Why is it "theologian" and not "theologist", e.g., biologist, geologist, psychologist?
336241
The key is in the AGE of the word -- "theologian" predates all the other words you mention.\n\nThis ending (-logian) comes from an Old French word "theologien".  The ending has occasionally been added to more recent words, to form "geologian" and "philologian".  \n\nBut unlike the old, well-established form "theologian" , other forms using this ending became obsolete or rare, replaced by the more modern English formation, ending in -logist.  \n\nActually, you WILL sometimes find the alternate word "theologist", but it has never really caught on.  (Slightly more successful is the form "theologizer"[British theologiser], using an even more recent way of forming endings.)\n\nDo note that the -ian type ending persists in words where a "c" precedes (physician, electrician, magician, technician, obstetrician, etc.)
732102
i think it defines the religion they follow. because 2 different christians does not have the same type of relationship with God. i mean som people only call themself a christian but they have no 'real' relationship with God
205562
I TOTALLy agree with you in that the two concepts are mutually exclusive.  A belief in God (as depicted in the Bible) has ABSOLUTELY NO ROOM for macroevolution.  Similarly, a belief in macroevolution has NO PLACE for God.  \n\nSome individuals try to merge the two, saying that God used macroevolution as THE CREATION MACHINERY. That's like Jews or Muslims saying Jesus was a good man, a great teacher but not the Messiah. THERE'S NO MIDDLE GROUND.  GOD OR EVOLUTION? MESSIAH OR MADMAN?  The choice is yours.\n\nIncidentally, macroevolution has never been proven, either.  BOTH must be accepted on FAITH!!!!
332289
Theology is the study of all religions and their concepts and is not contained within a specific belief system. Religion is the practice of a certain belief system, or dogma if you will, and is very narrow in scope. One can be a theologist without being religious or even practice any religion.\n\nI think what they are telling you is that you are not accepting or knowledgable of other belief systems outside of your own. In other words, your religion is the ONLY TRUE religion--which seems to be the down fall of most religious entities.
1180742
It is not wrong or a contradiction.  Many scientists who study the evolution of species are Christians.  Also, many prominent Christian figures (such as the Pope) have expressed their support for evolution.\n\nThe sentiment most often expressed by Christian scientists is: \n"Science may explain the origins of the body, but only God can explain the origins of the soul."\n\nHere's a link for the pope thing if you're interested:\nhttp://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/0102-97/Article3.html
157117
I've read that article and found it funny. I've seen pepole use that before.\nMy opinion, they use parts of the bible that conform to their relgious ideology. Different church in different states that belong to the same religious denomination fall to this. \nSo short answer to your question as I said ideology as each person sees it.
224608
"Dr" Hovind is a complete charlatan, and the arguments as far as Earth's rotation and the distance to the moon are fradulent.\n\nIn any case, I know a number of people, including one who is a priest, who believe in both God and evolution.  In this viewpoint, God is more of a supreme architect who created the basic structure of the universe, and evolution is one of the ways in which this universe operates, giving rise to life in all its complexity.  It's a reasonable viewpoint, given that you can neither prove nor disprove God.  Personally, I don't find God necessary, so I don't include such a being in my view of reality.  Can I prove this?  No, not really.  But a believer in God can't prove to me that this being exists, either.  As far as whether you're a creationist of an evolutionist, I'd say you're an evolutionist since you believe that life diversified through evolution.  Darwin was also a believer in God, although not a personal God you could communicate with.  His viewpoint was much more like the school of theological thought that was very popular at the time called Deism, which proposes a God that exists as a permeating force, but which does not perform miracles, or give prophecy to individual humans.  In other words they view God as more of a force of nature than an anthropomorphic God.   So, if the originator of the theory of evolution could believe in God, and felt that he was learning about the works of this God by understanding nature, then I'd say someone who believes in God and considers the process of evolution to be one of the achievements of that God is an evolutionist.  \n\nThe idea that a belief in God and acceptance of evolution as a scientific throught are impossible to hold at the same time is a straw man set up by religious con men who are mostly interested in controlling people's thought for the purpose of building up their own political power.  By creating a false dichotomy, they can get people to isolate themselves from other schools of thought, which makes them easier to control.
