How good is Person B as a theologian?

Person A:

But evolution is transitional.

As a human you are the product of about 50% of your parents DNA with about 100-150 mutations. Mutations in DNA occur in the letters A, T, C, and G (adenine, thymine, cytosine, and guanine) which change as a recipe for the species, so there is no exact point in history in which humans became humans. It was all gradual changes and we just label (and argue) about whether something was human or not. It's like arguing about when blue becomes red in this image http://i.imgur.com/OpIKBPW.jpg

So to believe in evolution and that humans aren't descendants of any animal you would have to believe in a trickster god that

1. evolved non-human ancestors that looked just like your ancestors,
2. then the trickster god created new humans that appeared to be descended from the ancestors but they weren't despite many lines of evidence.

Person B (I'd write down their username but I don't know if that's allowed):

But evolution is transitional.

Yes, it is.

So to believe in evolution and that humans aren't descendants of any animal you would have to believe in a trickster god that

1. evolved non-human ancestors that looked just like your ancestors,

2. then the trickster god created new humans that appeared to be descended from the ancestors but they weren't despite many lines of evidence.

We don't consider this a trick, just a matter of God being consistent, which is a laudable quality because it is the basis for all scientific thought. Why would God do anything less than create the perfect and most meaningful environment for the first humans?

To do this would be to establish the laws of nature, create the universe, the solar system, the earth, all the events which occurred until abiogenesis, then the evolution of higher forms of life until the planet finally reached the stage where it was most suitable for the form chosen for Adam. Now if the planet is in a form most suitable for Adam, a hominid mammal, why wouldn't God have created all the life whose essence was necessary for ours? (and this is exactly what the old Sufis say, about whom John William Draper was talking about in my quotes in my original post). This view of the Sufis was also elaborated upon here by another redditor, I believe his name is PursuitofKnowledge, I'll copy my statement here:

This was a very common view of the world, especially among Sufis, who made 7 ontological distinctions of soul (mineral soul, vegetable soul, animal soul, personal soul, human soul, and the last two are the secret divine connection (our raw metaphysical souls)).

And what he pasted here:

Some people have cited Islamic thinkers like Ibn Sina and Ibn Khaldun as proof of evolutionary thought having existed in earlier Islamic thought. But Islamic Studies professor, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, explains their observations as follows: “What the traditional Islamic thinkers said is that you have levels of existence of life forms starting with plant life, which is superseded by animal life through the creative power of God, while this animal life also includes plant life within itself. Moreover, plant life itself has many levels not caused by temporal evolution but by the descent of archetypes into the temporal order as is also true of animals. We know, for example, that we have vegetal nerves about which Ibn Sina speaks. In the animal realm we also have a hierarchy; many Muslim thinkers such as al-Biruni and Ibn Sina have written about this matter and have asserted that there are simple life forms and then ever more complicated life forms and that the complicated life forms contain within themselves the simpler life forms. Obviously human beings have a more complicated life form than the monkey, but possess also some of those characteristics we see in the monkey, but this does not mean that we have evolved from the monkey.” (On the Question of Biological Origins, 2006 http://www.thefreelibrary.com/On+the+question+of+biological+origins.-a0157034139)

This is important to note because if we take the traditional Muslims views literally as a materialistic evolutionary theory, they are saying we evolved from monkeys, which doesn't make sense by any evolutionary model (we had a common ancestor). While Al-Biruni touched on natural selection and materialistic evolution (and even Ibn Khaldun to an extent), what the others were talking about was the consistent, cohesive, and poetic model of life on earth as manifested in the essence of Man. If God created everything for Man, and He designed Man in the form we know (bipedal mammalian hominid as a foundation), then it would be inconsistent for the physical application of that abstract essence which occurred in time through many ages to NOT feature these various essences manifested in physical creation because this would defy the very principle of Time. It would be imperfect of God to do otherwise.

You call it a trick because you dislike God and don't want to admit anything good of Him. To us it is the usual: God being perfect. The creation of Adam should have come with the creation of Adam's context (this universe and world) because to do otherwise (as you suggest) would be incomplete.

