William Lane Craig Is Better Off Citing Matt 13:10-15

LysanderShapiro said:
I'd like to go on record and say the anti-fundamentalist rhetoric is getting old. They don't deserve it. If anti-Catholic statements were being said, I'd certainly appreciate fundamentalists standing up for us. I think perhaps it's time we cut the bigoted remarks.

I'm not trying to sandbag you, RiverJordan, but it seems every other comment you leave is degrading our fundamentalist friends here.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind, "fundamentalist" isn't a pejorative. It's just a name for conservative types of Christianity. But I do note your observation and I will refrain from making jokes or comments using that term.

And let's also note that there's only one side of the discussions here that's having their faith questioned and being suggested as being in league with Satan.
 
Jeremiah7:29 said:
Your bubble is impenetrable which is not only sad but deeply disturbing. RiverJordan so eloquently pointed out the flaws in your reasoning. It's so condescending when you somehow insinuate you have superior reading comprehension skills than everyone else.
Click to expand...
Note the difference in approach. You and I say things like "I just don't read that the same way you do", or "I have a different opinion on that". The other approach is "You reject scripture" followed by constant questioning of that person's faith.

The latter mindset is simply not tolerant of differences in opinion, and expresses that in a very authoritarian, accusatory manner.

This is the self serving, transparent, delusional apologetic reasoning that not only mortifies rational believers defending the faith, but is detrimental to our greatest commandment to spread the Gospel throughout the world. Christians are increasingly being demonized as cretins and even being identified as hate groups because of these literalist positions. When your argument only serves to drive away seekers and believers, I can't help but to go back to Matthew 25:31-46 and ask you which lot you think you'll be cast, the goats or the sheep?
Click to expand...
I agree with what you say, but it won't have any impact on the people you're targeting. When I made this observation about young people leaving the faith en masse, one response was to basically let them go because they were never Christians anyways. That's such a cold, angry mindset....I just can't relate to it at all. But I'm pretty darned sure that mindset isn't open to what you have to say.

I'm done with this thread & forum as well. I find myself getting out of the character of a Christian. We all have our opinions & I admit I have incited some heated responses & for that I apologize.
Click to expand...
That's too bad, because all you've done to "incite" anything is express a non-fundamentalist viewpoint. Don't take the angry, aggressive, and accusatory reactions as an indication that you've done something wrong.
 
RiverJordan said:
Keep in mind, "fundamentalist" isn't a pejorative. It's just a name for conservative types of Christianity. But I do note your observation and I will refrain from making jokes or comments using that term.

And let's also note that there's only one side of the discussions here that's having their faith questioned and being suggested as being in league with Satan.
Click to expand...

It's not a matter of the term. Like you said, the term is not pejorative. In all honesty, I subscribe to the same notion that the first 11 chapters in Genesis needn't be taken literally. In fact, the Catechism in paragraph 337 suggests that the wording of this part of the Bible was written symbolically.

People of course are free to agree or disagree with this, and it's not even an official position the Church holds.

But the point is--and I'm not saying you're the only one--but we're definitely not here to single out a group intending to smear them in some way. The conversation should be had, and if your ultimate disconnection is with Fundamentalists, that's not a problem. Nevertheless, there's a way to do it and a way not to do it. Looking from the outside in, it seems a line is subtly being crossed.

It's not about being politically correct or using proper terms -- it's just a matter of respect for them, and they should likewise be respectful to you.
 
no_one said:
If you didn’t understand anything from what KingJ said, then there’s you not understanding anything from what KingJ said. But then, why would you Jeremiah7:29 even bother to ask for comments that you’re not willing to consider?
Click to expand...
Sorry, but that doesn't make sense.

So let’s see you claiming once again that you believe in God. I really want to see that.
Click to expand...
Wait....what? You're questioning whether I believe in God? Seriously?

As far as the rest of what you posted about the OT accounts, I'll just note that you, in the name of Christianity, are justifying genocide, the murder of children, sexual slavery, and slavery. That speaks for itself and there's nothing else I need to add.

Let’s say that God indeed commanded slavery and whatever else you want Him to have commanded. Then answer me this: why do you believe in God?

And if you instead answer that you believe in Jesus, let me inform you, one more time, that the God of the New testament is exactly the God of the Old Testament. And if you throw away the OT, then you have no reason, literally no reason at all, to believe in Jesus.

Now, is that any clearer for you?
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, it's very clear to me. As has been the case since I first encountered you, you continue to show a complete inability to think in anything other than black/white terms.

Finally, on your genetics material...well, that's right up my alley. So let's walk through the material you posted and see if they say what you claim...

The very concept of pseudogenes was disproved - by evolutionists themselves…

For example:
http://genomebiology.com/2012/13/11/R102
Click to expand...
Can you please explain how that paper "disproved pseudogenes"?
 
