All things were made and came into existence through Him; and without Him was not even one thing made that has come into being. 4 In Him was Life, and the Life was the Light of men. 5 And the Light shines on in the darkness, for the darkness has never overpowered it [put it out or absorbed it or appropriated it, and is unreceptive to it]. 6 There came a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 This man came to witness, that he might testify of the Light, that all men might believe in it [adhere to it, trust it, and rely upon it] through him. 8 He was not the Light himself, but came that he might bear witness regarding the Light. 9 There it was—the true Light [was then] coming into the world [the genuine, perfect, steadfast Light] that illumines every person. 10 He came into the world, and though the world was made through Him, the world did not recognize Him [did not know Him]. 11 He came to that which belonged to Him [to His own—His domain, creation, things, world], and they who were His own did not receive Him and did not welcome Him. 12 But to as many as did receive and welcome Him, He gave the authority (power, privilege, right) to become the children of God, that is, to those who believe in (adhere to, trust in, and rely on) His name— 13 Who owe their birth neither to [c]bloods nor to the will of the flesh [that of physical impulse] nor to the will of man [that of a natural father], but to God. [They are born of God!] 14 And the Word (Christ) became flesh (human, incarnate) and tabernacled (fixed His tent of flesh, lived awhile) among us; and we [actually] saw His glory (His honor, His majesty), such glory as an only begotten son receives from his father, full of grace (favor, loving-kindness) and truth. 15 John testified about Him and cried out, This was He of Whom I said, He Who comes after me has priority over me, for He was before me. [He takes rank above me, for He existed before I did. He has advanced before me, because He is my Chief.] 16 For out of His fullness (abundance) we have all received [all had a share and we were all supplied with] one grace after another and spiritual blessing upon spiritual blessing and even favor upon favor and gift [heaped] upon gift. 17 For while the Law was given through Moses, grace ([d]unearned, undeserved favor and spiritual blessing) and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No man has ever seen God at any time; the only [e]unique Son, or [f]the only begotten God, Who is in the bosom [in the intimate presence] of the Father, He has declared Him [He has revealed Him and brought Him out where He can be seen; He has interpreted Him and He has made Him known]. [AMP]
9 --> Put that with Heb 1 , Col 1, Phil 2:5 - 11 etc etc etc and you will see what we are dealing with here as the data on which the Christian understanding of the Christ event has been built. 10 --> But our concerns do not stop there, we must at least pause to understand the declarations in the sword verse and the verse of tribute that are in the last or next to last Surah of the Quran, thus that which abrogated that which went before -- the more irenic Meccan verses:
9:5 -- Sword -- And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah [a specific alms], let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. [--> this has been used far and wide including by UBL as the prime text calling to Jihad by the sword to establish Islam as a global hegemony, to be fulfilled through the Mahdi and aided by Isa in latterday form. It is in this context that Muslims in the hadiths already alluded to -- traditions of M passed on and collectively second only tot he Quran -- are exhorted with the account of the gharqad tree latt6erday genocide of Jews, which is in the Hamas Covenant Article 7, and are called in the black flag army from the direction of Khorasan hadith to crawl over ice and snow when they see the black flag army arising, for Mahdi is among them. Al Qaeda and the Taliban use this hadith and the pervasive symbolism of black flags is about this alleged all conquering army that will subjugate the ME and from the ME Mahdi will rule the world to the E and the W. Cf here for some details and the onward links as well. In that sort of apocalyptic ferment, we should understand how the Iran rush to nukes and the rising tide of Islamism just now look in many Muslim eyes.] 29 -- tribute -- Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture [--> this is generally taken to refer to subjugation of Jews and Christians, and the following vv, show part of why] - [fight] until they give the jizyah [an impoverishing poll-tax imposed on subjects as a price of toleration, renting their lives so to speak] willingly while they are humbled. 30 The Jews say, "Ezra is the son of Allah " [--> Another gross blunder of M claiming to speak in the voice of God]; and the Christians say, "The Messiah is the son of Allah ." [--> note the context already given that turns this into a gross accusation] That is their statement from their mouths [--> words twisted into utterly different meaning, a familiar problem in dealing with Islamist advocates]; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded? 31 They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah [--> this does speak to a real problem of abuse by ecclesiastical elites, one that is always a challenge in any system] , and [also] the Messiah, the son of Mary [--> implied, as opposed to the Eternal Son of God, incarnate as Saviour and Lord]. And they were not commanded except to worship one God; there is no deity except Him. Exalted is He above whatever they associate with Him. [--> Accusation of shirk, effectively a form of idolatry] 32 They want to extinguish the light of Allah with their mouths [--> notice the accusation of ill intent6ion against the voice and light of God, which directly echoes the false accusation against missionaries above, as liars], but Allah refuses except to perfect His light, although the disbelievers dislike it. 33 It is He who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth to manifest it over all religion, although they who associate others with Allah dislike it. [--> this is in effect a promise of hegemony, in Islamic eyes]
__________ Enough for the moment. I trust this will provide some context. KF PS: I suggest that anyone adhering to conspiracy theories on 9/11 simply read the Wikipedia articles on the Sept 11 2001 attacks, including the one on how the attackers were identified, as a starter. If you are going to construct an alternative narrative, you had better come better than Wiki.kairosfocus_{February 1, 2013
February
02
Feb
1
01
2013
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT}

Joe again I encourage you to take StephenB up on his challenge if you are so confident Islam is correct. In my opinion, He is very clear and meticulous in his logic in all topics he broaches. He is about the best I've seen on Uncommon Descent,,,, If you are correct about Islam what have you to fear? But if you are wrong why would not want to know? As to this comment of yours: "Christian Missionaries all over the world with their lies and deception trying to win people over by enticing them with money and medicine." So healing sickness and relieving poverty are evil in Islam? That's a key difference between Islam and Christianity. In Christianity one tries his best to relieve suffering and to win converts through love (something I fall way short of): Ignorance Isn't Bliss: What Every College Student Should Know About Religion - Mary Poplin at Reed - video (Mother Teresa - miracle when the bombing stopped) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gUogbTKbVg&feature=player_detailpage#t=579s And in Islam, well in Islam suicide bombers go to heaven.bornagain77_{February 1, 2013
February
02
Feb
1
01
2013
04:14 AM
4
04
14
AM
PDT}

JoeMorreale1187- Most people have their minds made up about Islam and you ain't going to change it. For me it took a trip to the Mideast, along with long talks with Islamic Clerists, before I "got it". Just sayin'Joe_{February 1, 2013
February
02
Feb
1
01
2013
03:56 AM
3
03
56
AM
PDT}

G:
On another site (EvC forum), I was asked if I could estimate the number of ID proponents who are not creationists (i.e., who accept common descent).
Tell them it is irrelevant because universal common descent is unscientific- it can't be objectively tested. Tell them to stick to science, if they can. But knowing that ilk I know that they can't.Joe_{February 1, 2013
February
02
Feb
1
01
2013
03:53 AM
3
03
53
AM
PDT}

To get the correct picture of Islam and have all your misconceptions and distortions media propaganda style refer to the books I recommended . Good luck son.JoeMorreale1187_{February 1, 2013
February
02
Feb
1
01
2013
03:47 AM
3
03
47
AM
PDT}

Lying ? Christian Missionaries all over the world with their lies and deception trying to win people over by enticing them with money and medicine. No surprise there , how else can they be convinced of non sensical Trinitarian mysteries and a man God having to die for your sins even though none of humanity following Adam and Eve participated in anyway to their sin/ mistakes ?! Look I lied that i said it would be my last comment ! Big deal ah ? Game Over.JoeMorreale1187_{February 1, 2013
February
02
Feb
1
01
2013
03:43 AM
3
03
43
AM
PDT}

Joe, I certainly encourage to critically think through Islam more carefully. I'm certainly not persuaded in the least that you have made any coherent case for Islam. StephenB has offered to go through any questions you have in meticulous detail and he is, in my opinion, well equipped to answer any questions you have and to show you foundational flaws in Islamic logic. If you are a sincere seeker of truth you should take him up on his challenge so as to either prove yourself right or to see if you are wrong.bornagain77_{February 1, 2013
February
02
Feb
1
01
2013
03:30 AM
3
03
30
AM
PDT}

Joe you state in regards to personal experience of Christ: "After all Satan and his army of Jinn/ Demon spirits deceive many people." If you a so adverse to those who would deceive you then why are you not equally shocked that 'deceiving' allowed in Islam?
“Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N:i.e. when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory… it is religiously precautionary in all cases to employ words that give a misleading impression…[2] Reliance of the Traveler, p. 746 – 8.2 (Shaffi Fiqh) http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Lying_and_Deception_in_Islam#Muslims_scholars_and_companions_of_Muhammad_on_Taqiyyah
Deception as a weapon for proselytizing religion? Well this bible verse certainly comes to mind from what I can see of Islam so far, with it's suicide Bombers that go to heaven and rubber stamping lying...:
John 8:44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
bornagain77_{February 1, 2013
February
02
Feb
1
01
2013
03:15 AM
3
03
15
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77: My friend I already told you that I used to be a Christian and the answer and truth does lie in moving from Christian sect to another and relying on pychological and subjective experiences for After all Satan and his army of Jinn/ Demon spirits deceive many people. What you do is be more scientific and intellectual by letting the scriptures speak for themselves and then draw your conclusions and that is what led to me to Islam. In fact the Bible led me to Islam! That is why I highly the recommend to you the book by an ex atheist Dr Laurence Brown: 'The First and Final commandment ' which examines the Abrahamic scriptures and draws conclusion. This is the very last comment of mine regarding the subject so I will be ignoring your replies . I do not want to spoil the threads for anybody and want to stick to the topic titles . To be worthy of mercy and deserving of Allah's Guidance one must drop his emotional and cultural attachments , conveniences etc etc and be sincere and objective in seeking Him and the truth . May Allah guide you to the Religion of Submission and peace which all the Prophets/Messengers followed which is Islam.JoeMorreale1187_{February 1, 2013
February
02
Feb
1
01
2013
02:51 AM
2
02
51
AM
PDT}

JoeMorreale1187, I noticed earlier that you dismissed PeterJ's testimony as
"Interesting story but is subjective so let’s move on from the classic ‘have you felt Jesus / Holy Spirit in your life?’ Sayings shall we"
Yet to echo Dr. Hunter's post:
Give Jesus a chance.
Joe, from my perspective you have nothing to lose and everything to gain by asking Jesus to make Himself known to you personally. i.e. Give Jesus a chance!bornagain77_{February 1, 2013
February
02
Feb
1
01
2013
01:55 AM
1
01
55
AM
PDT}

Folks: I thought I should take up the focus at the head of this thread for a moment. As I do so, let me observe how CH definitely split his topic, raising and headlining the issue of scientific warrant and proper degree of certainty here, and then bridging elsewhere to a discussion that the priority spiritually is on sorting out ourselves. He is right to note that one can be a serious Christian and hold to common descent, up to and including universal common descent. For that matter, I understand that of the two generally acknowledged leading scientists in the design theory school of thought, one -- Behe -- believes in universal common descent, and the other -- Dembski -- has publicly stated here at UD that his view is a form of Old Earth Creationism, though he has not given any detailed particulars. And I suspect these two views take in a good slice of the adherents to design thought, through Young Earth Creationists, once they pull back from the debates over interpreting Gen 1 - 11, are also capable of looking through what we could call the Rom 1:19 - 20 lens. As to Genomicus' question, I doubt that you will find a reliable survey on the subject but you can take the fact that the leading two scientific advocates for design theory split as above, as an indicator. I think the general breakdown is that in the US, some 15% of pop is now deeply secularised, and of the remaining 85% a bit less than half are YEC, and a bit over half are believers in an origin guided by God across a timeline as suggested by the various investigations. The former, I think take their pivot on Job 38, which warns us that we ought not to darken God's counsel with words without knowledge, as we were not there when he laid the foundations of the world. Thus, they take their understanding of Gen 1 - 11 etc as a correct reading of the record by Him who was there, and hold that this should inform our science, even as respect for credible record is a part and parcel of general scientific investigations -- as close as your friendly local lab or fieldwork notebook and what derives therefrom. Where also, of course, of the maybe 45% who take an old earth view, there would be some disagreement on the ways that the world without and our minds and consciences within point to the one who designed and made the world and us in it, but that split is I suspect not yet the subject of a serious and valid survey; at least, that I am aware of. I would guess that in Europe and elsewhere, the views of Christians, whether scientists or not, would tend to more of the same side, with YEC a distinct minority, save in zones where there is strong influence from the US. Sorry that I cannot give more exact numbers, but that is about what I can see. (Maybe someone out there has better knowledge of surveys. Though we should not put such on a pedestal, as though they answer to all things. Sometimes what we need is to understand a bit on why people think as they do.) Now, too, this pattern reflects the fundamental point that the Judaeo-Christian worldview and theology are capable of understanding God as working through secondary causes of his design, in the wider context that the fundamental view is much as cited earlier from Heb 1 above. Where, this C1 work from the Pauline School (I tend to agree with Nash in The Gospel and the Greeks that the patterns best fit Apollos as author) is at once the most militantly Hebraic NT document, and also the one that most directly engages the sorts of Judaic-Greek philosophical speculations that seemed to have run rife in Alexandria and spread from there. Let us cite again, vv 1 - 4, with a different emphasis:
Heb 1:1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 3 He [= the Eternal Son, not a child of the sort spoken of in the silly pagan legends of the gods and pretty girls] is the radiance of the glory of God [--> "Light of Light" in the NC] and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins [--> a cleansing, i.e. the atonement], he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs. [ESV, note the Johannine echo from Jn 1:1 - 12]
Col 1:15 - 20 is very similar. Let me set it in context, for the benefit of those who that will help to understand where Christian Theology and the creeds that summarise it, are coming from:
Col 1:9 . . . from the day we heard [of the church in Colossae], we have not ceased to pray for you, asking that you may be filled with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, 10 so as to walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God. 11 May you be strengthened with all power, according to his glorious might, for all endurance and patience with joy, 12 giving thanks[d] to the Father, who has qualified you[e] to share in the inheritance of the saints in light. 13 He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. The Pre-eminence of Christ 15 He [= Christ --> the prophesied messiah, anointed of God in the OT] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent. 19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. [--> Notice how the theology of redemption is so closely connected tot both the launch and purpose of the church, and the underlying eternal Sonship and status as active agent of creation and holding together the cosmos. This dovetails with the Johannine view in Jn 1:1 - 12, in which the same is described as the LOGOS, reason and communication himself, without whom was not anything made that was made. This is a part of the context in which Christians expected a world ordered by intelligible Divine law, which is reflected in our Law of nature terminology. That in turn is a big part of the story of the rise of modern science as a self-sustaining project rooted in the practical outworking of that expectation. As in, thinking God's creative and self-sustaining thoughts after him, in the terms used by Boyle.] 21 And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind [--> Notice the allusion to worldviews hostile to the above picture, and the onward tie-in to responding to the gospel that pivots on the theology of the passion, death on the cross -- and yes, the NT explicitly states that he became a curse that we in exchange may take his blessing, and was raised up by God in vindication of his Sonship, raised up as Lord and eternal Judge before whom every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that he is Lord to the glory of the Father, a daring echo of Isa 45:18 - 23 and Dan 7:9 - 14 . . . ], doing evil deeds, 22 he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, 23 if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation[g] under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister. [ESV]
Remember, the pivotal warrant for this, is the prophesied death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, with 500 witnesses, unstoppable witnesses. From Ac 17, we may see that this is the offer of warrant that is put on the table by the Christian faith, announced as God's demonstration to all men, now manifest in resurrection power at work in the hearts of those who respond to the gospel. That is important to observe, as in a day when there is ever so much debate over origins, that is apt to be forgotten. I think that in part that is what CH sought to echo in his plea to put all of this in perspective. Now, let us zoom in on the "certainty" issue and the often encountered notion that the macroevolutionary, blind watchmaker thesis universal common descent by purposeless, unintelligent chance and mechanical necessity working through sheer raw differential reproductive success of varieties in ecological niches, is a "fact" on the level of the law of gravity or the roundness of the earth, etc. Some time back, I <a scooped a Wiki clip on that subject:
. . . When scientists say "evolution is a fact" they are using one of two meanings of the word "fact". One meaning is empirical, and when this is what scientists mean, then "evolution" is used to mean observed changes in allele frequencies or traits of a population over successive generations. Another way "fact" is used is to refer to a certain kind of theory, one that has been so powerful and productive for such a long time that it is universally accepted by scientists. When scientists say evolution is a fact in this sense, they mean it is a fact that all living organisms have descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool) [8] even though this cannot be directly observed. [["Evolution as theory and fact," coloured emphasis added. Acc: Aug. 7, 2010.]