1001696
Well, the Bible is a book of faith, "Origin of Species" is a science book.  So when I want to enrich my faith, I go to the Bible.  When I want to understand evolution, I read, well, something more current than Darwin, but you get my point...
644850
As a liberal minister, I think God is a figurative term. When nature hurts us, we(the God) get mad . We (God) assume that we(God) are punishing ourselves because of our own perceived shortcomings.
536913
The response to the question "Is Mormonism Christian?" depends on the substance of the question and its context. If the inquiry is more theological and religious than theoretical and academic, then the question and answer are normative and depend upon the presuppositions that underlie the query. However, the question can be examined by asking about the significance and implications of labeling and naming in the world of religion. While much modern Latter-day Saint literature has emphasized elements in common between the LDS Church and other Christian denominations, the frequent use of "Mormon" among the early Saints shows that the unique doctrines and beliefs of the Saints—such as the Book of Mormon, the gathering, and the leadership of the prophet—enabled the Saints to withstand the centrifugal pull of Protestant hegemony and establish their own identity. Likewise, the Saints referred to everyone outside of their religion as "Gentile," a practice that continued into this century. Now, with their identity firmly established, the Saints no longer feel constrained to be segregated from other denominations. At the same time, however, new conservative Christians have adopted the label "Christian" to unite themselves and to exclude outsiders or those who may differ in their doctrinal beliefs. The need to show this divergence has grown with the increased prominence of the Church and its members and with the realization that conservative Christians share with the Saints a common social and political agenda.\n\nWhile the debate usually centers on determining whether certain Latter-day Saint beliefs and practices should be considered Christian, there are renowned and influential spokesmen and writers in all the major wings of Christendom who have defended and taught ideas that Joseph Smith taught almost alone a century and a half ago. For instance, in the 1960s many were beginning to question the impersonal nature of God, preferring to see him in terms of a more definite personality. Also, many writers emphasized the divine within man and pointed out man's potential. In contrast to the feelings of earlier centuries, theologians feel a need for continuing revelation and unity, rather than diversity, in the body of Christian churches. Certain trends emphasize spiritual gifts and the sacred nature of marriage, both important to Latter-day Saint beliefs. Finally, the explosion in the discovery of ancient documents also presents parallels between ancient Christian and modern LDS beliefs. As of 1974, patterns of revision in some churches reflect growing similarities between these churches and Latter-day Saint practices. It must be acknowledged, however, that these movements have correspondingly powerful countermovements, and there exists a tremendous chasm between what professional writers say theologically and what actually penetrates to the grassroots.
239757
There are many medical (and other fields) researchers with a deep faith in God.  The question is irrelevant in that their field is a scientific endeavor, and their beliefs are a matter of faith.  Both are compatible and they are not against each other as the questioner seems to imply.
1056664
There are only 2 real subjects in the world (and they are related).  There is God, and there is creation.  Clearly studying God implies also study of Creation, BUT the study of creation does not imply, necessarily, the study of God.  At least this is the assumption people in old age made.  ANY subject whatsoever is part of the study of Creation, AND the study of creation is called Philosophy.  Hence, philosophy encompasses all subjects, except Theology.\n\nTherefore PhD's.  By the way, recently a new subject has emerged: Medicine: MD's are Medical Doctorates.  IN the modern world distinctions between different subjects are being created.  However, most of the regular subjects on which you can get a PhD were around in the Middle Ages when The Catholic Church invented the modern University, and so they inheret the terminology of the time...  Philosophy is everything, except Theology.
937348
You mean creationists, not christians...there are differences.\n\nThey deny it for one reason...it throws enough doubt onto what they believe, that it could shatter the foundation of their belief.  There are some who rationalize the 2 things together, and while I don't agree with trying to merge fact and fiction here, at least they're trying to be logical.  Anyone who believes something so vehemently, that they blind themselves to the truth, usually does it out of fear; whether its a fear of death (believe in a happy afterlife), addiction (do 12 steps, because you didn't CHOOSE to be an addict), accountability ("the devil is why bad things happen to me"), or something else.\n\nHonestly, I'm just as confused as why they would rather come from dirt, than evolve from a living thing myself.
1155512
Quote: "You do realize that not everything in the cosmos is logical, yes?"\n\nAbsolutely. But answering these questions with "God created such and such" goes no further in explaining them. In fact, it simply muddies the waters more by pretending to know the unknowable.\n\nQuote: "Do you think it's wise to arbitrarily mythologize every faith?"\n\nLet's face it, most religions have wrapped themselves in myth far more than we could ever do by offering up fables and patently ridiculous stories. These stories, by the way, suddenly ceased to happen around the same time that science became prominent enough to refute them. \n\nQuote: "The truth is there, but it's not always elegant, and it's not always what we wish it were."\n\nJust briefly, take a look at how science approaches a problem and then how religion does it? Do you see a difference? Science STUDIES a problem, it pursues it from different angles and attempts to understand through hueristic methods. In the end, science pursues truth. Religion simply assumes that it already knows.\n\nEdit: To ChrimsonCarrots below: The Bible has credentials? What credentials? These people were NOT historians with an eye on detail and accuracy. Gospel itself means "good news". The goal was to push the idea of Christianity into a positive light and to perpetuate it. If I remember correctly, the story of the crucifiction is told within four books of the bible, Mathew, Luke, Mark, and Paul, the earliest of which was written AT LEAST forty years AFTER the crucifiction. Are you suggestiing that this is reliable and accurate information?
471387
Theory is theory, period.  Which one you accept should be a choice, not programming.  \n\nInsisting on an evolutionary theory which precludes the existence of God IS theology, because it makes assumptions about something that is not observable, testable, or repeatable.  In the marketplace of ideas, any time one group claims autonomy of intelligence, then intellectual dictatorship follows, and people soon forget how to think and reason for themselves -- they become societal automatons, incapable of doing anything more than following the crowd.\n\nThe puppets of bad science continue to spout the doctrine of "DNA", not even understanding for themselves that micro-evolution at the DNA level does not alter the length of the DNA strand, and that there is absolutely NO PROOF that DNA can or ever has "evolved" from one strand length into another, substantiating the claim that every DNA strand length which is in existence today was also in existence at the origin of species, pointing directly to intelligent design, and therefore a Designer.\n\nBottom line, when interpreting evidence for the purpose of supporting a theory, GOOD SCIENCE DEMANDS that ALL possible interpretations be presented, and that opposing theories which they support should also be discussed, but NO THEORY SHOULD BE TAUGHT DOGMATICALLY!  It is our individual right and obligation to choose our own beliefs.\n\n(Rant over!)
88621
Many scientists avoid the subject of religion and rather simply try to gather evidence, build models (hypotheses or theories), test them, keep the ones that succeed, throw out the ones that fail, rinse and repeat.\n\nAs one accumulates these evidence, it lends credence to the probability to the models (theories) being true.  This means that these models are consistent with what evidence is collected with respect to the past and that it may predict new kinds of evidence that may be found in the future.\n\nThe problem is that some people get into semantic word play with the word "theory" and think that demonstrating a flaw or a lack of explanation in the "theory" invalidates it totally making it false.  If you replace the word "theory" with model (which maybe scienstists should do), it reduces the ability to attack it.\n\nAnd, as for the "Big Bang", there are models which, if correct, say that the "Big Bang" was not necessarily the beginning.\n\nI think one problem people have with these "theories" is that they lack the experience, study, and knowledge of the evidence to appreciate their validity or not and so reject them simply out of hand because they are not consistent with their own belief system.\n\nHere's the problem.  If I say that the grass outside my window is green and you say "I don't believe you", that does not invalidate the fact that the grass outside my window is green.  It just means that you refuse to accept the evidence.  Your statement of disbelief does nothing to disprove the evidence.\n\nNow, given that the stories in Genesis are inconsistent with the evidence of the universe, you have a choice.  Accept them as allegorical and still find value in the teachings of the bible or whatever your religion might be. Or, you can see it as an attack on a literal interpretation of the bible.  But, these scientists didn't set out to attack the bible or religion.  They just set out to interpret the evidence and found that words in the bible didn't provide sufficient explanation to intepret the evidence and create consistent models.\n\nIt is only folks that think a word for word literal interpretation of the bible is required to be religious that find that science is an attack on religion.\n\nIt is possible to interpret the bible as guide for how to live one's life without ascribing to a word for word literal interpretation.  It just depends on your interpretation.
728408
christian? no, I wouldn't say that; more like a miragian.....Why? are you writing a thesis?