Scripture says "in His Name, the Gentiles will trust" - what will 'Evolutionist Gentiles' trust in Jesus?

[Skovand]

If you take the parts of a watch, put them in a bag and shake them, eventually you get a watch?

What then, if what you want is a calculator? Still going to shake a bag of watch parts?

"Let every man be a liar, but God be true" (letters, from memory). I even believe in adaptation, why you would want to mix the good (adaptation) with the bad (speciation), is beyond me?

No that’s not how you get a watch and how you get a watch is completely unrelated to biology.

No one is calling a god a liar. We are calling you a liar. We are saying your interpretation is wrong. That you don’t understand the Bible and understand science even less.

But Christians who accept science are not calling god a liar. Just people like you. But even don’t even actually think you are a liar. We think you just are ignorant of the facts.

If you wish to debate this I suggest the forums in Biologos founded by Francis Collins. A Christian who was also the lead scientist on the human genome project.

 

[Gottservant]

No that’s not how you get a watch and how you get a watch is completely unrelated to biology.

No one is calling a god a liar. We are calling you a liar. We are saying your interpretation is wrong. That you don’t understand the Bible and understand science even less.

But Christians who accept science are not calling god a liar. Just people like you. But even don’t even actually think you are a liar. We think you just are ignorant of the facts.

If you wish to debate this I suggest the forums in Biologos founded by Francis Collins. A Christian who was also the lead scientist on the human genome project.

I am layman, who has been told he's inherited sin from a monkey and that he should just mind his own business!

Don't make science a curse! You understand it, but you don't understand your own limitations - then you complain that someone who thinks about it clearly, doesn't understand you?

If you quoted me scripture, maybe "Yes" would be "Yes" and "No" would be "No", but you are ignorant because God wants you to be?

Don't get worked up, responding to me - this thread is for people who want to trust Evolution, but don't know how?

 

[Skovand]

I am layman, who has been told he's inherited sin from a monkey and that he should just mind his own business!

Don't make science a curse! You understand it, but you don't understand your own limitations - then you complain that someone who thinks about it clearly, doesn't understand you?

If you quoted me scripture, maybe "Yes" would be "Yes" and "No" would be "No", but you are ignorant because God wants you to be?

Don't get worked up, responding to me - this thread is for people who want to trust Evolution, but don't know how?

There is nothing to quote the Bible on when it comes to most things. The Bible has nothing to say about any scientific field, it has nothing to do with 99.999% of world history, nothing to do with math and so on.


I’m not worked up. Just used the same language. You quoted about people , like me, calling for a liar even though we don’t, and so I called you one.

I’m highlighting that evolution is a very strong field and that most people accept it and that just because someone does not interpret the Bible like you do does not mean they disagree with the Bible.

Disagreeing with the Bible is different from disagreeing with you. Not taking the Bible literally is not the same as disagreeing with the Bible.

 

[Gottservant]

There is nothing to quote the Bible on when it comes to most things. The Bible has nothing to say about any scientific field, it has nothing to do with 99.999% of world history, nothing to do with math and so on.


I’m not worked up. Just used the same language. You quoted about people , like me, calling for a liar even though we don’t, and so I called you one.

I’m highlighting that evolution is a very strong field and that most people accept it and that just because someone does not interpret the Bible like you do does not mean they disagree with the Bible.

Disagreeing with the Bible is different from disagreeing with you. Not taking the Bible literally is not the same as disagreeing with the Bible.

To be fair, I wasn't saying you were a liar, I was saying it is irrelevant if you are a liar (because God is true).

Secondly, I don't see that the Word of God is without power, that is, the power to inspire (I believe the word of God can inspire all kinds of science, for the most part).

Lastly, it seems to me that you are ready to see things in your relationship to God that are not there, that I am hoping that you are disagreeing with the Bible so that I can make my point: that is just divorced from reality.

What I said stands, if you have foundation in the word of God concerning Evolution, you would be saying "Yes" is "Yes" and "No" is "No", when instead you are saying "No" becomes "Yes" and "Yes" becomes "No". You can understand why I would be skeptical, that what you say means what you say it does?

 

[Gottservant]

I have worked out what it is that Gentile Evolutionists will trust (!): GE's will trust that the word of God is not going to drive them "mad".

Different aspects of Evolution drive you mad, but the Bible does not.

It will be the sanity of our response to Evolution, in the Holy Spirit, that encourages GE's to have faith!

 

[Gottservant]

Further to the Holy Spirit's discovery in me: if you study going distances and someone shows you the verse "go the extra mile", that verse does not clash with your understanding distances, it enhances it.

The same can be said of science and the word of God. The versatility of the word of God, is a deliverer, not an ensnarer.

If then you are confident the word of God will not drive you mad, other verses in the word of God are infinitely more trustworthy.