Pardon, but with all due respect, this is rubbish, no true ~~scotsman~~ [scientist] rubbish. Rubbish that ignores and implicitly disqualifies those who disagree with the alleged universal consensus from the ranks of "true scientists," and which then goes on to make a gross category error. For, patently, the evolutionary, universal common descent explanatory model of the deep past of origins is a proffered explanation, not a directly observed fact. Job 38 is right in its key observation that we were not there in the past of origins, and so we do not know beyond possibility of correction. Where, even in cases of sciences that observe and infer explanatory models in the present, we have faced repeated scientific revolutions that have overturned the hitherto consensus view. Explanatory scientific knowledge claims are only capable of the weak form, inherently provisional degree of warrant, that so far this is the best explanation and it is per empirical resting, reliable. When it comes tot he blind watchmaker thesis evolutionary models, on objective facts, the degree of warrant that is possible is weaker still. When we deal with remote reaches of space and time, where we have no generally accepted record and where we can make no direct observation, we are forced to rely on a comparison of traces from the remote reaches with the more immediately observed causal processes we can see here and now, and their consequences and more or less characteristic signs. That is what Newton spoke of when he laid out his four rules of reasoning. So, we are in effect saying that we observe traces -- light from the sun and stars, rock minerals with radioactive elements a, b, c,a fossilised bone, a dinosaur bone that has not fossilised and has in it soft tissue and blood vessels with blood cells, etc. -- of the remote past of origins. On this, we have over time constructed a model timeline with various explanatory models, each with its own particular degree of warrant and of limitations. In that context, I would suggest that the sort of stellar lifetime model based on the Hertzprung- Russell plot of inferred absolute magnitude vs spectral patterns/ temperature gives us a "gold standard" for such models. We have known physics, we have a relationship of mass of a H-ball and the implied or at least plausible stellar life cycle, we have H-R plots of clusters that show branching off to the post-main sequence giants stage which is linked in the models to the lifespan so far, etc etc. This is multiplied by the overall cosmological model that has come to be known as the Big bang theory, rooted in turn in evidence of a cosmological expansion rooted in a stretching out of the very thinness of space itself, giving an estimate for the age of the cosmos timeline to date, of some 13.7 BY. Indeed, so impressive is the overall framework that in recent years, Vardimann and Russell Humphreys, noted YEC physicists, have worked on a model in which there is a 15 BY or so cosmos as a whole in which through a sort of time freeze effect we can have an earth of age about 10,000 or so years. (Yes, such a model can be constructed.) In that context,t he models advanced for origin of life and origin of body plans simply do not have anything near that level of empirical warrant on close comparison to observed processes tracing to known causal factors today. The origin of cell based life in some sort of plausible prebiotic stew and environment, pond, comet, moon of gas giant, etc, is simply not well grounded on evidence of spontaneous formation of a metabolic automaton with built in information based von Neumann self replicating mechanism, using complex information rich polymer nanomachines. The textbook illustrations and smooth words that give a different impression simply do not have good warrant. This means, there is no credible root for the blind watchmaker Darwinist tree of life, in a context where, no roots, no shoots or branches. the only known and observed cause of code-storing and executing machinery that shows functionally specific complex organisation and associated information, is design. Going beyond, there is no empirical observational basis of novel body plans originating by spontaneous blind chance and necessity processes. Yes, there have been textbooks that have tried to give the impression that reconstructed fossils on reconstructed timelines (that often run into various circularity problems as in the link above on timelines) are an observation of the "fact" of macroevolution, but this is grossly fallacious. (That BTW, is the root reason why over the past four months and counting, the 6,000 word darwinist challenge essay has sat without a satisfactory submission.) What, then, is driving the school of thought? Johnson has a sobering answer, one that needs to be heeded:
For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [[Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them "materialists employing science." And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." . . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [[Emphasis added.] [[The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]
We need to think again, very, very carefully indeed. Where, of course, the cosmological evidence points to such a multidimensional fine tuning, that we are left much as the noted astrophysicist and life long agnostic, Sir Fred Hoyle, put it long since:
The big problem in biology, as I see it, is to understand the origin of the information carried by the explicit structures of biomolecules. The issue isn't so much the rather crude fact that a protein consists of a chain of amino acids linked together in a certain way, but that the explicit ordering of the amino acids endows the chain with remarkable properties, which other orderings wouldn't give. The case of the enzymes is well known . . . If amino acids were linked at random, there would be a vast number of arrange-ments that would be useless in serving the pur-poses of a living cell. When you consider that a typical enzyme has a chain of perhaps 200 links and that there are 20 possibilities for each link,it's easy to see that the number of useless arrangements is enormous, more than the number of atoms in all the galaxies visible in the largest telescopes. This is for one enzyme, and there are upwards of 2000 of them, mainly serving very different purposes. So how did the situation get to where we find it to be? This is, as I see it, the biological problem - the information problem . . . . I was constantly plagued by the thought that the number of ways in which even a single enzyme could be wrongly constructed was greater than the number of all the atoms in the universe. So try as I would, I couldn't convince myself that even the whole universe would be sufficient to find life by random processes - by what are called the blind forces of nature . . . . By far the simplest way to arrive at the correct sequences of amino acids in the enzymes would be by thought, not by random processes . . . . Now imagine yourself as a superintellect working through possibilities in polymer chemistry. Would you not be astonished that polymers based on the carbon atom turned out in your calculations to have the remarkable properties of the enzymes and other biomolecules? Would you not be bowled over in surprise to find that a living cell was a feasible construct? Would you not say to yourself, in whatever language supercalculating intellects use: Some supercalculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. Of course you would, and if you were a sensible superintellect you would conclude that the carbon atom is a fix.
No wonder, in that same talk, Hoyle also added:
I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce within stars. [["The Universe: Past and Present Reflections." Engineering and Science, November, 1981. pp. 8–12]
There is a lot of food for thought in the substance of this thread. KFkairosfocus_{January 31, 2013
January
01
Jan
31
31
2013
11:42 PM
11
11
42
PM
PDT}

