Biblical literalism correlates with anti-science

[KingJ]

<<Does it make sense to you that God not interact at all with mankind for so many years?>>

1. What "makes sense" is irrelevant. God does what He does when He wants to. And God is not influenced by time. Time is part oc creation and God is not part of creation.

<<Why was there not earlier recorded accounts of Noah type catastrophes passed down?>>

2. There are earlier accounts. The Mesopotamian account of the flood predates Moses by at least 500 years.

<<Scripture is clear that God has interacted and cared about intelligent man from day 1>>

3. No. He interacted with Adam, not all mankind. There is no indication of God interacting with the people who dwelt "east of Eden" from whom Cain took a wife.

4. Until you extract yourself from the misguided assumption that the Bible is natural history, you will continue to make foolish statments about the age of the universe and misunderstand the scriptures.

1. Nonsense. Missing scripture is a valid point you can't just brush away like that.
2. You completely missed the point.
3. So there were other Adams? They also had a tree? Adam lived long and families multiply quickly, there is a non heretical explanation for people east of Eden.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

The Mesopotamian flood predates Moses????

Really????

Oh my!! I've been wrong all this time!!!

I need to find all those people I've misled.

I need to........

Wait.......

Noah's flood predates Moses too Einstein.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

So Cain married a soulless animal?
A monkey perhaps?
Could it speak?
Did the children have souls?
Half of them?
God created an Earth that was in chaos for billions of years?
It was the home of intelligent life?
Death reigned upon it for no apparent reason?
Then, 6,000 years ago God finally got around to paying attention?
Is this your story and you're sticking to it?

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

So Cain married a soulless animal?
A monkey perhaps?
Could it speak?
Did the children have souls?
Half of them?
God created an Earth that was in chaos for billions of years?
It was the home of intelligent life?
Death reigned upon it for no apparent reason?
Then, 6,000 years ago God finally got around to paying attention?
Is this your story and you're sticking to it?

 

[River Jordan]

I tend to trust sites that teach the need to love and serve Jesus more then those that don't.

Right...your decision on whether to trust a site isn't based on accuracy or truthfulness, but rather is based on whether they share with your beliefs. IOW, tribalism, just as I described.

The discussion on quotes is quite funny. Pro evolutionists seem hell bent on proving so many as false. When propaganda is all you have, you have to protect it

Um, no...the outrageous dishonesty behind how some creationists edit and misrepresent the words of scientists is well documented. it's one of the main reasons I've seen people cite for concluding that creationists aren't trustworthy.

 

[River Jordan]

And yet there is massive worldwide revival among organizations of which you know absolutely nothing about.

What do you mean I know nothing about? I'm well aware of how Christianity is gaining converts in the third world and China.

Will you claim to know exactly everything that God is doing in the world? Of that I have no doubt. But the truth is, you are clueless. The latter day revival fires burn brighter in spite of your disdain for the church. You've lost. You never had a chance.

It's funny how on one hand you're so eager and willing to give the benefit of the doubt to creationists because they're your fellow believers, but as soon as you encounter a fellow believer who disagrees with you on a few things, you act like this. Apparently your sense of loyalty and tribalism only extends to those who believe exactly as you do.

 

[River Jordan]

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: (‭1 Timothy‬ ‭6‬:‭20‬ KJV)

And you honestly think that is specifically about the type and state of science as it exists today?

 

[River Jordan]

No, but again, my point is that both sides do this.

Again...so? Did "they do it too" work on your mom?

My point is this: I dont often find Christians in our universities saying, "The adaptation we see in the cell cannot be true, it goes against the Bible!" Rather, I see many (not all) Christians trying to honestly reconcile their faith with what is observed. They do this by looking at the same data and providing other possible explanations than sheer naturalism. This is not "anti-science," its providing different narratives for the same scientific discoveries.

The people who believe in a flat earth that doesn't move can make the exact same argument. "We're just looking at the data differently". Sorry, but the consistent dishonesty I keep seeing from the creationist sources that are cited here shows that this isn't a case of "looking at the data differently". it's exactly as AiG says in their statement of faith...

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

And of course they make it clear that "the scriptural record" = their particular fundamentalist interpretation of scripture. Let's be clear here. The above is not an intellectually honest approach to reality. It's basically "Everything must conform to our beliefs, and anything that seems to conflict with our beliefs is wrong, by definition". IOW, they have deemed themselves infallible.

And I guess that's fine as a belief, but as an approach to science? No. That's not "looking at things differently".

So, I rarely see Christians attacking science

Then you need to pay better attention. This thread, plus at least two or three others, plus the sample of quotes I posted is more than "rarely".

The implication there is pretty clear. The more "literally" (which begs definition) one takes the Bible, the less scientific they become. I think this is not only unverifiable (unless one defines "science" as embracing Darwinism) but purely agenda driven. Offering different meta-narratives to scientific discoveries is not being "anti-science." There may be some Christians who are anti-science in their demand to make the OT a science book, but its misleading to suggest that there is a direct correlation between one's hermeneutics and their disgust for science. Science began mostly with Christians who took the Bible "literally" (at least how many would define that word today). To suggest the too are generally antithetical is like saying that a tree is antithetical to its root.

Again, you can deny reality all you like, but that speaks more to how you deal\ with uncomfortable information than anything else.
.

Yes, but 1) people were not doing such horrific things while claiming to be "Christian" and 2) we have never seen such practices embraced and celebrated by cultures and medical practices to the tune of 1.1 million per year in America alone. Also, lets not pretend that racism or misogymy were done away with as a result of people distancing themselves from the Bible. If anything, it was those committed to the Scriptures that were key catalysts to putting an end to such things, rather than the other way around. In sum, turning from the authority of the Bible has led to all kinds of moral decadance such as abortions and the celebration of all kinds of sexual impurity...and the acceptance of the Bible as the authority was the foundation of doing away with racism, discrimination and misogyny.

Looks like you need to pay better attention to history too.

Yeah, online surveys are a real depiction of "reality."

Again, you need to pay better attention. The survey data I've posted here many times "was comprised of eight national studies, including interviews with teenagers, young adults, parents, youth pastors, and senior pastors." And the research group is a Christian organization.

 

[Forsakenone]

I wonder how long it would have taken them lynched me for saying that tongues, being the ability to speak was a gift given only to the men
that were made in the likeness and image of the Spirit and Word that made them [male and female]

If it is written, John 7:24 "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment." then how do you determine who the children of God are?

 

[Wormwood]

Again...so? Did "they do it too" work on your mom?

No, but my mom was reasonable and loving. She encouraged me along with discipline and didn't kick me when I was down. Again, a kind word to people you disagree with from time to time isn't asking much.

The people who believe in a flat earth that doesn't move can make the exact same argument. "We're just looking at the data differently". Sorry, but the consistent dishonesty I keep seeing from the creationist sources that are cited here shows that this isn't a case of "looking at the data differently". it's exactly as AiG says in their statement of faith...

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

You are comparing apples and oranges here and you know it. Different assessments about the same science is much different than denying the earth is round. These comments from you are what make these conversations so pointless.

Then you need to pay better attention. This thread, plus at least two or three others, plus the sample of quotes I posted is more than "rarely".

Again, this board hardly is representative of evangelical Christianity. You are going to tar all conservative Christians because you have had a few distasteful conversations on this board? Do you attend a church on a weekly basis?

Looks like you need to pay better attention to history too.

Yeah, you're right. Just look at us Christians. This is not much different than posting a pic of the Westboro Baptists protesting as an example of what Baptists are like. Are you kidding me? If I recall, I think John Newton gave up slave trading when he became a Christian. I believe William Wilberforce was a Christian. I think Lincoln was a Christian. I believe Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a preacher. Yeah, but you have a picture...so there goes my theory.

 

[pom2014]

And if I were God I would tell them to shut their whore mouths or I will backhand you into the lake of fire with the rest of the lot. "Hear me out". NO, I'm the judge, so shut it or I'll shut it for you.

Such venom.

 

[pom2014]

1. Nonsense. Missing scripture is a valid point you can't just brush away like that.
2. You completely missed the point.
3. So there were other Adams? They also had a tree? Adam lived long and families multiply quickly, there is a non heretical explanation for people east of Eden.

Quick question, is incest a sin?

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

So if someone brings up Hitler, there is a specific name for it.

If someone posts a picture of the KKK comparing them to modern Christianity---it's called what?

I know what I'd call it, but that seems to be frowned upon on here.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

Quick question, is incest a sin?

Quick answer: Yes.

Now, let's suppose just for a moment there are no other humans. Let's suppose your family is the only one. Let's suppose sexual relations at this point had not been directly tainted by sin. Let's suppose you were given the command to multiply. It is safe to assume that you would have married your sister without sin.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

River Jordan,

Do you believe in the traditional, orthodox, definition of the Trinity?

Serious question.

 

[River Jordan]

No, but my mom was reasonable and loving. She encouraged me along with discipline and didn't kick me when I was down. Again, a kind word to people you disagree with from time to time isn't asking much.

Did you say things like this to your mom?

You are nothing more then a brain dead evolution poster girl.

I need only listen to ungodly atheists at work to hear and understand your latest belief

blah blah blah, you are a joke

At my church you wouldn't be allowed to open your mouth

You believe like an atheist, call yourself a Christian and have no respect for any scripture.

Why can't you just believe in one less god. You are atheistic of untold thousands of deities. Why not one more.

Zip your trap and stop trying to stumble fellow Christians.

That's been your purpose since you've joined this board. To discredit the Word. Sounding like an atheist in disguise.

Sit down, be quiet and learn from the elders.

Since y'all been on this forum all it look like y'all been doing is trying to debunk Genesis. You know Genesis and Revelation are the two books Satan attacks the most.

If anyone here interrogated you they will find you reject 99% of scripture. You may as well read from toilet paper.

No? Well, those are just a sampling of the things that have been posted to me here.

You are comparing apples and oranges here and you know it. Different assessments about the same science is much different than denying the earth is round. These comments from you are what make these conversations so pointless.

How? How is AiG's assessment of science, where anything that conflicts with their reading of scripture is always wrong, different than flat earters' assessment of the science showing a spherical earth?

Again, this board hardly is representative of evangelical Christianity.

Really? So Christianjuggarnaut, KingJ, Uppsaladagby, BlackmaninNC, and all the others I've discussed science with here are what? Oddballs? Outliers?

Yeah, you're right. Just look at us Christians. This is not much different than posting a pic of the Westboro Baptists protesting as an example of what Baptists are like.

No it's not. The WBC is literally a single family, whereas the KKK in the southern US had thousands and thousands of members (and local support), and institutionalized racism was a very popular position among southern Christians. If you think that's equivalent to a single family, then you need to re-think.

 

[River Jordan]

River Jordan,

Do you believe in the traditional, orthodox, definition of the Trinity?

Serious question.

Sorry, I'm not getting into any more purity tests from fundamentalists like you. Apparently I"m justified in doing so since you aren't at all representative of evangelical Christianity.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

It's not a purity test. It has to do with the topic at hand?

"Sit down, be quiet, and learn from the elders."

That was mine.

And yes we are oddballs and outliers. However, our views are held in one way or another by many evangelicals. Most of them would never come on here and discuss it in this exaggerated form though.

 

[River Jordan]

It's not a purity test. It has to do with the topic at hand?

No it doesn't.

And yes we are oddballs and outliers. However, our views are held in one way or another by many evangelicals.

Not according to Wormwood. Your views are rare and not at all representative of evangelical Christianity.

 

[Wormwood]

No? Well, those are just a sampling of the things that have been posted to me here.

Yeah, that's not right. But I have seen your conversations, River. Your are regularly provoking people and attempting to make others look and feel stupid. If one wanted, they could create their own similar list of snide comments and underhanded jabs that make people feel stupid. Not justifying either side here. Just saying I have seen the conversations and its usually back and forth, not a one sided attack.

How? How is AiG's assessment of science, where anything that conflicts with their reading of scripture is always wrong, different than flat earters' assessment of the science showing a spherical earth?

I don't really know AIG. But I know there is a big difference in saying that the Scriptures are the foundation of truth and the Scriptures are science textbooks. Obviously, we need to have a consistent hermeneutics when looking at the Bible. Again, no one is denying actual science. People often deny "theories" that project back millions of years. These are two very different things. It's the difference between denying gravity that is proven now, and denying that a meteor hit the earth millions of years ago to wipe out the dinosaurs. One is a proven and present fact and the other is a theory that is derived from ideas about how to interpret present facts. Big difference. The Bible is true, however, we don't all understand it properly. The problem is in the latter, not the former.

Really? So Christianjuggarnaut, KingJ, Uppsaladagby, BlackmaninNC, and all the others I've discussed science with here are what? Oddballs? Outliers?

I bet if you went to a somewhat conservative church on Sunday and asked 10 people what they believed about science as it relates to adaptation and genetic information, most of them would say, "I have no idea. Im sure if they discovered it, that it is true." If you asked them what they believed about creation, they would probably give a host of difference answers such as "I believe it happened as the Bible says" or "I believe God created it, but not exactly sure how or if the earth is young or old, I suppose I will find out when I meet the Lord." Again, lets not confuse "science" and "Darwinism." You seem to want to mix these as if they are synonymous terms.

No it's not. The WBC is literally a single family, whereas the KKK in the southern US had thousands and thousands of members (and local support), and institutionalized racism was a very popular position among southern Christians. If you think that's equivalent to a single family, then you need to re-think.

You are missing the point. Did Christians have slaves? Yes. Did they have slaves because the Bible told them to? No. Did some try to justify it in the BIble? Yes. Do homosexuals try to justify their homosexuality with the Bible? Yes. Do Polygamists try to justify their polygamy with the Bible? Yes. Do people try to justify their greed with the Bible? Yes. What is new? Its like you think that if you can find a group or even a segment of Christians that hold a view that it represents all of Christianity. Again, it was certain Christians that led the charge against these injustices.