Within the essence of man is the basis for the entire universe. Our mineral soul (physics, represented in the Earth itself), our vegetable soul (organic chemistry, represented in all the life which first arose), our animal soul, our personal soul (i.e, psychological capacity and differentiation), human soul (morality), and then our divine connection (our metaphysical souls which are not of the material world, which are seat to our free will). In Man this is instantiated in one being, but to create an environment for the being would necessitate drawing out these essences in a process of creation over a period of time according to the same laws of nature by which that being functions which necessitates everything we see (including the independent evolution of animals closest to us in form). This is all deductively derived by medieval Islamic thinkers. It gives you the "why" for evolution (since you think evolution is some kind of trick, it's supposed to be the opposite, the poetic and ordered nature of it is evidence for a Creator since order doesn't spring into material existence of its own accord: what you call the laws of nature are for us the commands of God).

Person A: TL;DR: Occam's razor

Person B: Occam's razor isn't a logical proof. To apply it here, one would have to accept the possibility of a purely materialistic world (even in a deistic type of monotheism), which we do not. So for us, God must exist. After that, our choice of Islam is based on personal conviction that Allah is that Supreme Being we deduce must exist in order for everything else to exist, making the Qur'an His actual command, which then makes the acceptance of the creation of Adam mandatory. We don't accept Islam because of the story of Adam (I mean, I can't say I've ever heard of anyone who said they converted to religion because they liked that story that much).

See my other posts in here regarding the history of Islamic metaphysics.

End of conversation between A and B

I, being a layman, am certainly mesmerized by person B

The issue is that I'm a layman and it doesn't take much to mesmerize me, which is why I'm here

My understanding is the entire issue between Israel and Islam is mainly one of theology. From how I understand Islam, dhimmi taking back conquered lands implies Mohammed is a false prophet. I imagine if the Jews in Israel go ahead and blow up the Dome of the Rock, and build the third temple that has more extreme implications for the validity of the Islamic faith.

So, would the Jews bringing about their messianic age cause theological problems for Islam?

Who invents the term ''The Fall'' to refer to the event in the garden? I havnt been able to find the word fall in the scripture, so I assume it was a term invented at some point in the history of the church. Does anyone know who invents it and when/where it first appears?

What are some good commentaries that integrate critical scholarship while being written by people of faith? I am looking for ones by people that at least mostly follow orthodox teachings but aside from that the denomination does not really matter to me

In 1 Chron 7 it shows that Ephraim's daughter Sheerah is going thru Israel building a lot of cities.

But Joseph's entire family was supposed to be stuck in Egypt due to slavery, and is quite impossible for Sheerah to be free because there's a crazy time gap between her and Moses.

So how was she out there when she was supposed to be in Egypt?

Anyone have a good reference for researching the history of replacement theology?? I need to write a paper for systematic doctrinal theology on replacement theology and have no good sources for the history of replacement theology. Any help would be amazing!

I once heard that there was a book that was removed in which it was said that there is another God other than the Christian God that Christians worship. Is this true or am I just getting things mixed up?

So according to many Bible Scholars the Gospels have been written after 70 AD. Now it’s a general consensus that the Gospel of John was written in the 80s or 90s of the first Century. However I heard quite a lot of contradicting opinions on the Datings of the synoptic Gospels, some say that they have been written after the Fall of Jerusalem others claim it has been written before. What do you think?

And if the Gospels have been written after 70AD do you think that it makes them less reliable?

Modern 'MineCraft' theories of the nature of the Universe; Many 'newerage' thinkers have a theory that we are all on a 'server' playing a 'game' and can either be in 'creative' or 'survival mode. These terms can all be fpund in a popular video game, MineCraft.

Were there simalier theories in history? Dor example a 'World is a Ship' theory when shipping dominated industry, or a 'World is a Great Big Building' when archetechture was the main exonomic driver.