On another site (EvC forum), I was asked if I could estimate the number of ID proponents who are not creationists (i.e., who accept common descent). Any thoughts on that?Genomicus_{January 31, 2013
January
01
Jan
31
31
2013
08:33 PM
8
08
33
PM
PDT}

"Serendipitously" this was my Bible reading today: Galatians 4:21-31 Hagar and Sarah 21 Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23 His son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a divine promise. 24 These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written: “Be glad, barren woman, you who never bore a child; shout for joy and cry aloud, you who were never in labor; because more are the children of the desolate woman than of her who has a husband.”[a] 28 Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 At that time the son born according to the flesh persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. 30 But what does Scripture say? “Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman’s son.”[b] 31 Therefore, brothers and sisters, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman.bornagain77_{January 31, 2013
January
01
Jan
31
31
2013
05:42 PM
5
05
42
PM
PDT}

as to Islam's "obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory',,, Here is a better reference from no less than wikiislam:
"Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N:i.e. when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory... it is religiously precautionary in all cases to employ words that give a misleading impression...[2] Reliance of the Traveler, p. 746 - 8.2 (Shaffi Fiqh) http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Lying_and_Deception_in_Islam#Muslims_scholars_and_companions_of_Muhammad_on_Taqiyyah
bornagain77_{January 31, 2013
January
01
Jan
31
31
2013
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT}

Joe Morreale1187
what I will say about abrogation is that according to the Bible or the Christians interpretation of it is that virtually the whole of the New Testament due to Paul and not Jesus who clearly said He came to uphold and fulfil the Law abrogated the Old Testament!
My question persists. What is your position on the Islamic principle of abrogation as it is taught in the Koran? It has nothing at all to do with the relationship between the Christian's Old Testament and New Testament. I don't know why you would even bring up bible unless you are reacting defensively to my question. Just so that you will know, the moral law in the Old Testament was NOT abrogated, as is clear in Jesus' statement that He "came to fulfill the law, not to destroy it." St. Paul was not speaking of the moral law, a point I will be happy to explain and defend if you are interested.
I didn’t join these threads to incur hostility am engage in comparative religious debates which should be and are best done elsewhere.
The theme of this thread is tied to the relationship between evolutionary theory and the Christian faith. Dr. Hunter exhorted his listeners to "give Jesus a chance." I support his call and celebrate his right to extend it. In keeping with that theme, I made the following relevant comment:
Transformation in Christ is the only evolution that matters.
You responded by saying this:
As a Muslim I don’t agree with that but although in a different way to you I believe in Jesus Christ pbuh and the Muslim and Christian world combined make up half of the worlds population.
When you gratuitously introduced the topic of Islam, I assumed that you wanted to put that subject on the table since your faith in its teachings influenced your response to my comment. There are a great many threads on this site that deal with the unreasonableness of evolution and the reasonableness of design from a religiously neutral position. You avoided those venues and chose this venue with its religious theme, and it was in that context that you broached the subject of Islam. You rightly perceive my question to you as a challenge because your response to my comment was a challenge. The difference, though, is this: I can provide a rational defense for any Christian teaching you want to discuss. I don't think you can provide a rational defense for the Islamic teaching of abrogation.StephenB_{January 31, 2013
January
01
Jan
31
31
2013
04:35 PM
4
04
35
PM
PDT}

Now this is interesting: Besides encouraging murder, the Koran also encourages lying for the sake of furthering Islam: ,,,the Unholy Alliance - October 23, 2012 Excerpt: It is significant to note that lying about being a Muslim in a majority non-Muslim country is allowed under Islam.,,,, in Islam, lying for the purpose of jihad in Islam is also not only allowed, but an obligation to be proud of. One is even encouraged to blame the enemies of Islam for one’s lies. Sharia law states: “Lying is obligatory if the purpose is obligatory.” Muslim clerics have no problem lying not just to the non-Muslim world but even to the Muslim masses since Islam also allows Muslims to lie in order to bring Muslims together in harmony and friendship. http://frontpagemag.com/2012/nonie-darwish/obamas-allegiance-to-the-unholy-alliance/?utm_source=FrontPage+Magazine&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=f58c47bf21-Mailchimp_FrontPageMag As a Christian, and even as a human with basic moral precepts as to how humans should act towards his fellow humans, I consider it a self evident refutation for any supposed holy book of the world to encourage murder, violence, and even lying, against those who don't believe as you believe. To re-post a very informative video: The History Of Jihad Told In Detail by William Federer (Part1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3SWgMfbizQbornagain77_{January 31, 2013
January
01
Jan
31
31
2013
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT}

Over here in Europe islam is on the rise. The lights are going out all over Europe. Do NOT let this happen in the USA.Box_{January 31, 2013
January
01
Jan
31
31
2013
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT}

BA: I take your point. KFkairosfocus_{January 31, 2013
January
01
Jan
31
31
2013
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT}

KF, have you read the rest of Dr. Hunter's post?bornagain77_{January 31, 2013
January
01
Jan
31
31
2013
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT}

JM: I assure you, you are reading grossly out of context, and in light of an externally imposed frame of thought. I have already pointed you to the first chapter of the work in question, as a first corrective, so I will carry on no farther. It is high time that this thread returns to a serious focal issue from the OP which is well worth addressing in its own right. KFkairosfocus_{January 31, 2013
January
01
Jan
31
31
2013
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT}