River, it’s obvious to me that whatever I say you will keep ignoring it. Look at all the things I’ve said, and how much of all that went unreplied by you. In all threads.

So for me to bother anymore is obviously pointless.

And that’s truly ironic, since you accuse me of ignoring your arguments for evolution. And yes, if you don’t have a universal, unchanging definition for “species”, then there’s no evolution to talk about. By that single fact alone.

As for the link, it’s yet again funny that you chose the one that doesn’t say things plainly, in everybody’s language, instead of the other that does say things directly: “Pseudogenes are not pseudo any more”.

But even the paper in that link is discussed on sites including, ironically, Ross’. So if you truly think you’re right, discuss it with them. Didn’t you claim you want to be the one disproving evolution?

And no, I didn’t accuse you of not believing in God. Once again you see what you want to see, instead of seeing what I actually write. I only said I would like you to see how you claim to believe in God if you accuse Him of “genocide, the murder of children, sexual slavery, and slavery”.
 
no_one said:
River, it’s obvious to me that whatever I say you will keep ignoring it. Look at all the things I’ve said, and how much of all that went unreplied by you. In all threads.
Click to expand...
I try and focus on the main points you raise and major themes. I do skip over the insulting and condescending parts of your posts, as well as the parts that are little more than "you're wrong". However, if you feel I've skipped something of yours that is important, post it again and I promise I'll address it.

And yes, if you don’t have a universal, unchanging definition for “species”, then there’s no evolution to talk about. By that single fact alone.
Click to expand...
Ok then, I suppose that's your opinion.

As for the link, it’s yet again funny that you chose the one that doesn’t say things plainly, in everybody’s language, instead of the other that does say things directly: “Pseudogenes are not pseudo any more”.
Click to expand...
Um....I started with the first one you posted. Why wouldn't I start there?

But even the paper in that link is discussed on sites including, ironically, Ross’. So if you truly think you’re right, discuss it with them. Didn’t you claim you want to be the one disproving evolution?
Click to expand...
There's nothing in that paper that disproves evolution....at all....not even close. Again, please explain where in the paper it does that. You linked to it, so I'm sure you've read it, fully understand it, and can discuss it in-depth, right?

And no, I didn’t accuse you of not believing in God.
Click to expand...
Then why would you say to me, "let’s see you claiming once again that you believe in God" if not to question whether I believe in God?

I only said I would like you to see how you claim to believe in God if you accuse Him of “genocide, the murder of children, sexual slavery, and slavery”.
Click to expand...
But I didn't accuse God of those things.
 
RiverJordan said:
I agree with what you say, but it won't have any impact on the people you're targeting. When I made this observation about young people leaving the faith en masse, one response was to basically let them go because they were never Christians anyways. That's such a cold, angry mindset....I just can't relate to it at all. But I'm pretty darned sure that mindset isn't open to what you have to say.
Click to expand...

I do believe we can reach these cynical people. Atheists run into a road block when someone close to them is sick & all they can say is I hope you feel better? Prayer is embedded in our DNA & I think when the presentation is palatable we can activate that faith in the Unbelievers.

I do think leaving here seems appropriate because it appears this is a Christian Conservative Forum along the ideologies of Charisma News and World Net Daily. Anyone discouraged from the literalist positions of theses posts should know there is another movement going on in the body of Christ.

Here are some Christian Progressive links that run contrary to the positions supported in this thread.

http://sojo.net

http://progressivechristianity.org

http://progressivechristianity.org/blogs-we-love/

http://www.redletterchristians.org
 
Jeremiah7:29 said:
I do believe we can reach these cynical people.
Click to expand...

You know, we had this discussion about a month or so ago (I believe the thread was called Science and Christianity which I started). I gave a defense for the William Lane Craig/Theistic Evolutionist's side, and some people chose to reject it. And that's fine.

You would agree with me (I hope) that evolution, nor the Big Bang theory, nor the like are necessary in accepting for Christian doctrine, and folks can dismiss it if they want.

If you're only trying to give a defense and explain your position on it, then more power to ya'. If it is an attempt to change their minds, then you'll be like a snow storm on the North Pole -- a lot of activity but little to no effect.

FeelCryingInBed.jpg
 
LysanderShapiro said:
You know, we had this discussion about a month or so ago (I believe the thread was called Science and Christianity which I started). I gave a defense for the William Lane Craig/Theistic Evolutionist's side, and some people chose to reject it. And that's fine.

You would agree with me (I hope) that evolution, nor the Big Bang theory, nor the like are necessary in accepting for Christian doctrine, and folks can dismiss it if they want.

If you're only trying to give a defense and explain your position on it, then more power to ya'. If it is an attempt to change their minds, then you'll be like a snow storm on the North Pole -- a lot of activity but little to no effect.

View attachment 768
Click to expand...

When I was referring to cynical people I was referring to the Atheists mentioned in RiverJordan's post. I was not referring to anyone on this thread. Sorry about the confusion.


Here are some better resources for progressive christianity & will also clear up any confusion as to where I'm coming from.
Jeremiah7:29 said:
http://sojo.net

http://progressivechristianity.org

http://progressivechristianity.org/blogs-we-love/

http://www.redletterchristians.org
Click to expand...
 
Jeremiah,

Don't confuse the "loudness" of a group of members with numbers. This place will become a "conservative Christians only forum" if people like you leave.
 
Jeremiah7:29 said:
Here your answer from the Left
http://www.alternet.org/belief/5-christian-right-delusions-and-lies-about-history

http://www.alternet.org/belief/10-things-traditional-christians-got-terribly-wrong

http://www.alternet.org/belief/4-reasons-right-wing-christians-salivate-end-times
Click to expand...


I'm not convinced I fit into any of these categories. I don't have a problem with evolution, nor the Big Bang, nor do I believe the forefathers were Christians (though they seemed to claim themselves as deists), nor anything like that. But I wouldn't consider myself a Liberal Christian either--actually, I'd say I'm far from that too. I think abortion on all accounts is evil, I believe the scriptures are infallibly true (though not exclusively the scriptures), etc. etc.

I don't think there is a "this" or "that" sort of Christian to be frank. But I do think there is an objective truth regarding Christianity.
 
Last edited:
LysanderShapiro said:
I'm not convinced I fit into any of these categories. I don't have a problem with evolution, nor the Big Bang, nor do I believe the forefathers were Christians (though they seemed to claim themselves as deists), nor anything like that. But I wouldn't consider myself a Liberal Christian either--actually, I'd say I'm far from that too. I think abortion on all accounts is evil, I believe the scriptures are infallibly true (though not exclusively the scriptures), etc. etc.

I don't think there is a "this" or "that" sort of Christian to be frank. But I do think there is an objective truth regarding Christianity.
Click to expand...

Valid point because I regard Pope Francis as a Progressive christian & I believe he adheres to those beliefs as well.
 
Jeremiah7:29 said:
Valid point because I regard Pope Francis as a Progressive christian & I believe he adheres to those beliefs as well.
Click to expand...

Indeed, he is sometimes noted as a Progressive Christian, but oddly enough, his statements and teachings in alignment with the scriptures aren't any different from Benedict XVI or PJ II or even Pius XII. He's certainly more extroverted and Benedict, but he's no more progressive or conservative than he was as pope. In fact, Francis loved Benedict's recent encycle so much that most of it was included for the Lumen Fidei encycle.
 
LysanderShapiro said:
What defines a Conservative Christian?
Click to expand...
Labels like that are hardly set in stone with clear, universal criteria. For example, a "conservative Christian" in Europe would probably be called a "liberal Christian" in the US. Even within the US, a "conservative Christian" in the northeast might be called a "liberal Christian" in the deep south.

But I think some things, such as young-earth creationism and geocentrism, automatically put one in the conservative Christian category no matter the geography.
 
Technically, "Conservative Christian" and "Liberal Christian" can refer to a few different things. You can be a Conservative "Christian", or you can believe in a doctrine that makes Christianity Conservative. It's either political or it is not. From the political side, either your version of Christianity affects your political views, or you political views affect your Christianity.

But really, the term "conservative/liberal" Christian traditionally used to refer to your views on who can be saved. Either you believe few can be saved (conservative), or that many can be saved (liberal). Calvinism tended to be very conservative because of the "L" in "TULIP". Since the terms have been thrown around so much politically, the lines seem to have become very, very blurred. So in modern times, it seems that the terms are either misused or have changed to match more political definitions.
 
I understand that many of the things in the bible are hard to reconcile. But how can you reconcile answered prayers with emperical thinking? Though I cannot tell you how my electric lamp works from the millions of processes it takes to bring the power to my house, I know that when I flip the switch it turns on most of the time. The same is with Prayer. Just because I cannot explain how a power plant works does not mean it doesn't exist. Nor can my reasoning explain the miracles I've seen from my answered Prayers. There are going to be objects in the universe that will be beyond the reach of our faculty of reason.

I'm sometimes bemused by the discussion about the nature of how galaxys rotate as they do. There are people that believe that a substance that cannot be seen, heard, tasted, or touched is behind it all but deny the whole idea of God because you can't see him.

Anyway I'm not a brilliant theologan or thinker. I just thought I'd share some of my thoughts here about the workings of God. Who can say they understand God's actions. It is the results I'm concerned with. I just don't care how air bearings are lubricated in a high pressure steam turbine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top