If atheists get accused of taking verses out of context, how do we know fundamentalists making those accusations aren’t doing the same as well?

[Illuminator]

continued from post #880

Fundamentalism likewise tends to adopt very narrow points of view. They accept the literal reality of an ancient, out-of-date cosmology, simply because it is found expressed in the Bible; this blocks any dialogue with a broader way of seeing the relationship between culture and faith.

Its relying upon a non-critical reading of certain texts of the Bible serves to reinforce political ideas and social attitudes that are marked by prejudices-racism, for example-quite contrary to the Christian gospel.

Finally, in its attachment to the principle "Scripture alone," Fundamentalism separates the interpretation of the Bible from the Tradition, which, guided by the Spirit, has authentically developed in union with Scripture in the heart of the community of faith. It fails to realize that the New Testament took form within the Christian Church and that it is the Holy Scripture of this Church, the existence of which preceded the composition of the texts.

Because of this, fundamentalism is often anti-Church; it considers of little importance the creeds, the doctrines and liturgical practices which have become part of Church tradition, as well as the teaching function of the Church itself.

It presents itself as a form of private interpretation which does not acknowledge that the Church is founded on the Bible and draws its life and inspiration from Scripture.

The fundamentalist approach is dangerous, for it is attractive to people who look to the Bible for ready answers to the problems of life. It can deceive these people, offering them interpretations that are pious but illusory, instead of telling them that the Bible does not necessarily contain an immediate answer to each and every problem.

Without saying as much in so many words, Fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide. They injects into life a false certitude, for it unwittingly confuses the divine substance of the biblical message with what are in fact its human limitations.

 

[FlySwatter]

I'll offer this compromise-- that my reading of the text is no less valid than the view that God created the universe from nothing. How's that?

Yep quite reasonable.

Something else that I'm puzzled about in the text:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.

If the earth had no form then it could not be the spherical object we know today. Where then were these "deeps" and "waters"?
They could not have been on the earth or part of it.

 

[Jim B]

Yep quite reasonable.

Something else that I'm puzzled about in the text:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.

If the earth had no form then it could not be the spherical object we know today. Where then were these "deeps" and "waters"?
They could not have been on the earth or part of it.

"When God began to create the heavens and the earth, the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters." Genesis 1:1, NRSVue

When you look at the ever-shifting ocean, how do you describe its shape?

 

[Illuminator]

Yep quite reasonable.

Something else that I'm puzzled about in the text:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.

If the earth had no form then it could not be the spherical object we know today. Where then were these "deeps" and "waters"?
They could not have been on the earth or part of it.

The answer is in verse 1. This evangelical makes a good point:

Genesis 1, Pope Francis and Evangelicals​

Pope Francis stimulated interest in Genesis 1 with his comments on the Big Bang and Evolution, especially among conservative Evangelicals. We tend to defend a more literal interpretation of Scripture and are a movement that highlights the centrality of the Word in our faith and practice, so some evangelicals are concerned that the Pope is compromising biblical authority.

Genesis 1:1 says, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” This is the first sentence of the first book of the entire Bible. It establishes one of the first great truths God wants all of us to understand—that he created everything.

Genesis 1:2 says, “The earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep waters. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters.” Does this describe the first condition of the earth after its creation? And what of the six days which follow in this first chapter? Do they describe the process of the original creation?

Note that in verse 1, the Bible highlights creation, where God created the heavens and the earth. Later verse 21 describes the creation of the animals, and verse 27, the creation of people. The Bible differentiates between the original creation of the earth and its subsequent reconstruction making it suitable for people. It cannot be too strongly emphasized that the six days in this first chapter do not necessarily describe the original creation of the earth.

When verse 2 describes the earth as formless, empty and dark, it doesn’t mean that is the condition of the earth immediately following its initial creation. Actually, there is no way of knowing how many millions, or maybe billions, of years might have passed between verses 1 and 2. For us to assume that all God has ever done is create the universe, the animals and all of us is too limiting for the Eternal, Almighty God. He is God. This universe might just be one of his creations, and there are obviously mighty things he did before our Genesis account, and that he will do after the accounts in Revelation conclude. Remember he always has been and always will be. He was before the creation of the world as we know it, and will be long after we pass into eternity and the earth enters a new phase that is far beyond the final accounts in the book of Revelation. The Bible gives us an understanding of God as we need to know him for our salvation, so that revelation is not thorough in every other subject. We will all learn more when we step into eternity, and still more when we see him face to face.

