@GratefulDisciple that article is pretty clearly skewed towards a YEC Calvinist evangelical viewpoint

I find some of Craig’s views to be questionable but only towards his view of Adam and christology

@curiousdannii can you really say he’s not one of you? Protestantism is really broad.

@GratefulDisciple Every time I've seen him try to defend his Christology it looks like he's just digging himself a deeper hole.

@LukeHill He's not a Chalcedonian. Possibly not even Nicene.

@GratefulDisciple It's that article (among others) that shows his Christology is deeply flawed

@curiousdannii maybe. I think he does mean well, and look at the fruits of his ministry. If that means we take the wacky theology with the good apologetics, so be it.

@LukeHill not to diminish the work God has done through him, but there are loads of other skilled apologists. There's no need to promote him when his theology is so broken. he's not irreplaceable

@curiousdannii I’m very partial to Trent horn rn, but I know you aren’t a fan of catholic theology. At least Catholics are orthodox

@LukeHill Trent is arguably what caused Protestantism, as it ended any possibility of reform and reconciliation.

Protestants have much in common with pre-Trent Catholicism

@curiousdannii I was referring to the apologist named Trent Horn

Also wasn’t Trent counter reformation? So prior to the reformation?

@LukeHill ohh lol, never heard of him

@LukeHill Trent was after the reformation, responding to it

@curiousdannii he’s a fun guy. He has a podcast called “The counsel of trent” which is a great pun

> I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting. But it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously.

@curiousdannii Thanks for your warning. I'll be careful to read his theological articles. Anyway his official capacity is professor of philosophy and his area of expertise is analytic philosophy and possibly philosophy of religion, judging from his bibliography.

@TRiG Personally, I'd say it mystifies me that otherwise-intelligent people take Evolutionism seriously. Except, I have a book that tells me exactly why that happens (2 Thessalonians 2:10-11). It's actually not hard to understand once you realize that Evolutionists have a dogmatic commitment to atheism. My blind faith is not strong enough to be an atheist, however.

@TRiG What do you think about the fact how historically across cultures intelligent people from all ages had wrestled with religion, and how dismissing the religious impulse is a 20th century phenomenon? Do you attribute it to science & technology "demythologizing" everything and thus reducing everything into what can be measured? Or do you attribute the "death of God" to something else?

(As I've noted previously, I assert that Humanism/Materialism/Philosophical Naturalism is a religion 🙂. At least in the sense that "religion" is a system of beliefs/faith and/or a description of what you worship. Less so if you define "religion" as a particular set of rituals, but in that sense, many Christians aren't religious.)

@Matthew I can work with both definitions. But since I'm responding to TRiG, I'm using his definition, which refers to everything that arises from what most people think to be an innate impulse within the human nature to be at awe with a much greater being called "God" and to be "witnessed against" (in their conscience) by the implanted moral law. That everything is all theologies and the rites which build on them, and I think that's what TRiG refers as "the whole business of religion".

There's a third thing within human nature that I failed to mention, which also needs accounting: a longing (easily confused with pleasure) that manifests in us in many forms: a peculiar desire for the permanent fountain of the pleasures we get from all created things on earth, which C.S. Lewis named "joy" / Sehnsucht, and explained simply by Lewis in this newly found 1945 letter.

^^^ Why can't people be helpful on this site? The site is Christianity.SE for crissakes!

@JimG. Hi Jim, I didn't close vote your question, but it looks obvious that it is opinion based because there is no objective basis for this question to be answered here. This site is not Reddit. Maybe they didn't leave a comment since you have been around for a while, so they may think you already know. You may want to review the on topic help page.

> Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!"

> This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.

Both quotes from Douglas Noel Adams.

@TRiG The first problem... we can easily conceive of other holes that could hold other puddles. We don't know of any other ways rational life could exist. Second (and third, and fourth, and...) is that there are serious problems with Evolutionism. Starting with the serious problems of Uniformitarianism, which eliminate the requisite time.

Then you've got the problem of blind faith in abiogenesis. Blind faith in information ex nihilo. Blind faith in the Universe existing in the first place when you can't explain why it does. Blind faith that your senses and reasoning are reliable. In summary, blind faith that there is no God despite overwhelming evidence (Romans 1:20) to the contrary.

@TRiG Actually the Psalmist has the same observation: Ps 90:5-6: "They are like grass that springs up in the morning. In the morning it blooms and flourishes, but by evening it is dry and withered." and Ps 90:10: "Seventy years are given to us! Some even live to eighty. But even the best years are filled with pain and trouble; soon they disappear, and we fly away." But different conclusion, see Ps 90-91.

So I think many 20th century nihilists cope with their existential situation by becoming anonymous Buddhists, which is a very different solution than Christianity. I agree that all philosophies and religions say something true about the human condition, but then the reason why intelligent people take religion seriously is because there are those 3 undeniable things within human nature that point to a promise that a non-Buddhist religion fulfills, NOT to nothingness.

@TRiG in all honesty I find the fact that the most intelligent people throughout history have believed in a God of some kind. That being said I tend to stick to philosophy and deductive arguments in order to come to belief.

@Matthew See, I have the same kind of problem with that as I do with any other kind of crank, like psychics and people who push essential oils and homoeopathy. You set yourself up as an expert above those who have actual expertise. I have a great deal of respect for experts, because I know how difficult it is to become one. And therefore, I see statements like yours as not merely misinformed, but actively rude.

@GratefulDisciple I know not a great deal about Buddhism, but what little I know suggests that the real thing is a little more complex than the common Western version.

@TRiG I maybe wrong about Douglas Adams though, since I haven't read his books myself, I just based it on your quotes. Looks like he is more optimistic than nihilist, judging by this article.

@GratefulDisciple Indeed. I wonder if @TRiG has ever read Mere Christianity.

I like mere Christianity but there are other good ones that might be more readable

@Matthew I have, though it was a while ago. I do find Lewis more interesting (and enjoyable) as an essayist than as a writer of fiction. His fiction often annoys me.

But just because it’s a good book doesn’t mean people will be convinced by it

@TRiG Yes, I agree that there is a lot more to Buddhism than common Western caricature as one drop of water merging with the sea, etc. Actually one of my favorite movie Groundhog Day is said to illustrate best Buddhism.

@TRiG Actually, that is exactly what humanists do. Set themselves up as experts over The One True God. I, personally, do not have a PhD or any such, but my knowledge comes from people who do and ultimately from The One who is the source of all knowledge.

@LukeHill It's not even really intended to be convincing to atheists. I'm not the target audience. He spends about half a chapter on atheism, I think?

@TRiG does he? It’s been a while since I’ve read through it.

Anyway, I fail to see how asserting that a thing is true is any more rude for a YEC than for a Humanist. Humanists do that all the time.

@Matthew Scientists have excellent, well attested, reasons for believing as they do, and your cavalier dismissal of those reasons as "blind faith" just makes you look uninformed and arrogant.

@TRiG His main argument IIRC is that there is clearly something in human nature which cannot be accounted for by Materialism.

@TRiG how do you feel about actual philosophical arguments? I find those to Be very compelling, such as the cosmological argument or the ontological argument.

@LukeHill Probably even longer since I have, to be honest.

@TRiG I agree with this statement in entirety. I disagree with who are the scientists and who are those with blind faith.

@Matthew oh yea the evolutionary argument against naturalism

...and I'm sort of at the point where I expect Humanists to be completely closed to any reasoned arguments (as the Bible teaches they will be). When your starting premise is to reject God, no amount of evidence or reason will convince you otherwise. No matter how irrational that premise is.

Anyway, I'm reminded of something Hold To The Rod said: "Any system that decides to exclude a set of explanations before even looking at the data has self-imposed restrictions on its utility."

@GratefulDisciple Sorry, I've let this quote from the Psalms slip by, and I did want to go back to it. It's an interesting read, isn't it. In some ways, it reminds me of what Virginia Woolf said about the Book of Job: "I don't think God comes well out of it." Still, it's good poetry, and good poetry is always welcome.

In essence, if our biological processes produced us, and our production through natural selection was only for the reason of survival, then we have no reason to trust that what we think is true. But we do have reason to trust that our cognitive processes are accurate and correct, therefore naturalism is false.

It’s an interesting argument, I’ve never seen any compelling arguments against it

And it allows for evolution to be truw

@Matthew The scientists are the ones who put the work in, the ones who constantly evaluate their assumptions and try to falsify them. The ones who actively poke holes in their own reasoning. I have never even heard of a YEC who does that.

And as someone who holds to evolution and the old earth that’s cool

When Humanists can't even be bothered to look at the evidence presented against their position, when they constantly resort to ad hominem attacks (on a good day), when they can't even acknowledge their bias... then yeah, I don't have a very high opinion of their so-called rationality.

@LukeHill TRiG is right, in Book II Chapter 1. (see a PDF reproduction). Book I is supposed to be analysis of the human condition and human nature. Book II moves from Atheism to Christianity. The more extended argument is in his other books: Problem of Pain, Miracles, and the Abolition of Man.

@TRiG ...and statements like this just prove my point. You can't be bothered to acknowledge that your opposition even exists, much less that they are doing useful science, making (accurate!) predictions, and so forth.

@GratefulDisciple are you YEC out of curiousity

@LukeHill I'm curious to know how you reach that conclusion 🙂.

@Matthew And publishing in peer-reviewed journals? No. YEC is not an actual scientific position. They're mostly active and deliberate frauds.

@LukeHill I'm not. I'm more persuaded with the Catholic position. But I try to be gracious to YEC and show another convincing and responsible way of reading Gen 1-11.

@TRiG Bait-and-switch. First, they have. Second, your definition of "peer reviewed" is "journals which systematically exclude anything that even hints at YEC or even ID". Third, you've clearly never heard of Russel Humphreys, Andrew Snelling, or Raymond Damadian.

...and it's funny you should mention fraud. Apparently you're not familiar with "Piltdown Man", either.

@Matthew Ha!

@Matthew well I’m not a scientist but from my own research that seems to be what the evidence suggests

Anyway, it's blindingly obvious that you're comfortable with your preconceived conclusion, and that no amount of argument or evidence can even be considered.

@GratefulDisciple one thing I love about Catholicism is that it allows for both viewpoints, so I didn’t have to check my intellect at the door

@Matthew Considering that you haven't begun to present any .... But that's not really what I'm here for right now.

Matthew can you be nicer?

Like that’s honestly pretty rude what youve been saying

If someone wants to actually consider the case, sure. If someone is just going to immediately call me a crank and a fraud...

Not much point presenting evidence when it's just going to be dismissed without consideration.

@TRiG Yes. Good poetry, esp. taking into account the original ancient near eastern context. Yes, God is wiggling his way out from explaining why the righteous suffer. Basically said: just trust me, you don't have to know. You may be interested in a lot of new ways of reading Job though, as literature instead of theology, as ANE research heated up. The best theodicy I'm reading is Eleonore Stump's Wandering in Darkness.

@GratefulDisciple I've come across the idea that Job is best read as a playscript.

@TRiG Thanks I look into that.

@TRiG that’s interesting

@GratefulDisciple I think my favorite theodicy is the non-identity theodicy

If you’d like I can link you a pretty good video on it

Can't remember where I read it, mind. May have been on Fred Clark's blog "Slactivist".

Probably one of my favorite YouTubers right here

Anyways

@TRiG, consider this. "Jesus of Nazareth" existed; even ignoring the Bible, we have more evidence of that than of many other historical figures of that time and for some time later. We know He was crucified. We know His body went missing and hundreds claim to have witnessed Him risen from the dead. Now, you can either plug your ears and refuse to acknowledge what is plainly obvious, or you can stop and consider that maybe this miraculous person has something to tell us.

> A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it.

Oscar Wilde, that time.

@LukeHill Well, it's not really fair to say "Protestants check intellect at the door" either. This is about inerrancy vs. science. The Catholic Church is walking on a fine line to avoid falling into another error: liberal theology that just consider the Bible as human document. But yes, I do like Catholic way of integrating faith and reason better.

@Matthew sigh. Calling things like this “plainly obvious” isn’t going to convince anyone, and insulting a persons intellegence isn’t showing christ

I can show you that there is every reason to believe that the Bible is historically accurate. I can show you that YECs do make predictions, and do science, and publish in peer-reviewed literature, and all that... but only if your heart is open to God. If you have rejected God, no evidence or reasoning will convince you otherwise, and I am frankly tired of trying.

@TRiG I agree with his quote here, but you have to ask why they were wrong. Were the disciples hallucinating? Were they lying? What was their motivation for claiming Jesus had appeared to them?

@LukeHill It's also on it's face wrong. Like the "hundreds claim to have witnessed him". No. One person claims that hundreds of other (unknown, unnamed, probably non-existent) people witnessed him.

@TRiG No, but men rarely die for something they don't believe. These hundreds are people that would have been in an excellent position for their faith to be refuted, if it was false.

@TRiG yea, Andrew Locke has written on this. In essence his argument is that Paul didn’t list them because they would have already been know and available to interview at places like Passover

@LukeHill Or he was exaggerating. Or making them up. Or mistaken. Or anything.

@TRiG why would he do that?

Why would he make them up?

What’s his motivation?

There's a good video on this if you want to watch it.

@Matthew ew answers in Genesis?

@LukeHill Power? Paul's story is an odd one if we take it on face value, but people do join charismatic groups, and people do seek for power within those small groups. It wouldn't be too far outside normal human behaviour. Most people who do that probably manage to fool themselves, instead of outright lying, though.

@LukeHill I'm not even going to ask what beef you have with them...

AiG, CMI, ICR... Yes, there are some Christians that haven't thrown out God's Word for Humanist teachings.

@TRiG Paul actually lost power by joining the Christians though, he was a high ranking Jew.

And he ended up dying for his belief and still wrote letters before he died

Why would he lie then?

@LukeHill Some people would rather be a large fish in a small pond .... I'm just throwing out suggestions here, of course.

Here's one from The Veritas Forum if you have some sort of personal beef with Ken Ham et al.

@TRiG yea I just don’t see that being a reasonable explanation. Paul went from a cushy job as a well respected Jew in a high position to being killed for being part of a small cult.

When you examine the life of someone like Joseph smith he had things to gain from the LDS faith. But that’s not true for any of the apostles.

@TRiG How many such people based their cult (I believe I'm using that in the correct, literal sense; don't read too much into it connotation-wise) on someone who rose from the dead, though? How many have persisted for ~2,000 years and attracted as many followers as Christianity? How many are consistent with texts going back almost four millennia?

@Matthew I think plenty of people might take issue with the claim that Christianity is "consistent" with Jewish texts. Especially given that he fulfilled approximately none of the Messianic prophesies. And other Christian heresies such as the Trinity.

@LukeHill I watched it. Interesting, haven't heard it before. It's good that it comes with a paper because I feel the personal elements are missing there such as addressing existential pain for the rest of your life when your beloved die (baby, husband, child, etc.) or when you have to deal with blindness, etc. The paper's conclusion shows that it can be used in conjunction with other theodicies.

@TRiG that’s fair, but notice that there was no other messiah and since 70 AD has passed, we (Jews) need to examine the best option. Paul himself thought Jesus fulfilled the prophecies. He was a Jew! He was in religious life and upbringing. So were many of the apostles!

@TRiG The majority of Christians, especially historically, would object to your description of Trinitarianism as a heresy. As to not fulfilling the prophesies, care to back that up?

@Matthew There wasn't a mass conversion to Judaism, for a start.

@Matthew In describing the Trinity as a heresy, I am, of course, talking about the Jewish perspective thereof. As I said, plenty of people (Jews) would take issue with the idea that Christian theology is consistent with Jewish texts. (Of course, my own ex-religion would agree, and would add that the Trinity is also absent from the Christian Bible.) Me, I find the whole thing amusing from a safe distance.

Signing out briefly. Need to shower and do some Toastmasters admin.

Alright well I’m going to go for a run now

Talk to y’all later don’t tear each other to shreds while I’m gone

@TRiG Okay, clarification accepted. Though again, Trinitarians disagree with the Trinity being "absent from the Bible". Admittedly, you are not hit over the head with it, but there is a lot of support for the idea, not least Christ calling Himself God.

@GratefulDisciple I find it fascinating, it’s not something ive really considered before

I’d love to get the book that the guy who formulated the theodicy made, but it’s 80 some dollars

Anyway, mind 1 Corinthians 1:23: "we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews". It's well attested that Christ wasn't the Messiah the Jews expected (or wanted).

@LukeHill Book by Vince Vitale, you mean this one? Which one are you referring to?

@LukeHill Never mind, you probably meant this one

@GratefulDisciple yup that second one

I’m a sucker for physical books over kindle or other e boks

Still yet to try audio books

Doesn't it say it's an "open access title": free to read and download from Oxford Scholarship Online?

@GratefulDisciple yea but I’m pretty sure you need a username and password to access scholarship catalogs like that

Just finished my solid two miler run

Sweating like Patrick Ewing (basketball reference) because hawaii is constantly 80 degrees

@LukeHill Great. I hope you enjoy your vacation. Gotta go. Talk to you later.

@Matthew I have a question in regards to the age of the earth

Specifically, there are different dating methods we have that tell us that certain things are older than ten thousand years.

so how do you respond to tree ring dating, radiation based forms of dating, and starlight distances that seem to indicate things being much older than the YEC model.

?*

@LukeHill Happy to help! For the sake of better archiving, though, might I prevail upon you to repeat those in the other room?

@LukeHill I have a colleague who prefer printed books over digital as well. It's especially interesting coming from you, younger generation. As more and more books are available in PDF / Kindle / Logos I prefer them right away. I especially like reading on smart phone, although probably it's not good for my eyes. But yes, I'm with you for audio books, don't quite like them, only listen to them when I'm walking / jogging / driving.

@Matthew I didn’t see anything in there about the star dating nor tree rings

@LukeHill No, I'm asking to move the discussion to that room. The sorts of questions you're asking is why I created it, as opposed to this being more of a free-for-all.

@Matthew ah my bad

@LukeHill Actually, you can download it from here. There are plenty of other Open Access books from the site; simply do a search.

That site seems to be a clearinghouse of some sort for many academic publishers.

@GratefulDisciple wow thanks

That’s particularly helpful

@GratefulDisciple I may be young but I’m also not a stereotypical young person I suppose 😂

I haven’t met that many (maybe 1 or 2) other teenagers with as much interest in politics/philosophy/theology as I have

@GratefulDisciple are you a molinist, thomist, calvinist, augustinian, or Arminian when it comes to human free will and Gods sovereignty and all that?

@LukeHill Yes, you're not. Reminds me not to make assumption.

I’d consider myself a molinist. I can’t square Gods goodness with something like calvininism, and I think Arminian views on free will are too strong

Molinism seems to be the best balance between Gods sovereignty and man’s free will

@LukeHill I'm not sure. My own stance is since I don't have power to change it, why bother? I just want to be better, and don't want to be passive when it comes to making my character more like Christ. So I don't really want to get into debates. Of course, when a particular stance needs to be taken to support another area of theology I have put a stake in, then I just choose that as part of the package. In a sense, mine would be Thomistic. How is it different than Molinism?

Basically, I'm a practical man. I have made Christ my savior and Lord. I wake up in the morning. What do I need to do today? What's holding me back? What's my loved ones complaining about me that I should change? Did I do anything bad to them? Is it to do with my inherent character, etc?

I don't see how adopting one type of free will doctrine will help me with this. If I feel I'm powerless, then I cry out to the Lord for grace. Or if I'm stuck with not much progress, maybe it's time to convert to Catholicism and partake of the sacraments, to the horrified complains of my Protestant friends & family :-)

Bishop Barron in that Understanding Holy Spirit video (19:48-21:35) quite persuaded me on this point. He said that the whole church is a sacrament, and that each sacrament is the ordinary means that the gifts are given.

To me there's not really much point to be Catholic unless the sacraments is a big part of our spiritual life.

I feel I have surveyed enough theology in the past 3 years, with C.SE help. It's now time to survey Christian spirituality and mysticism, where the rubber meets the road 😀. If Reformed / Wesleyan / Keswick or even Pentecostal spirituality can do it for me, I'll stay Protestant. I still believe Sola Scriptura over Catholic magisterium, even though I cannot hold the 1970s Chicago statement on inerrancy anymore and even though I might include the Deuterocanon books.

Don't get me wrong, the Catholic church has done great things over the past 50 years, and I am going to take the Magisterium seriously by studying the encyclicals, council documents, their ITC theologian publications, etc. Not to mention Catholic theology books, Bishop Barron, etc.

@LukeHill What in particular about Reformed theology do you think is at odds with God's goodness?

@GratefulDisciple I’m not quite sure how thomism works. But I have to agree with you. We ought to live as if we have free will and choose Christ through constant prayer and the shaping of our life.

I don't know too much about molinism. But I'd expect that most Reformed theologians would say that God also has middle knowledge.

@curiousdannii I think denying middle knowledge would have to entail denying Gods omniscience, but I suppose the reformed answer would be that God doesn’t need his middle knowledge and just predestines everyone

@curiousdannii the idea that God has removed human free will so that all actions are independent the source. God also seems to become the author of evil, and I think my universalist objection says that if Calvinism is true, then all go to heaven which just isn’t true.

file:///var/mobile/Library/SMS/Attachments/44/04/8D73D559-1518-4273-BB20-D5CDA33D0FC6/Image%201-31-22%20at%2011.34%20AM.jpg

Oops

@LukeHill That's not what Reformed Theology teaches. God removes no one's capacity of will. And God is most definitely not the author of evil.

@curiousdannii reformed theology says humans don’t have free will

Agh looks like mobile can’t upload pictures on here

Oh well

@LukeHill This is an insightful article about the Reformed perspective on molinism/middle knowledge: reformation21.org/blogs/is-middle-knowledge-biblical-a.php

@LukeHill "free" will is too loaded a term. What is absolutely the case is that we have real wills.