Is Jesus's "this generation will certainly not pass" valid grounds for scepticism?

porch said:
The Nature Institute is weird. The Third Way is weird.

The division among Christians is dire to what? Or whom? And is that what Darat said, that it's dire?

I have been paying attention. The OP asks a question about how Christians reconcile a particular passage from the gospels. Someone pointed out to you that different Christians have different answers. And then you asked, "Wouldn't this only be significant if it were peculiar to Christianity?" The answer to that question is no. It is entirely significant to the OP question whether it is peculiar to Christianity or not. And so, the whole Darwin thing that you brought up in that post is just a big distraction.

To me, it looks sort of like this imaginary discussion -

Hankel: What colour are horses?
Grestle: Horses are different colours.
H: Wouldn't that only be significant if it were peculiar to horses? Cars are different colours, you know.
G: What is the point of this comparison?
H: Well, cars and horses are both ways that people can travel.
G: Uh, okay, sure. But what are you getting at?
H: I just told you! I was responding to your question! *meow* *hiss*

Anyhow, I hope this isn't one of those threads that starts off as if it's a question about one thing, but it turns out it's really a big Be It Resolved That about something else, but it takes a long, long-assed time to find out, and in the end there isn't any really meaty argument for anyone to chew on anyhow. You'd be surprised, it's happened around these parts before.
Click to expand...
Thank you for this post.

I have no idea what Poem is trying to say in the original post or what he has said since. I don't care what CS Lewis said. I don't see it as problematic for most Christians. Very, very few of them are arguing about this.

And atheists probably care even less about this. There are a multitude of reasons why non-believers don't believe in the Christian God. And this probably doesn't make the top 50. And it's not evolution either. Evolution by national selection could be debunked tomorrow. (I doubt it) But even if it were, it wouldn't make magic the answer.
 
acbytesla said:
Very, very few of them are arguing about this.
Click to expand...
I can't imagine that any of them are. I can't comprehend that a Christian would say to themself " Hmm, Jesus lied to his followers. " and still remain a Christian. Whatever controversy might lie there simply doesn't matter to a true believer.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
No. Your language still looks dishonest and moronic. I'm not addressing whether others also do.
Click to expand...
I'll ask again, was Michael Ruse 'foolish and moronic' for using the word 'Darwinism' in his book Darwinism and Its Discontents?

Here's a quote from American Scientist:
In his latest salvo, Darwinism and Its Discontents, Ruse turns his good-natured pugnacity to a robust and comprehensive defence of the theory of evolution by natural selection as elaborated by Charles Darwin in On the Origin of Species (1859).
 
Poem said:
I'll ask again, was Michael Ruse 'foolish and moronic' for using the word 'Darwinism' in his book Darwinism and Its Discontents
Click to expand...
It seems that this book was written specifically to counter creationists arguments, and creationists use the term ‘Darwinism’ all the time, so perhaps this use of the term is warranted to reach the right audience.
 
steenkh said:
It seems that this book was written specifically to counter creationists arguments, and creationists use the term ‘Darwinism’ all the time, so perhaps this use of the term is warranted to reach the right audience.
Click to expand...
Is it foolish or moronic to use the term 'Darwinism'?

Is Denis Noble also foolish for declaring that 'Neo-Darwinism is dead'?
 
theprestige said:
I don't care about those guys. I want to know why do you keep referring to it as Darwinian, here in this thread?

Maybe those guys are making sensical mentions of Darwinism in other contexts. You're not those guys, and this isn't those contexts.

Once again you hide behind rhetorical questions, rather than addressing points with complete arguments.

What conclusion are you trying to advance, with your repeated use of terms like "Darwinism" and "Darwinian"? Can you please just skip to the part where you tell us what that conclusion is?
Click to expand...
You seriously expect me to respond to you after our previous exchange? I asked you if you were a Christian and you responded with:

If you want to talk to actual Christians, go find some actual Christians to talk to. Stop sniffing around my door, hoping I'll throw you a bone you can gnaw on, just because Foyle said "look over there!"

You are not posting in good faith.
 
porch said:
The Nature Institute is weird. The Third Way is weird.

The division among Christians is dire to what? Or whom? And is that what Darat said, that it's dire?

I have been paying attention. The OP asks a question about how Christians reconcile a particular passage from the gospels. Someone pointed out to you that different Christians have different answers. And then you asked, "Wouldn't this only be significant if it were peculiar to Christianity?" The answer to that question is no. It is entirely significant to the OP question whether it is peculiar to Christianity or not. And so, the whole Darwin thing that you brought up in that post is just a big distraction.

To me, it looks sort of like this imaginary discussion -

Hankel: What colour are horses?
Grestle: Horses are different colours.
H: Wouldn't that only be significant if it were peculiar to horses? Cars are different colours, you know.
G: What is the point of this comparison?
H: Well, cars and horses are both ways that people can travel.
G: Uh, okay, sure. But what are you getting at?
H: I just told you! I was responding to your question! *meow* *hiss*

Anyhow, I hope this isn't one of those threads that starts off as if it's a question about one thing, but it turns out it's really a big Be It Resolved That about something else, but it takes a long, long-assed time to find out, and in the end there isn't any really meaty argument for anyone to chew on anyhow. You'd be surprised, it's happened around these parts before.
Click to expand...

Thank you for at least trying refer to the original topic. I suspect that if enough people report the mud-wrestling as off topic then we might just get back on track before Jesus returns.
 
Poem said:
Extreme toxicity scared all the Christians off?
Click to expand...

I am puzzled why you expect there to be Christians on this forum with whom you can debate matters of Christian faith. A sceptics' forum, by its very nature, will mostly attract sceptics. Have you tried joining a Christian forum which, I would venture, may have significantly more Christians on it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom