The man who helped to develop this website, I believe is Tim Keller who says that sin is not the performance of bad things alone, but is more often the doing neutral or even “good” things that are done to bring honor and glory to those other than the God who made them. This is of course a paraphrase of what he says on the subject and you can find in his book, Reason for God. What this means is that if Mother Teresa was feeding the poor and doing so either because she was trying to win God’s approval or because she was attempting to make up for the guilt she had in her heart over a previous sin, then her actions of feeding the poor are not considered righteous before God. Do you agree with this?
Look at Jesus sermon on the mount in Mt chapters 5 through 7…Jesus says if you pray, close the door so no one can see in order to assure you are praying to God and not putting on an act…if you fast, hide the fact you are doing so, so as to not get positive attention from people…but instead to find the pleasure of giving glory to the God of the universe! This theme is over and over again in Scriptures and from this is only makes sense of the gospel of the cross that says that in and of yourself and myself, we are incapable to please the living God who created us for the sake of our salvation. The righteous deeds we attempt before a perfect God are spotted with imperfection and selfish motive and for this, this God who stands alone and who does not need us, loves us so much that He gave His only Son to die a death that only we deserved. Do you believe this? I do…most days when I awake, I find such joy knowing that I don’t need to perform for God to appease Him, but I find satisfaction that I am a son of His by His grace alone and at the same time revere Him because even as He is our Father, He is also holy, righteous and outstanding beyond measure.
As a side note, the baseball game last night…I noticed that Pete Rose was on one of the panels… As a Cincinnatian myself, he was indeed my boyhood idol and yet he is banned from baseball. All he did was place a couple of bets on baseball…wasn’t that big of a deal was it? Why banned? -others have had seeming worse sins and are still in the game. The reason is because betting on baseball potentially causes the game to be throne for the sake of winning the bet. It ruins the game for everyone. It is just a game too. I personally find it ironic that Obama is inviting the Cubs to the White house sometime-maybe to detract us from what is going on with Hillary. We should instead be looking at the rules about betting on baseball, a game- as an example of how to play running the country which is not a game…And we should wonder why Americans are not absolutely up in arms over republicans and democrats alike who get paid to play politics all the while our country where wife, myself and three young children are hoping to survive when our county suffers with a 20 trillion dollar debt and yet we are still entertaining more spending that give the politician’s uncle Jim an opportunity or cousin larry a contract which trickles into the related politicians’ pocketbook. God help us and I mean for real!
I am always amazed when people limit what God can do. It wouldn’t be a problem for my God to guide every step in the evolution process to produce the outcome that He desires.
Your description of the process of going from reptile to bird isn’t correct so I don’t understand how you can think it violates evolutionary logic (whatever that is).
In this detailed discussion, Tomas points out that any objectification (or analysis) of God ends up taking us to idolatry. This is an excellent quote:
God cannot be the object of love because God is not an object; objective perception of God leads to idolatry. I cannot love God in the same way that I love another human being, my city, my parish or my work. God is not in front of me, just as light is not in front of me: I cannot see light, I can only see things in light. Likewise I cannot see and visualise God. Even faith does not “show” him (“No one has ever seen God,” the Bible declares resolutely). With faith all I can do is “see” the world “in God”.
I agree wholeheartedly, my brother. Thanks for sharing that beautiful reflection.
So you must agree that it is possible for even a godly scholar to misinterpret a passage of Scripture–and thus we should be careful about confusing our interpretation of Scripture with what it actually means. Yes?
As previously mentioned, the passages John Calvin was exegeting were Psalm 93:1 and Psalm 104:5.
Greg, do you apply this judgment to your Christian brothers and sisters who are paleontologists, biologists, astronomers, and geologists?
Do you happen to know any Christian professional scientists, Greg? Have you ever talked with them about their research, and how they deal with questions of faith and science?
I’m still curious about your opinion on this question, my brother Greg.
Paleontologists have actually studied the evolution of winged flight, and their conclusions are nothing like what you describe here, Greg. If you are curious about what the scientists have discovered, instead of speculating, you could actually look it up, or ask someone here on the forum. Are you curious? Do you want someone to provide you with a link?
That is an excellent book, Greg. What did you think of his chapter six (“Science Has Disproved Christianity”)? In that chapter he deals quite extensively with the question of how a believer can work with science (and scientists) while remaining faithful to God. Keller even addressed the question of how a Christian can think about the theory of evolution. Do you remember Keller’s opinion, Greg? What do you think of his ideas on the question?
Greg, I am totally amazed that the two of us, using our human minds that were created (by whatever means) to serve human needs, could arrive at such different World Views!! [quote=“grog, post:44, topic:5941”]
What this means is that if Mother Teresa was feeding the poor and doing so either because she was trying to win God’s approval or because she was attempting to make up for the guilt she had in her heart over a previous sin, then her actions of feeding the poor are not considered righteous before God. Do you agree with this?
[/quote]
The quick answer is NO! But more importantly, I do not presume to judge a person as you evidently do. The Catholic church saw fit to grant her sainthood, and could amass considerable evidence of the good works she did in providing solace to the indigents dying in the streets of Kolkata. (Feeding the poor was not her main calling.) But can anyone say for sure who is righteous before God? I think not.
This case is of special interest to me, because as Mother Teresa was being considered for sainthood, a group of Indian postdocs (working like I was in Prof. Hansch’s CADD research) invited my wife and I to dinner and this matter came up. I was rather taken aback when the menfolk took the position you hint at: M.T. did this just to get publicity, and it paid off, earning her the Nobel Prize and generous donations. The Indian wives were more considerate, granting M.T. good marks for compassion and success in shaming the Indian government in taking better care of the homeless and dying in their streets. So I am aware of the basis for your argument, Greg. But still, be careful: “Judge not, lest ye be judged”.
As you have phrased it, No, I do not believe it. The love referred to MUST be reciprocal and freely given. In my Worldview, nothing in the entire created Universe could offer God this kind of love until humankind appeared and was gifted with a conscience and free will. No other creature was aware of a Creator-God worthy of adoration. I don’t know if it is proper to state that God needs our adoration, but I believe it pleases Him. So I can agree with your following quote:
**[quote=“grog, post:44, topic:5941”]
I find such joy knowing that I don’t need to perform for God to appease Him, but I find satisfaction that I am a son of His by His grace alone and at the same time revere Him because even as He is our Father, He is also holy, righteous and outstanding beyond
measure.
Greg, surely you jest!!! Could you really bring yourself to spout this ridiculous parody of the way science sees evolution? To someone looking for enlightenment? You have had the opportunity on this Forum to learn the actual way science views evolutionary change, and so you have no excuse for constructing and transmitting this caricature of evolutionary science. Be careful that you, yourself, do not become one of the false prophets that you so abhor.
hopefully,
Al Leo
Wing stub? Are you thinking of dragons perhaps? I can give you several really good and interesting resources that explain the theropod dinosaur to bird transition.
First we have a short film from Biointeractive: Great Transitions: The Origin of Birds.
(Biointeractive has several videos on the “great transitions” and lots more, so be sure to subscribe to their YouTube channel and like their Facebook page)
Next, we have Dinosaurs Among Us, which is a special exhibition currently at the American Museum of Natural History in Manhattan. It was beautiful! Even if you can’t visit, you’ll find plenty of good information on the web site, as well as a very beautiful and creative introductory film.
In extant animals…you mean through the fossil record where impossible to see detail of soft tissue? Maybe you can help me with understanding. I have read many articles with the naturalistic perspective of eye development and am utterly unconvinced that that an eye can develop through chance…I believe that the development of wing example is even a better example because displays how evolution disproves evolution when we have to conclude that wing stubs are very unhelpful for survival where reptiles without them are more able to survive. Circularly illogical.
Anyway, please share with me any solid research you know about in reference to intermediate stages of the development of the eye in record of extant species. With this research, perhaps share with me the possible explanations for these too…eg these could be representations of more simple creatures with the inbuilt design within the creature to develop more complexity in order for survival vs by chance evolution from single cells to incredible complexity as we see it. Would you agree that both options are possible in mankind’s limited reasoning explaining the history of the world? Would you agree that “science” cannot disprove or prove either? If you agree with me in this, then we take need to differentiate science from historical guessing. At that point I believe only logical to then rediscover the science of statistics that discusses what is so highly improbable that one would have to really be suppressive to still consider the possibility of intelligence by chance.
ok so the forelimb that has more and more flight capable qualities but must still develop in order to become functional in flight would necessarily be cumbersome and lessen the possibility of survival on the ground…can anyone disagree with this? These discussions are happening over and over again and posted all over the internet I know. If this is a waste of time, let me know and I will stop…I am simply making the argument that it is not wise for the theistic evolutionist and the naturalistic evolutionist to be critical of those who suggest that God made according to kinds such as flying kinds and non flying kinds and within those kinds the ability to adapt and adjust…that’s all. I have made arguments that suggest that this may be the more logical choice because the evolutionist perspective actually ironically proves the idea of flying kinds evolving from non flying things be illogical as stated above. This makes the plain reading of Biblical creation of God instantaneously producing the kinds more treasured to me as I am a believer who puts more trust in its plain reading than I do in human guesses as to what really happened a long time ago. If some in earshot think I am a fool for this, that is okay…yet consider that a belief system that does not consider “God” is just as much a belief system and thus religion as mine, just has a different deity…
We can make hunches about the past, but we were not there either and for this we must be very very cautious and humble. Recently I heard an evolutionist who is convinced that we are here by molecules to man processes over billions of years who then admitted that he had wonder about a higher being…yet this person is still not willing to consider that this being could have intervened in the model he subscribed to in a way that would have him completely scrap the ideas of evolution that he was believing in. This utter lack of humility in lack of admittance of such possibilities to me is unwise.
On top of all of this, when I see human history play itself out, its response to acceptance of molecules to man evolution typically has tended towards evil and societal ills. I contrast this to the ideas in an article I just read that deals with the atrocities of racial divide in the world today where the idea of God creating all of mankind of every race instantaneously in the image of His Son suppresses hatred towards one another. If one is an evolutionist, then, to me, this may bring to the tip of the mind that a person of a certain race may not be as advanced in value as another for the subtle inclination of divide, discord and hatred. And on top of all of this, for those of us who are Christian, when we consider being made as the only “kind” that was made in His image, we are treasuring being made to grow towards the image of His Son, Jesus Christ who was all together different than non human animals whose main course is survival of the fittest- self pursuit. Instead, He was others centered, sacrificial and loving to the point of willingness to die in our place. There is nothing more anti survival of the fittest molecules to man evolution than that.
Did you know you have the same sequence of bones in your arm that a chicken has? One bone, two bones, lots of little bones, multiple long bones. In fact you find this same sequence in all animals. In the chicken the wrist and fingers are all contained in the wing tip. Does this make things more cumbersome for you?
One could be forgiven for getting the impression, brother, that you’ve kind of already made up your mind about all this evolution stuff… that you don’t really want to learn more than what you’ve already read… because if you had really wanted to learn, you would have taken the time to click on at least one of beaglelady’s links and would have learned some of this commonly available information before you responded. The first link she sent, for instance, includes a prominently featured link to another eight-minute video entitled “The Origin of Flight: What Use is Half a Wing?” that looks like it was tailor-made for you, my friend. Why don’t you watch it, instead of tossing out frequently asked questions as if they were show-stoppers?
This means that you are making the same error that John Calvin and Philip Melanchthon made. They put their trust in the plain meaning of Scripture, and concluded everything in the sky revolves around the earth.
So you are interested in human history! I anticipate, then, that you will actually think about how the great scholars of the Reformation rejected heliocentrism based on the “plain meaning of the Scriptures,” and you will seek to apply their insistence on geocentrism (back in the 16th century) to the tendency among many conservative scholars to insist on young-earth creationism (in the 21st century). Please give it a go, it’s worth thinking about.
Engineering is a belief system that does consider physics but does not consider “God.” Do you consider engineers to be atheists? Do engineers have a different deity than you?
All kinds of beliefs have tended impelled and societal ills. Have you heard of the German Peasants’ War?
Evolution points to the fact that every human belongs to the same species, homo sapiens sapiens.
As a Christian/evolutionary creationist, I agree 100% with you, Greg.
No evolutionary biologist AFAIK has ever hypothesized that wings began as stubs. If you disagree, perhaps you could name 10 such biologists
Is it not true that most evolutionary biologists have declared with certainty that reptiles evolved into birds? Isn’t it true that evolution has be suggested as being slow and methodical chance resulting in new species? I have made the case that it is not scientific to suggest that this be the case when there is no proof, nor is there logic. If the reptile does not have a slow gradual process of developing a wing which is illogical to an evolutionary model of survival of the fittest as I have demonstrated, then we must conclude that in order for this to happen there must have been a genetic mutation that led to such.a wing in the reptile. Where do we ever see a genetic mutation result in something good and beneficial as such?
And if you are talking about the “extant” cave dwelling fish with non functioning eyes- I would ask which can be declared with certainty: that they are in process of developing eyes or that the quality of true eyesight had declined in an environment where there was no need for the existent eyesight??
There needs to be a serious change of semantics that define science which should be the process of the scientific method for developing hypotheis, theory and law versus what I would compare to a cold case detective who is trying to put pieces together of the above and beyond occurrence of life as we know it.
The fact remains that there is a TRUTH with capital T that is absolutely true about where life comes from. And it is absolutely certain that neither you nor I nor any of the brightest and best are anywhere close to having figured out exactly how this TRUE event came to be to develop to the way we are today. I see nothing but foolishness on Nat Geo and Nova and such where the depiction of “scientist” make truth declarations that they are absolutely and totally not capable or eligible to make and this is sad. We are beginning to see physics get re-written as we grow in understanding of quantum physics…let alone understanding how we got here in such declarations!
I am a Christian and the God I worship compares us to sheep which are helpless and silly little creatures. I personally see more sheep like qualities in those who are finding hope in frail false certaintees that depended on their “smartness” and rationale and less sheepishness on those who are wise enough to admit that the more they know, the better capable they have become to have figured the chasm between what can be knowable and the unknown.
If perhaps the TRUE event that was indeed that God created the “kinds” then there is going to be great regret in the “scientist” who made fun of this as a possible scenario all those years on earth in the name of their “smartness”.