Just trying to help kids... realize they play too much minecraft i guess, but also see that, 'A horse would draw God as a Horse' in the philosophical sense.

I can see how 'labelling-' or attempting to define (or devine lol) the true nature of this Mark could lead to dischord. Is this a fair assessment?

Simulation Theory is a very popular topic on Reddit & many other corners of the Internet -- as well as the offline world. And there are well-respected scientists who talk about it. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-we-live-in-a-simulation-chances-are-about-50-50/

I'm hardly the first person to see Simulation Theory as sort of a secular creationism.

So my question is: are there efforts by academic theologians to use findings of simulation theorists within natural theology?

I was raised by pre-mill pastor, recently I started watching doug Wilson videos on post millennialism and he tried to make a case on why Nero Is the Beast, I have some disagreement and I don't understand how Nero can be beast become the bible says

″It was also given to him to make war with the saints and to overcome THEM, AND AUTHORITY OVER EVERY TRIBE AND PEOPLE AND TONGUE AND NATION was given to him. — Revelation 13:7

ALL WHO DWELL ON THE EARTH WILL WORSHIP HIM, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain. — Revelation 13:8″

And I saw the beast and the KINGS OF THE EARTH and their armies assembled to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army. — Revelation 19:19

Nero wasn't worshipped by everyone on earth, he didn't have authority over all the world like the beast would have and he didn't have all the Kings of the earth on his side

And it was given to him to give breath to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast would even speak and cause as many as do not worship the image of the beast to be killed. — Revelation 13:15

The beast could give life to image but Nero couldn't give life to any image

also how would the ending of the world be if Jesus already returned and killed the beast (Nero) and his false prophet (soldiers) 2000 years ago? bible also says the beast will be defeated by Jesus and thrown into lake of fire but we know that Nero commited Suicide, please clarify about this and teach me how the world will end according to bible, if the world is going to get better and better and better and all nations worship Jesus? What's next? Will Jesus appear all of a sudden and claim the world? Please answer, thank you

The obviously answer is a big-o No I'm assuming. However, since everything including humans and our human natures, our uniqueness, our images, are all created by The Son, does that mean He actually already had a human nature indwelled in Him before He even incarnated?

Hey y'all,
New to the group. I'm a Prot.
As I dig into the debate between Jerome and Helvetidus (spl?) I am curious: why is there not more mention of the Marion doctrines prior the late 4th century AD among the church fathers?
Am I wrong in seeing that it was only really settled in the late 19th century and early 20th century by the RCC?
Or am I missing earlier doctrines in the sinlessness and perpetual virginity of Mary?

What are some of the key tenants of “abusive God theology”? It appears the only resource for it is a book called “Facing the Abusing God” by David R Blumenthal. I wanted to know if anyone knew more about this theology if you could tell me some of the central themes and tenants of it?

Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more Theology noun

the study of the nature of God and religious belief.

"a theology degree"

religious beliefs and theory when systematically developed.

What should a Christian do when other Christians, or people pretending to be Christians bring such incredible dishonor on the Church and commit such disruptive acts? What should a Christian do? What does Christian theology say is to be done when you have heretics taking the lord's name in vain, bringing dishonor on the church while causing strife and divisiveness within the population. I am 100% asking this in this in good faith. I am down south and have absolutely no one to talk to because most of them are caught up in the delusion. I am having a crisis of faith because I can't trust anyone down here. Please help.

I understand that the parable is trying to use an example to tell Christians to be prepared for the second coming. But, if we look at this story in a literal sense, the "wise virgins" who brought oil for their lamps do not show the generosity or doing on to others that Jesus' other parables emphasize. Isn't giving to those who do not have means a tenant of Jesus' teachings? So, why are the ten wise virgins rewarded for denying their sisters?

Yes, I know the point of a parable is to not take it literally, but to understand the interpretation. I guess I just think Jesus could've come up with a better story that doesn't contradict his other teachings.

The parable for reference is Matthew 25.1-13

"Ten virgins took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. Five of them were foolish and five were wise.

The foolish ones took their lamps but did not take any oil with them. The wise ones, however, took oil in jars along with their lamps. The bridegroom was a long time in coming, and they all became drowsy and fell asleep.
At midnight the cry rang out: “Here’s the bridegroom! Come out to meet him!”
Then all the virgins woke up and trimmed their lamps. The foolish ones said to the wise, “Give us some of your oil; our lamps are going out.” “No,” they replied, “there may not be enough for both us and you. Instead, go to those who sell oil and buy some for yourselves.”
But while they were on their way to buy the oil, the bridegroom arrived. The virgins who were ready went in with him to the wedding banquet. And the door was shut.
Later the others also came. “Lord, Lord,” they said, “open the door for us!”
But he replied, “Truly I tell you, I don’t know you.”

Whether it's the calvinists with Tulip, the baptists with eternal security or the methodists with entire sanctification it seems like these denominations take some passages of the bible and ignore others and justify based on that, the idea that they have got it right while everyone else is wrong. How do we properly understand and factor in what the Bible said at the time it was written, what the Bible is trying to say as a whole irrespective of time in place, while working in the different passages that sometimes seem to conflict? All without just blindly taking what a modern denomination says at face value when these answers are not clear from the text and their interpretations are not only limited and fallible, based on what they knew at the time having not the knowledge we posses today, nor direct access to the authors with a distance from them spanning centuries?

I remember when I first read the gospels I found myself so drawn to Jesus and his ways. I've never had a spiritual experience but from reading the gospels I believe Jesus is God incarnate. However my understanding of the gospels has changed over the law few months. I have looked into a lot of scholarship of the gospels and now understand that they were likely composed by communities of the disciples (matthew written by the matthean community and the shared usage of Mark. Aka synoptic problem) , also I have learned about how the gospels use literary devices because that is how writing of the time worked.

I also have learned about the debate about the historical Jesus vs the Jesus of theology.

This really has affected my reading of the gospels. I still have faith but now when I read something in them I always wonder and am checking in my head "did Jesus actually say this or is this a literary tool to talk about him" it makes it hard to read the gospels for me.

For those of you who accept modern scholarship how do you deal with this?

I get Lucifer (Prideful because he wanted to be god)

Satan (Wrathful bc he fucked up the garden of Eden after being banished)

Asmodeus (interfered with Sarah's marriages in the book of Tobit)

Beelzebub (associated with flies, which are bottom feeders and gluttonous)

Belphegor (Lures people with inventions that cause them to become lazy)

and Mammon (Literally means wealth)

but I'm not seeing any connections between Leviathan and Envy. As far as I'm aware it's literally just a really big sea monster that God slew one of. Why does that make it associated with Envy? Did they just not have any other demons to put there?

For example in Matthew 19:8 Jesus says: “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning." which means there are some laws in the Mosaic law which weren't seen as the perfectl will of God and took into consideration people's sinfulness. So did they not believe the Law was perfect? And if so how did they decide which laws were God's perfect will and which were given "because of the hardness of people's hearts"?

In Christian faith, myth or however you wished to describe it; Jesus is remarkable in the fact that he is both fully Human and fully Devine and to deny either aspect is to deny Christ himself and is thusly:

B̷͙̳̘͓̋͑̓L̵̯͔͇̿͐̃̌À̴̮̙͔͋͜S̶̯̭̤̃͑̍̀͋P̷̲̙͇̹̀̏̑̅̿H̴̘̏́E̴̛͔̥͔̱̬̋̽̓M̵̛̞̮̍̒̒Õ̸̠͂̑U̵̘͙̩̥̰̇͋́͋S̷̭̞̣̟̼̄̀͝!!

To say he is sinful is to deny his divinity and thusly be a blasphemer.

But to say he is sinless is to deny his humanity and thusly you have also blasphemed.

So which is it?

I'm not a Christian (Sikh, raised with Hindu, Muslim and Christian friends but never asked them about theology much) yet have recently been fascinated by Christianity from an academic perspective. I've been reading into the doctrine of the Trinity which states that the Son (incarnated as Jesus, I think?) is co eternal with the father. The Trinity is a strange doctrine to many non Christians, but I'm not attempting to challenge it - rather, I'd like to ask, what would the trinitarian Christian worldview be on the Son before Jesus was begotten? I know the Holy Spirit is alluded to in the Old Testament/Torah by some interpretations, but what was the Son doing before Jesus was begotten?

I was raised Christian my whole life and in 2018 when I took my belief and really started pursing God on my own to see if any of the stuff I was taught growing up holds any water. It was the best decision of my life as over the course of a couple of years I went on a journey with the highest highs I’ve ever felt in my life, but also the lowest lows. But even all the bad stuff that came from my pursuit left me more matured and with better character, it had a purpose. Along with pursing God on my own and not just out of obligation because of family I’ve studied the Bible and scholars works regarding Jesus’s resurrection, inerrancy, etc. I don’t hold onto any of the old evangelical beliefs I grew up with such as the concept of hell, and I believe trying to debunk what I believe in has only led me closer to God. But recently I’ve really been questioning the personal aspect of my beliefs. I believe I’ve had encounters with God, but how am I supposed to know if I’m really encountering a higher being or not? I’ve run into this problem before several years back and got past it, but I can’t now and I’m wondering if I’ve just been lying to myself this whole time. I don’t want to live a lie, so I’ve come here looking for answers. If anybody here has any reason to believe in personal experiences with God please let me know.

Pretty much the title.

Some Christian traditions/ritual are holdovers from localized pagan tradition and ritual that were assimilated and amalgamated into what we see today.

I was wondering if something similar happened with near east pre-islamic tradition and Islam.

I can't think of a good place to ask this question so I thought I would give this sub a shot.

It seems to me you would have know God would do in order to know that God is the Christian God (or a specific God) . If God is good how do you know that? If God sent Jesus to earth and cares about what you do with your foreskin how do you know that? How do know God isn't evil, lying, indifferent or making infinite empty bowling alleys and doesn't care about earth or humans at all? How do you know what an infinite power with infinite knowledge would probabilistically do?
I'm curious because I think this is the only way you can know god exists aside from faith. I heard Richard Swinburne say "humans are a good thing" in a debate with Graham Oppy and it appeared he was using that as a evidence that God is good? I've had that phrase stuck in my head for a while and wondered how he came to that conclusion. Unfortunately he did not elaborate but, it did lead me to wonder how anyone would know anything about God at all.

How do I get to the point that I find it probable that God made everything in the bible happen rather than that it is man made and not of divine origin? I know that humans lie and make mistakes and tell stories but I do not know what an omnipotent omniscient being would do.

I feel like I can know what humans will probably do based on their limitations however I don't know how I can know what an unlimited thing would do.

Hello - I am founding a religion based on the belief that each human has a unique god guiding them through life. I knew my idea couldn't possibly be unique, so I began researching. From around 600 BCE, it does not appear that this concept appeared. From a philosophical perspective, philosophers examined "God" in the typical Judeo-Christian belief structure. But earlier religions had this concept.

Have any of you heard this idea expressed in your study?

The only thing I could find was the following from "Mesopotamian Deities" by Ira Spar, available at https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/deit/hd\_deit.htm

"While the great gods of the pantheon were worshipped by priests at rituals in cultic centers, ordinary people had no direct contact with these deities. In their homes, they worshipped personal gods, who were conceived as divine parents and were thought to be deities who could intercede on their behalf to ensure health and protection for their families."

Even better if it's something easily accessible for a layperson, but I'm comfortable with denser writing too. My goals are to learn what exactly prosperity theology is, how it developed and how it spread.

Thank you all in advance!

I am looking for something on the subject of sotierology. I want it to cover as much of the new testament gospels and epistles as possible and explain the competing theories of salvation and teach where the Bible agrees and disagrees without just promoting the opinion of the denomination the author belongs to and ignoring any other opinion belief or idea that doesn't fit. Any recommendations?