The English Bible translators could have translated the third word in verse 2 “became.” “The earth became formless and empty, . . . “ The same Hebrew word is translated “became” in Genesis 2:7b where the Bible says, “He breathed the breath of life into the man’s nostrils, and the man became a living person.” In other places, translators use “and it came to pass” when translating this Hebrew word. So Genesis 1:2 could read, “And it came to pass that the earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep waters. . . “ That would have given the average English Bible reader a grid for understanding when visiting the Natural History Museum.

The first verse of Genesis simply states the fact of the original creation, and leaves it there, in the dateless past. Then verse 2 tells of the chaos which came to this earth later. And then the six days which follow describe the re-formation of the earth with a view of earth becoming the habitation for people having the history of which we have a biblical record.

When I was in high school, my pastor taught that scholars guessed regarding the cataclysm that disorganized God’s original creation between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. He called this the Gap Theory, and speculated that maybe some pre-Adamite rebellion of which we have no record, or maybe the judgment of Lucifer, and the angels that followed him, created the disorder described in Genesis 1:2. We don’t know, but if you are interested, study Isaiah 14:9-17, Jeremiah 4:23-27, and Ezekiel 28:12-18. These passages certainly communicate that much could have gone on during this period that may not be explained to us by God until eternity.

The Bible does not say evolution is impossible, and it’s within biblical parameters that there might have been several big bangs in the development of the universe, with more to come. During the first four days in Genesis 1, no creative acts are recorded. It’s only when we come to the animals and the human race that the Hebrew word for “create” is used. It is not a stretch that these six days give the account of a new beginning, but they are not necessarily the first beginning.

As a conservative Evangelical with a high view of Scripture, I believe the Pope might be right on this one, without compromising biblical authority.

Genesis 1, Pope Francis and Evangelicals – The Pastor's Pen

Pope Francis stimulated interest in Genesis 1 with his comments on the Big Bang and Evolution, especially among conservative Evangelicals. We tend to defend a more literal interpretation of Scripture and are a movement that highlights the centrality of the Word in our faith and practice, so some...

tedhaggardblog.com

 

[strepho]

God hates false preachers. Jeremiah chapter 25. Jesus is coming 7th trump to put stop to the hunting grounds of false brethren. The false preachers go with satan into the pit during millennium. Proverbs, the prayers of the wicked are a abomination to God. Whether they claim Christian or heathen. Jeremiah chapter 23, to further document God hates false preachers. Thier going to hell.

 

[FlySwatter]

God hates false preachers. Jeremiah chapter 25. Jesus is coming 7th trump to put stop to the hunting grounds of false brethren. The false preachers go with satan into the pit during millennium. Proverbs, the prayers of the wicked are a abomination to God. Whether they claim Christian or heathen. Jeremiah chapter 23, to further document God hates false preachers. Thier going to hell.

Your god seems to be ridden with hate and happy to kill people and/or and them to hell.

I could never follow or worship such an entity and I'm surprised some do and even more surprised that so many of you seem gleeful and eager for humans to be tossed into hell.

Truly I think you have misunderstood the gospel message and misunderstood god.

God is love, not hate.

Take care not to be among those that cry "Lord, Lord !" whom god says "I never knew you"

 

[Patrick1966]

Take care not to be among those that cry "Lord, Lord !" whom god says "I never knew you"

 

[Patrick1966]

Truly I think you have misunderstood the gospel message and misunderstood god.

FWIW, I believe that the scriptures are clear that, in the end, ALL will be with God, even Satan and the "fallen" angels.

 

[Illuminator]

Atheists Seem to Have Almost a Childlike Faith in the Omnipotence of Atoms

The atheist places extraordinary faith in matter. Indeed, this is a faith of a non-rational, almost childlike kind.

www.ncregister.com

Atheists Seem to Have Almost a Childlike Faith in the Omnipotence of Atoms​

The atheist places extraordinary faith in matter. Indeed, this is a faith of a non-rational, almost childlike kind.

The natural “laws” that we observe somehow attained their remarkable organizing abilities. One either explains them by natural laws or by humbly bowing to divine teleology at some point, as an explanation every bit as plausible as materialism (everything being supposedly “explained” by purely material processes).

Matter essentially “becomes god” in the atheist/materialist view; it has the inherent ability to do everything by itself: a power that Christians believe God caused, by putting these potentialities and actual characteristics into matter and natural laws, as their ultimate Creator and ongoing Preserver and Sustainer.

The atheist places extraordinary faith in matter – arguably far more faith than we place in God, because it is much more difficult to explain everything that god-matter does by science alone.

Indeed, this is a faith of a non-rational, almost childlike kind. It is quite humorous, then, to observe the constant charge that we Christians are the ones who have a blind, “fairy tale,” gullible, faith, as opposed to self-described “rational, intellectual, sophisticated” atheists.

Atheistic belief is [see my explanatory “disclaimer” at the end] a kind of polytheistic idolatry of the crudest, most primitive sort, putting to shame the colorful worship of the ancient Babylonians, Philistines, Aztecs, and other groups. They believed that their silver amulets and wooden idols could make the sun shine or defeat an enemy or cause crops to flourish.

The polytheistic materialist, on the other hand, is far more religious than that. He thinks that trillions of his atom-gods and their distant relatives, the cell-gods, can make absolutely everything in the universe occur, by their own power, possessed eternally either in full or (who knows how?) in inevitably unfolding potentiality.

One might call this (to coin a phrase) Atomism (“belief that the atom is God”). Trillions of omnipotent, omniscient atoms can do absolutely everything that the Christian God can do, and for little or no reason that anyone can understand (i.e., why and how the atom-god came to possess such powers in the first place). The Atomist openly and unreservedly worships his trillions of gods, with the most perfect, trusting, non-rational faith imaginable. He or she is what sociologists call a “true believer.”

Oh, and we mustn’t forget the time-goddess. She is often invoked in reverential, awe-inspiring terms as the be-all, end-all explanation for things inexplicable, as if by magic her very incantation rises to an explanatory level sufficient to silence any silly Christian, who is foolish enough to believe in one God rather than trillions. The time-goddess is the highest in the ranks of the Atomist’s varied hierarchy of gods (sort of the “Zeus” of Atomism). We may entitle this belief Temporalism.

Atomism is a strong, fortress-like faith. It is often said that it “must be” what it is. The Atomist reverses the error of the Gnostic heretics. They thought spirit was great and that matter was evil. Atomists think matter is great (and god) and spirit is not only “evil” (metaphorically speaking), but beyond that: non-existent.

Atomists may and do differ on secondary issues, just as the various ancient polytheistic cultures differed on quibbling details (which god could do what, which material made for a better idol, etc.), but despite all, they inevitably came out on the side of polytheistic idolatry, with crude material gods, and against spiritual monotheism.

Yet in Atomism, each person is a god, too, because he is made up of trillions of atom-gods and cell-gods. When you get trillions of gods all together in one place, it stands to reason that they can corporately perceive the order of which any one of them individually is capable of producing.

Within the Atomist faith-paradigm, this make perfect sense. But for one outside their circle of religious faith, it may not (devout, faithful Atomist need to realize that others of different faiths may not think such things as “obvious” as they do). The Atomist – ever imaginative – manages to believe any number of things, in faith, without the “unnecessary” addition of mere explanation.

“Why” questions in the context of Atomism are senseless, because they can’t overcome the Impenetrable Fortress of blind faith that the Atomist possesses. The question, “Why do the atom-gods and cell-gods and the time-goddess exist and possess the extraordinary powers that they do?” is meaningless and ought not be put forth. It’s bad form, and impolite. We know how sensitive overly religious folk are.

Instead, we are asked to bow to the countless mysteries of Atomism in dumbstruck, awed silence, like the Magi at the baby Jesus’ manger, offering our unquestioning “scientific” and “philosophical” allegiance like they offered gold and frankincense and myrrh. The very inquiry is regarded as senseless and “intrusive.”

We can’t help — almost despite ourselves — recalling with fondness the wonders and fairy-tales of childhood. Atomists are (we might say) the “adult children” among us: like Peter Pan!

Who can resist Peter Pan, after all? This (arguably) gives them their charm and appeal: evident in so many Christian discussion threads online, where they suddenly enter and — seemingly oblivious to the existing discussion — start incongruously preaching their rather fantastic fideistic faith.

In a certain remote and limited sense, we Christians (since we value faith) stand in awe of such Pure Faith, with its sublime fideism and Absolute Trust in Design via trillions of atom-gods. It is, indeed, an ingenious, even elegant system, admirable in its bold, brilliant intellectual audacity, if nothing else.

Like much of modern philosophy, however, at bottom it is hopelessly irrational, self-defeating, and ultimately incoherent. For that reason, the Christian must reject it, since we believe that self-contradictory beliefs are untrue and unworthy of anyone’s allegiance.

Note: the above article is an exercise of what is known in logic and philosophical discourse as reductio ad absurdum: illustrating the absurd by being absurd, and taking things to their logical conclusions. It is humorous, satirical, and also an example of the argumentative technique of “turning the tables.” But the underlying point I am trying to make is assuredly dead serious.

 

[Wrangler]

I'll offer this compromise-- that my reading of the text is no less valid than the view that God created the universe from nothing. How's that?

That's not much of a compromise. Either YHWH is the Creator or he is not.

Fortunately, to answer this question, we need not rely on on GE 1 to understand the proper context. Rather explicit is:

Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
John 1:3

In light of this, the claim that YHWH is not the Creator of all things is untenable.

 

[FlySwatter]

Atheists Seem to Have Almost a Childlike Faith in the Omnipotence of Atoms

The atheist places extraordinary faith in matter. Indeed, this is a faith of a non-rational, almost childlike kind.

www.ncregister.com

Atheists Seem to Have Almost a Childlike Faith in the Omnipotence of Atoms​

That seems an incredibly jaded and indulgent article.

In all my life I've never met any atheist who believes in "Matter" and atoms the way the article describes.

Just seems like the author wants a pedestal for themselves in order to have a patronising rant.

Now ENERGY would be a different thing entirely. For sure energy is involved in everything and can be manipulated by beings and entities.

So I'd be far more sympathetic with any theories along the lines of energy. I'd happily concede one or any number of beings or entities that know how to transform energy into things. That's no stretch at all. Quite plausible that there are numerous designers out there who can manipulate genetics / DNA etc, I mean even humans can do that!

 

[FlySwatter]

That's not much of a compromise. Either YHWH is the Creator or he is not.

Fortunately, to answer this question, we need not rely on on GE 1 to understand the proper context. Rather explicit is:

Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
John 1:3

In light of this, the claim that YHWH is not the Creator of all things is untenable.

Quoting a book written by humans is hardly any kind of proof of science and reality.

That's like quoting Peter Pan and saying a land called Neverland must surely exist.

It's quite possible there have been numerous designers of Earth's life forms, plants, trees, shrubs, animals and so on. You might personally choose to believe otherwise as is your prerogative but your personal beliefs don't have any bearing on the reality of this universe.

 

[Wrangler]

Quoting a book written by humans is hardly any kind of proof of science and reality.

The topic is about the book in question and the proper way to understand the words contained.

 

[Wrangler]

Now ENERGY would be a different thing entirely.

Well then, consider atoms interchangeable with energy. I'm sure your advanced scientific mind can grasp there interchangeability.

 

[Illuminator]

That seems an incredibly jaded and indulgent article.

In all my life I've never met any atheist who believes in "Matter" and atoms the way the article describes.

Just seems like the author wants a pedestal for themselves in order to have a patronising rant.

Now ENERGY would be a different thing entirely. For sure energy is involved in everything and can be manipulated by beings and entities.

So I'd be far more sympathetic with any theories along the lines of energy. I'd happily concede one or any number of beings or entities that know how to transform energy into things. That's no stretch at all. Quite plausible that there are numerous designers out there who can manipulate genetics / DNA etc, I mean even humans can do that!

"the above article is an exercise of what is known in logic and philosophical discourse as reductio ad absurdum: illustrating the absurd by being absurd, and taking things to their logical conclusions. It is humorous, satirical, and also an example of the argumentative technique of “turning the tables.” But the underlying point I am trying to make is assuredly dead serious."

 

[FlySwatter]

"the above article is an exercise of what is known in logic and philosophical discourse as reductio ad absurdum: illustrating the absurd by being absurd, and taking things to their logical conclusions. It is humorous, satirical, and also an example of the argumentative technique of “turning the tables.” But the underlying point I am trying to make is assuredly dead serious."

Didn't seem remotely humorous to me personally I must say. Like most Catholics Armstrong has placed himself in an immovable position which is what happens with religious programming. There comes a point where people become so invested in the belief that they then start defending it with any and all excuses even when it's plainly at fault or in error.

A key point that Armstrong wilfully omits in his puff piece is that atheists are not against the notion of there being one or more designers of various things in our universe. Humans have designed many things on this planet. Why shouldn't other "beings" have designed things on various planets ?

This doesn't mean such beings are God or Gods, it just means they are more advanced than we are.

It has been the constant error and naivety of numerous civilisations throughout the past to think of people with more intelligence and technological ability as gods. It happens because they lack the knowledge to understand how things are being done and so they call them miracles.

It's entirely plausible for there to be numerous other beings out there in the universe who create things, design things. There's no need to call them gods or to imagine they are omnipotent.

 

[FlySwatter]

Also worth pointing out that the "natural laws" mentioned in the article are merely the laws that humans have been able to observe and study. No human has seen the entire universe and so no human actually knows what laws apply elsewhere. We didn't formerly know about black holes for example. Over time we came to detect them and observe them. We now know that the previously accepted "natural laws" don't apply for black holes.

Thus for all we now the universe may well be in a total state of chaos and not governed by laws at all. In such an infinite chaos it's guaranteed that there would exist pockets of order from time to time. Natural random happenstance.

Humans throughout history have continued to be arrogant and childish always believing what they currently know to be the absolute truth. That is until they discover something new which tears apart those former theories and beliefs at which point they reassess, form new theories but then continue with the same childish naivety think they now have it all correct.

Science and religion both suffer this same problem. It's a learning problem and no-one has the right answers.

 

[the.reverent.atheist]

Yep quite reasonable.

Something else that I'm puzzled about in the text:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.

If the earth had no form then it could not be the spherical object we know today. Where then were these "deeps" and "waters"?
They could not have been on the earth or part of it.

Here's the NSRVue's description of the Second Day:

And God said, “Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so. God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

One key word in the above is "dome." Why would God create a dome shaped atmosphere over a spherical earth? Answer: He wouldn't. He would only create a dome shaped atmosphere over a flat earth. And that's what the author believed. The idea that the earth was flat was widely assumed in the ancient world. Eratosthenes is famous for having measured the circumference of the earth. He was only off by about 2%. But that would have been around 200 BCE-- probably a couple hundred years after the writing of the book of Genesis. Some scholars think that one of the very first parts of the Bible to have been written is Psalm 137. That Psalm states that it was written on the banks of the Euphrates river in the city of Babylon. So it is assumed that it must have been written during the Babylonian exile. If you haven't read it, check it out. It's a very passionate lament.

As for the waters, notice what the above text says-- the dome separated the waters above from the waters below. The waters were envisioned by the author as filling the entire universe. So God inserted a dome in the water to create the earth's atmosphere, thus enabling us to breath air, not water. The creation story that originated in Heliopolis said that the universe began as a lifeless ocean of water. So the creation story in the Bible is fully consonant with other creation myths of the time.

BTW the heavenly objects-- sun, moon, stars-- were envisioned as being tiny as compared to our modern understanding. The sun and the moon, for example, were imagined to be far smaller than the earth. And as Psalm 93, Psalm 96, and Psalm 104 say the earth was thought to be fixed and immobile. The earth must have been thought to have a boundary, since the atmosphere was created as a dome, rather than as a layer of infinite extent.

The deeps, I suppose, represent the basins of the oceans and seas. But I'm not entirely sure.

 

[the.reverent.atheist]

I meant to ask about your name, particularly the reverent part. Very provocative name and you are nice, intelligent addition to this comunity.

My handle on this forum is the.reverent.atheist. I have written a book, available on Amazon, that describes my personal thoughts about religion. The title is "The Reverent Atheist," by David S. Moore. Here's a link to my blog:

David S. Moore: Insights & Innovations

And thanks for the compliment!

 

[the.reverent.atheist]

This clearly proves you are resistant to any explanation of phenomenological language and oblivious to a style of writing used 3000 years ago. The Bible contains some science, but it is not a science book. You offer no "scientific facts" supporting preexisting matter by any renowned cosmologist, and here you are arguing from a science of your own making, just like you argue from God of your own making.

God created the universe out of nothing. That makes more sense than you reducing God to a craftsman who needs props. That is NOT an omnipotent God. God made man in His image, you make God in your image with an unscientific opinion and claim science is on your side. You are a slave to a ridiculous literal approach to Genesis which is not far removed from the fundamentalist approach that you fail to see.

Your reading of the text is INVALID because your view of God is flawed. You think that 21st century English trumps a manner of writing used 3000 years ago that tries to explain where we came from.

Your reading of the text is INVALID because you borrow certain principles from a fundamentalist ideology that is not biblical and you are not aware you are doing it.

I was asking not about your interpretation of the story of the creation. I was asking about your interpretation of the table I presented which shows that there is absolutely no correspondence between the story of the creation in the Bible and the actual known facts of creation as developed by science. What is your interpretation of that?

But to consider just the story of creation itself, here's how the NSRVue renders the story of the beginning:

When God began to create the heavens and the earth, the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. Then God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good, and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
(Genesis 1:1 - 5, NSRVue)

That's pretty clear. The earth was a complete chaos at the time that God began the act of creation by saying "Let there be light." So your claim that God created the universe out of nothing is one interpretation-- but mine is another equally valid interpretation.