Your understanding is flawed. We have an exquisite series of fossils illustrating the development of birds from theropod dinosaurs.Greetings,
Can anyone answer however, why it is that the fossil evidence does not support evolution when considering feathered creatures. My understanding is the evidence shows these types of life very suddenly appeared - in the fossil record.
Anything is possible if you believe in miracles.Considering the miracles recorded in Scripture, even if one of these is true, they illustrate the awesome power of God. Logic holds that if this power exists, then creation theory is possible.
Have you ever applied Pascal’s wager to belief in Apollo?Do you believe or not?
Finally, have you ever heard of Pascal’s wager?
rskempf, you have to read it again carefully enough to see that “pantheism” and “panentheism” are spelled differently.Greetings,I believe pantheism is the belief that elements of nature are God. I would not recommend going down this path. The online Catholic dictionaries have a nice definition if you are interested.
I have never “pushed” panentheism. The only thing I have ever suggested is that thousands of my theologian colleagues (Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, and Jewish) find panentheism to be a fruitful metaphysical framework within which to conceive theologically of the God-Creation relationship. Take the time to participate in the American Academy of Religion Conference some year (always the weekend before Thanksgiving) and you will see what I mean. Meeting with active theologians offers you a different perspective from sitting at home reading blogs.Petrus, you can’t escape the fact that you are pushing panetheism.
You’re absolutely right, goofyjim. John Haught’s Deeper than Darwin is a fine book you might enjoy.Sorry to enter this so late, bu to ask it in layman’s terms, what is so wrong with believing in God choosing evolution as the way to bring things about? It doesn’t contradict scripture.
Humm. Petrus, I have little desire doing anything you tell me to do! I won’t waste anymore of my time with you. I’m not interested in religious conferences. You still won’t face the fact that you are pushing panentheism. Quite frankly, the only blogs I read are Alec’s (hecd2), my nephew who is a geophysicist, and my niece who is a historian. By the way, my last message to you on this forum still holds true. I wish viewers would take the time to read that last message (599) I wrote to you. It pretty much says everything I have to say to you. You are ill-mannered and rude to me and continue to be so.I have never “pushed” panentheism. The only thing I have ever suggested is that thousands of my theologian colleagues (Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, and Jewish) find panentheism to be a fruitful metaphysical framework within which to conceive theologically of the God-Creation relationship. Take the time to participate in the American Academy of Religion Conference some year (always the weekend before Thanksgiving) and you will see what I mean. Meeting with active theologians offers you a different perspective from sitting at home reading blogs.
Prayerfully yours, Petrus
Petrus
Concerning Adam and Eve and preternatural gifts it does.You’re absolutely right, goofyjim. John Haught’s Deeper than Darwin is a fine book you might enjoy.
Petrus
Concerning Adam and Eve and preternatural gifts it does.Sorry to enter this so late, bu to ask it in layman’s terms, what is so wrong with believing in God choosing evolution as the way to bring things about? It doesn’t contradict scripture.
I would like to also mention that I don’t have a website or blog. I don’t have the time or interest.Humm. Petrus, I have little desire doing anything you tell me to do! I won’t waste anymore of my time with you. I’m not interested in religious conferences. You still won’t face the fact that you are pushing panentheism. Quite frankly, the only blogs I read are Alec’s (hecd2), my nephew who is a geophysicist, and my niece who is a historian. By the way, my last message to you on this forum still holds true. I wish viewers would take the time to read that last message (599) I wrote to you. It pretty much says everything I have to say to you. You are ill-mannered and rude to me and continue to be so.
drpmjhess;2866971:
I have never “pushed” panentheism. The only thing I have ever suggested is that thousands of my theologian colleagues (Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, and Jewish) find panentheism to be a fruitful metaphysical framework within which to conceive theologically of the God-Creation relationship. Take the time to participate in the American Academy of Religion Conference some year (always the weekend before Thanksgiving) and you will see what I mean. Meeting with active theologians offers you a different perspective from sitting at home reading blogs.
Prayerfully yours, Petrus
Petrus
Wildleafblower, I have never pushed panetheism, but perhaps with your unreasonable persistence in insisting that I do, the world will begin to listen to the squeaky wheel.I’m not interested in religious conferences. You still won’t face the fact that you are pushing panentheism. .
Wearing clothes of cotton and polyester blends contradicts Deuteronomy 22:11. If anyone should wear such a blend, let him be anathema!Concerning Adam and Eve and preternatural gifts it does.
SpiritMeadow, sigh – you’re right. Hey, if you want to meet in the dark alley tonight, I’ve got several kilos of pure Columbian panetheism for sale, enough for you and your entire congregation…The problem with these long threads is that newcomers decide they don’t want to read the entire thread, so they raise issues already done to death as it were. …I do the same thing… Sorry Petrus, we seem to be back into panentheism again.
Sorry – in that post I was just testing to see whether Catholics have a sense of humour.SpiritMeadow, sigh – you’re right. Hey, if you want to meet in the dark alley tonight, I’ve got several kilos of pure Columbian panetheism for sale, enough for you and your entire congregation…Your friendly neighborhood panentheism pusher
Apologies, I meant "sic et “non,” not “on.”This is a great academic tradition with its roots in the medieval scholastic method of arguing “sic” et “on.”
Petrus sum
According to the Library on this site. Genesis 1 is actual history. Adam and Eve were actual people and the Church rejects the idea that they were not the parents of all of us living today - see Humani Generis.Sorry to enter this so late, bu to ask it in layman’s terms, what is so wrong with believing in God choosing evolution as the way to bring things about? It doesn’t contradict scripture.
Rick, I don’t think panentheism is the sort of thing that owuld be “promoted” by the church, as it is only a metaphysical way of envisioning the diviein relationship wtih the universe. The gospels do speak of the divine immanence (“I will be with you always, to the end of the age”; “I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever”), and the Qur’an speaks of God being closer to us than our jugular vein.Hello again, Sorry for mis-reading panentheism for pantheism. Just the same, has this ever been promoted by the Church, say in the catechism, in an ecyclical, or exhortation? I will do some searching but must admit, I have never heard of this word. How does panentheism square with church teaching?
Valke, if I read you correctly, I don’t agree that the God-man separation is for monotheists merely a fiction. The Judeo-Christian doctrine of creation is based upon our constitutive assumption that God and God’s creation are ontologically distinct.This is because monotheism promotes a seperation between man and God. I think this is necessary for us to comprehend attributesof God but that at the same time the seperation is a fiction.