 

[Skovand]

So “foundation in scripture” concerning science means nothing. It’s just your concordistic lens trying to force scientific discussion into a theological book. It always fails when you try to do that. The Bible contains almost nothing scientific and when it does, it’s usually based off of ancient Jewish cosmological concepts , such as a flat earth, which is simply not true.

Trying to force science into the Bible is like trying to reframe a mathematical equation using scripture or trying to use the Bible to guide rocket science to fly a ship into space. It’s simply not there and a misuse and misunderstanding of the Bible.

Or it’s like trying to develop systematics for the fossil record within our superimposed geological layers. When we look at the fossil record we see a few things that are very consistent.

1. Clearly defined ways to interpret decay rates of radionuclides.
2. Clearly defined superimposed geological strata.
3. Basal forms developing divergent traits resulting in speciation.
4. Genetic tree of life aligning with speciation through adaptive radiation. Mutations within the genome.


None of that conflicts with the story of Noah because contextualization shows us that the genre of that story is not historical.

 

[Gottservant]

Buddy, I am saying insanity can be increased (with judicious use of the words you speak) and you are saying "that has nothing to do with my subject!" - if you have a subject at all, it is because you have used your mind!

Unless something is moral, it can't be true. Removing morality from science, is blasphemy.

It's not wrong to blaspheme, if you reduce your pretensions to truth - at this stage, I think that is what is required of you?

 

[Skovand]

Buddy, I am saying insanity can be increased (with judicious use of the words you speak) and you are saying "that has nothing to do with my subject!" - if you have a subject at all, it is because you have used your mind!

Unless something is moral, it can't be true. Removing morality from science, is blasphemy.

It's not wrong to blaspheme, if you reduce your pretensions to truth - at this stage, I think that is what is required of you?

I think you are just rambling and moving the goal post. For example, who said anything about removing morality or ethics from science.

Morality is not a filter for truth. There is no morality involved in saying that 1.999…+1.999…=2+2. There is no morality involved in saying humans are primates.

My point is nothing more than correcting the statements you were making.

As for words I’m using, I’m using 10th grade skill level language for science. But if someone does not know what it means, it means they probably don’t have a good grasp on the new modern synthesis snuck includes the theory of evolution and if they don’t have a good grasp on it, then maybe they don’t know what they are talking about.

 

[Gottservant]

[...]

Morality is not a filter for truth. There is no morality involved in saying that 1.999…+1.999…=2+2. There is no morality involved in saying humans are primates.

[...]

Morality may not discover the truth, but it obliges you to share it, if it will help someone else.

Imagine saying "morality obliges me to discover something about your past; when I look at you, I see a partial monkey"?

Dying to yourself, sharing with others, believing in a higher power, all stem from a moral treatment of what you believe - saying "I believe in the science" doesn't cut it?

 

[Skovand]

Morality may not discover the truth, but it obliges you to share it, if it will help someone else.

Imagine saying "morality obliges me to discover something about your past; when I look at you, I see a partial monkey"?

Dying to yourself, sharing with others, believing in a higher power, all stem from a moral treatment of what you believe - saying "I believe in the science" doesn't cut it?

I don’t believe in science. I accept science. Science requires no faith on my end. It requires me to look at thousands of facts involved in a theory and then I can accept it or reject it and counter it. There is no scientific evidence known right now that contradicts the new modern synthesis which includes the theory of evolution, genetics and epigenetic sciences. It’s supported by chemistry, paleontology, geology and so on. It’s just as solid as the theory of gravity if not more so due to all the biological facts involved.

My statement , which was a response to your state, about morality is that your morality, what you think is right or wrong, has nothing to do with scientific facts. How you gather facts, and how you use the facts , such as making weapons because of scientific breakthroughs overlaps with ethics, but botanizing and keying out an oak….. has nothing to do with morality.

When it comes to science…. Saying I disagree because god and this verse…. That’s not science. That’s religious arguments. Science is not involved in things like baptism, the trinity, angels, and the supernaturals overall.

 

[Skovand]

So I choose to believe in God because of faith. There is no scientific evidence for God but I choose to believe. Same for Jesus resurrecting from the dead and angels. All things I accept by faith, despite having no real evidence for and the Bible is simply not a book of concrete evidence.

So I can’t say because there is no evidence for god that it means they don’t exist. I can say, I have no reason to believe in god because there is no evidence they exist. Or I can say I choose to believe in god despite there being no evidence they exist. I can say that I believe in God and that I also accept science and that my interpretation of the Bible is not the same as your interpretation of the Bible. The way you believe in God and the Bible does not define my faith in God and it definitely does not define my acceptance and understanding of science.

 

[Gottservant]

[...]

My statement , which was a response to your state, about morality is that your morality, what you think is right or wrong, has nothing to do with scientific facts. How you gather facts, and how you use the facts , such as making weapons because of scientific breakthroughs overlaps with ethics, but botanizing and keying out an oak….. has nothing to do with morality.

You're just saying that because believing something that is difficult to believe, is easier when you question it less?

When it comes to science…. Saying I disagree because god and this verse…. That’s not science. That’s religious arguments. Science is not involved in things like baptism, the trinity, angels, and the supernaturals overall.

Gravity is not moral, until you land so hard it kills you?

"Oh well, yes, then I would like to know about the right amount of gravity!"?

 

[Skovand]

S

You're just saying that because believing something that is difficult to believe, is easier when you question it less?

Gravity is not moral, until you land so hard it kills you?

"Oh well, yes, then I would like to know about the right amount of gravity!"?

See. Now we are back to just rambling nonsense. Feel free to continue. For me this thread is one that I feel has come to an end.

 

[Gottservant]

I haven't got time for adaptations, that Evolutionists say might be relevant?

Secondly, there are things I am yet to do, that have nothing to do with Evolution?

Back to the topic at hand: I wonder if Evolutionists will reject help, if they know it is coming from God?

 

[Gottservant]

I'm not sure that Evolutionist Gentiles will take this as something to trust in, but I have confidence that the Evolution that pursues me in Heaven, will be destroyed.

There is such a thing as false knowledge and erroneous use of knowledge, that I think will be testament against the "Evolution" of many - I am not the judge, but I can prepare for the Judge to judge for me.

I basically came to this conclusion (that Evolution could be destroyed) by putting my trust in Jesus - once I acknowledged Him as first to be offered adaptation, I ceased to struggle with what adaptation meant (so praise to Jesus!)

 

[Gottservant]

What I would like is a way to argue that Evolutionist Gentiles ought to love themselves less - that would be a great boon, to me!

 

[Gottservant]

The thing that annoys me, is that Evolution presents a linear timeline, for speciation (things adapting) - one thing turns into another on a linear timeline. The reality is that creatures join in "union" and a fetus develops in tangent to that union, so that there is not one direction, but three: in honour of the parents (which is one thing), in difference to the parents (which is a choice of two things). Can you see that parents do not line their offspring up, to make a linear transition? Can you see that the parents add the child to the group, which is at least three things?

Children do not simply try to be a better version of their parents, that is a lie.

 

[Gottservant]

Something interesting for you to consider: the World does not acknowledge the power of God, even as regards their own theory. They could point out that God deserves more and more radical praise, as a species mutates - but they reject that they should have "peace with God" over our Evolution.

This rejection of the importance of God to any theory, has two consequences: one, misinterpreting their theory is seen as normal; and two, the choice their theories would give them (even two choices) are lost in translation. This is disappointing (especially because they largely cannot be argued with).

So the issue of trust, is actually a big one: only Christ can ensure that their theories have a relevance before God; only the Love of Christ can extend their belief in themselves, beyond the restraint of God's Judgment; the message of the Holy Spirit who comes to correct the World, falls on deaf ears.

My understanding is that we need to pray about these things, the way we are supposed to pray about everything: that we be able to escape the things that are to come to pass and to stand before the Son of Man (Luke 21:36 ?).

 

[Hobie]

Hi there,

So "Evolution" has become a sort of black box to me - I don't really know what to say to something that is essentially an unpredictable double pendulum; it neither recognises male and female, nor does it predict survivability, for example. But I started to draw on scripture and think "maybe the answer doesn't have to come from me"; as in, I started to think, maybe there is structure in the Bible, that can serve as an answer, to Evolution: that will be far better than anything I could dream up.

One particular scripture, says "in His Name, the Gentiles will trust". I can lay hold of that, as a promise, specifically for "Evolutionist Gentiles" - there will be something that Evolutionists trust of Jesus, that they won't trust anyone else for (I don't know what it is, but it will be something!). For one thing, they can't complain that Jesus is not a "species", because we have the faith (the "Christian" faith); for another thing, it must be said that His Lineage was a Perfect Lineage. Surely that counts for something!

There is a possibility that the answer, to Jesus' contribution to the Gentile gene pool,, will be simply cold - because Jesus doesn't count that love will necessarily survive all that is hurled at it. In other words, people may just prefer "lawlessness" over any "Christian" answer that requires hard work (basically!). I don't even really know what to guess, myself: is it Jesus living or dead, that makes the difference? Is it a warning or a blessing, that Jesus hung on that cross? These are not necessarily important questions (more-so than any other is important) but they are constructive questions - questions that reveal something about the person answering them.

So I am sort of fielding this here, so that you can pick at it and maybe give me some pointers or suggestions,, as to what angle I should take, if at all: is there a better scripture? is the approach blunt enough, to be inclusive but also constructive? You can see from this that I am taking it seriously - one of the insults made against me is that I am not really attempting to learn "Evolution" - but I just wonder if maybe I am trying to use a shield of faith meant for standing opponents (you know in the sense that they say "you can't take it lying down").

Thanks for your help.

Well, as any Gentile or Jew for that matter who turns from God to science to leave Him out, the result will be the same..