KF, "What really matters" is this: "If you are an evolutionist, please do not peg yourself to atheism, pantheism, Gnosticism, or any other belief that rejects the truth and saving grace of Jesus Christ, merely because you are an evolutionist. There are a great many Christians who are evolutionists. You can be an evolutionist and a Christ follower. So do me one favor. Give Jesus a chance. You may think creationists are ignorant and evolution is compelling, but give Him a chance. Here’s a suggestion, read one of the gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John). Read a page a day and it will require only a month or two. It will make you more knowledgeable of what is, after all, the most influential book ever written. Shouldn’t you have some knowledge of what that book actually says? Don’t make more out of evolution than what it is. Jesus died for our sins and without Him we have no hope."bornagain77_{January 31, 2013
January
01
Jan
31
31
2013
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT}

KF, And you are going to get somewhere with Christianity with someone who buys into the 911 conspiracy theory just to save his Islamic faith from shame, how? You have more hope than I have that is for sure mon! :)bornagain77_{January 31, 2013
January
01
Jan
31
31
2013
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT}

F/N: After some 62 posts, let me remind all of the actual focal issue:
I believe there are big problems with evolution. But I could be wrong. Or perhaps I’m right but some form of evolution is nonetheless true. Evolutionists, on the other hand, are much more certain and there is a never-ending drum roll of high truth claims from their camp. These truth claims are unwarranted and it is them, rather than the theory itself, that are the problem. So I’m not so much concerned about the theory itself as I am about the certainty with which it is presented.
This is a question on scientific warrant, inductive logic and issues of rhetorical exaggeration and question begging. Kindly, let us address them. KFkairosfocus_{January 31, 2013
January
01
Jan
31
31
2013
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT}

KF: HEBREWS 5:7 is clear and whatever follows from that verse looks out of place and does not make sense . Btw the site you referred to has its response in AnsweringChristianity website I apologise for having played my part in derailing this thread but I am not the only one and I will try my best to stick to the topic of the titles from now on .JoeMorreale1187_{January 31, 2013
January
01
Jan
31
31
2013
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT}

PARDON, somehow posted by accident . . . ++++++++ ... taken up in the Nicene Creed:
Heb 1:1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 3 He [= the Eternal Son, not a child of the sort spoken of in the silly pagan legends of the gods and pretty girls] is the radiance of the glory of God [--> "Light of Light" in the NC] and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins [--> a cleansing, i.e. the atonement], he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs. 5 For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”? Or again, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”? 6 And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God's angels worship him.” 7 Of the angels he says, “He makes his angels winds, and his ministers a flame of fire.” 8 But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever, the sceptre of uprightness is the sceptre of your kingdom. 9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.” 10 And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands; 11 they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment, 12 like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed.[a] But you are the same, and your years will have no end.” 13 And to which of the angels has he ever said, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”? 14 Are they not all ministering spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation?
. . . and has as main theme, the Atoning work of Christ, in fulfillment of the explicit and implicit prophecies of the Hebrew Scriptures. In short, JM, you have not been given a true and fair view of the C1 teachings of the NT. Yes, these are radically different from the teachings of Islam, and they are astonishing by any measure, but we should address them on their own terms, not the imposed framework of another system. (That is explored in the already linked site if you wish to see why for crude instance we are not saying 1 + 1 + 1 = 1, nor are we saying that we elevate "partners" alongside the one true God, i.e. the accusation of shirk is wrong, and its context is wrong, inaccurate to the actual teachings.] I do not have polemical intent, just to provide a balance on a selective point, and to call for understanding the Christian faith on its own terms. Now, can we put this thread on track, to discuss the actual focal matters in the OP? KFkairosfocus_{January 31, 2013
January
01
Jan
31
31
2013
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT}

What Americans need to know about Islam - part 1 of 4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvoLg8KQmXsbornagain77_{January 31, 2013
January
01
Jan
31
31
2013
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT}

The History Of Jihad Told In Detail by William Federer (Part1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3SWgMfbizQbornagain77_{January 31, 2013
January
01
Jan
31
31
2013
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply