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

Poem said:
And I have repeatedly pointed out that evolutionists use it.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure evolutionists is another word that only creationists use. When I searched for it the first link was

en.wikipedia.org

Evolutionism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Evolutionism is a term used (often derogatorily) to denote the theory of evolution. ...

The term is most often used by creationists to describe adherence to the scientific consensus on evolution as equivalent to a secular religion. The term is very seldom used within the scientific community, since the scientific position on evolution is accepted by the overwhelming majority of scientists.
Click to expand...
 
Thermal said:
The impression I get is not that Poem is discussing in bad faith, but that these metaphysical threads kind of drift around by nature. Poem.is open ended on a bunch of the topics as they organically arise, and wants to kick the ideas around, not entrench on a stance and do battle.
Click to expand...
Correct.
 
It's like describing someone who accepts the theory of gravity as a gravitationist, or who accepts germ theory as a germist. It's just ... weird.
 
What is clear to me is that there are some here who want to shut down any discussion about evolutionary theory.

Perhaps International Skeptics is not the best place for you.
 
Wikipedia:
Richard Dawkins (born 26 March 1941) is a British evolutionary biologist, zoologist, science communicator, and author

Therefore Dawkins is an evolutionist.
 
Poem said:
Wikipedia:
Richard Dawkins (born 26 March 1941) is a British evolutionary biologist, zoologist, science communicator, and author

Therefore Dawkins is an evolutionist.
Click to expand...

Again, the choice of words can be revealing. Someone who chooses to describe Dawkins as an evolutionist is suggesting to me something different about themselves than someone who chooses to describe him as an evolutionary biologist.
 
Pixel42 said:
Again, the choice of words can be revealing. Someone who chooses to describe Dawkins as an evolutionist is suggesting to me something different about themselves than someone who chooses to describe him as an evolutionary biologist.
Click to expand...
Not at all. He is an evolutionary biologist. He is also an evolutionist.

If you deny that Dawkins is a evolutionist then you are denying language. Dawkins has no issue using the word 'Darwinism'.

When you have evolutionary biologists (a minority of them) describing 'Neo-Darwinism'' as dead, then you know that there is disagreement over current explanations for the process.
 
sphenisc said:
There's also a discussion related to the OP as part of a larger thread.

The Fall: History, Theology and Palaeobiology - Page 3

We get on fine @Gramps49. Like you and me. The best of enemies. You've defended me more than once. We're all fair minded men.
forums.shipoffools.com forums.shipoffools.com

Search the page for 'kenosis' to find the approximate start.
Click to expand...

That's interesting sphenisc. Did you find out any more about kenosis?
 
sphenisc said:
That's interesting sphenisc. Did you find out any more about kenosis?
Click to expand...
The OP is an example of kenosis: Jesus stated that nobody knows the day or hour (of his return) - not the angels nor the Son - only the Father. The NT also avers that Jesus was fully human.
 
Poem said:
The OP is an example of kenosis: Jesus stated that nobody knows the day or hour (of his return) - not the angels nor the Son - only the Father. The NT also avers that Jesus was fully human.
Click to expand...

The OP is about "this generation shall not pass till all these things be done." This is a distinctly different example of kenosis. In this case Jesus not only gets it wrong because he doesn't actually know, but he apparently isn't aware that he doesn't know and thinks he does. It is, to coin a phrase, an unknown unknown for him. Another option is that it's a deliberate lie, but perhaps unsurprisingly Ship of Fools doesn't appear to follow up on that line of thought.
 
sphenisc said:
The OP is about "this generation shall not pass till all these things be done." This is a distinctly different example of kenosis. In this case Jesus not only gets it wrong because he doesn't actually know, but he apparently isn't aware that he doesn't know and thinks he does. It is, to coin a phrase, an unknown unknown for him. Another option is that it's a deliberate lie, but perhaps unsurprisingly Ship of Fools doesn't appear to follow up on that line of thought.
Click to expand...

And of course the different Christian religions have different takes on what kenosis means in regard to their theology.
 
sphenisc said:
The OP is about "this generation shall not pass till all these things be done." This is a distinctly different example of kenosis. In this case Jesus not only gets it wrong because he doesn't actually know, but he apparently isn't aware that he doesn't know and thinks he does. It is, to coin a phrase, an unknown unknown for him. Another option is that it's a deliberate lie, but perhaps unsurprisingly Ship of Fools doesn't appear to follow up on that line of thought.
Click to expand...
I disagree. In verse 36 (only the Father knows) Jesus is stating that he (Jesus) does not know the exact day or hour - but in v. 34 he claims to know the signs that precede his parousia (his second coming). He emphasises the abomination that causes desolation (which most Christians seem to believe is the setting up of an idol in the Temple) as the sign to look for - and that when that happens they need to flee.

As far as I can see - the 'abomination' did not occur in 70AD. The Romans laid siege and then proceeded to utterly destroy the Temple.
 
Poem said:
I disagree. In verse 36 (only the Father knows) Jesus is stating that he (Jesus) does not know the exact day or hour - but in v. 34 he claims to know the signs that precede his parousia (his second coming). He emphasises the abomination that causes desolation (which most Christians seem to believe is the setting up of an idol in the Temple) as the sign to look for - and that when that happens they need to flee.

As far as I can see - the 'abomination' did not occur in 70AD. The Romans laid siege and then proceeded to utterly destroy the Temple.
Click to expand...

How does that disagree with what I said?
 
sphenisc said:
How does that disagree with what I said?
Click to expand...
When you say:
In this case Jesus not only gets it wrong because he doesn't actually know, but he apparently isn't aware that he doesn't know and thinks he does.

...what specifically are you referring to please? I may have misunderstood you.
 
Poem said:
When you say:
In this case Jesus not only gets it wrong because he doesn't actually know, but he apparently isn't aware that he doesn't know and thinks he does.
Click to expand...

It what way does what you've said contradict what I've said?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom