Leaving creationism = leaving Christianity?

[Secondhand Lion]

Aspen,

You said something a few posts ago that I would like further information on how you feel about it. It may be a key to this whole thing.

You said "you are equating literal with true". I took it in the negative (you thought equating literal and true was bad), although maybe I am misreading your intent.

If you really do believe that as negative, could you please expound on what you feel the difference is between literal and true?

SL

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

Fundamentalism is not a post modern phenomena. Prior to Constantine "joining" the church and for all intents and purposes reducing the "church" to the political arm of the Roman Empire, most believers were fundamentalists.

The original Apostolic church of the New Testament was one of a literal interpretation of scripture.

 

[aspen]

SL,

i believe the Bible is inspired by God and true - everything in the Bible is supposed to be there. I believe truth is good. The difference between 'truth' and 'literal' is critical - i believe choosing to focus on the concrete details of the Creation story (for example) begs us to try to fit it into a modern understanding - making the story literal forces us to stop thinking about anything more than 'Did it really happen?' and invites us to make sure everyone else believes the same way we do - and if they do not or struggle to believe it literally happened, as if it were a video recording of the event. then they must think the story is a lie or that is isnt omnipotent. In my experience, most people who are obsessed with whether or not the creation story REALLY happenned, word for word - like a video recording, never consider the greater truth because they are so focused on defending the literal interpretation. It is like being a marathon runner who is obsessed with his shoes instead of running the race. Make sense?
One of the biggest set backs of this method of exalting the literal at the expense of greater truth is that it drives outsiders away. People who are interested in studying the Bible are not satisfied with 'did it happen?' they are interested in why it happened and why it is included in the Bible - beyond the omnipotence of God. No one cared about the concrete details of the Creation story before the Enlightenment - people read the story and concluded that God was powerful and orderly - then they moved on to the higher truths like our relationship with God and our purpose for being created.

Let me know if I can clarify further.
It is sort of like those people who upon hearing a joke, never laugh because they are so focused on unimportant details that they fail to get the punchline.

A perfect example of what I am talking about would be for KingJ to read this post and accuse me of calling the Bible a joke........

 

[Secondhand Lion]

SL,

i believe the Bible is inspired by God and true - everything in the Bible is supposed to be there. I believe truth is good. The difference between 'truth' and 'literal' is critical - i believe choosing to focus on the concrete details of the Creation story (for example) begs us to try to fit it into a modern understanding - making the story literal forces us to stop thinking about anything more than 'Did it really happen?' and invites us to make sure everyone else believes the same way we do - and if they do not or struggle to believe it literally happened, as if it were a video recording of the event. then they must think the story is a lie or that is isnt omnipotent. In my experience, most people who are obsessed with whether or not the creation story REALLY happenned, word for word - like a video recording, never consider the greater truth because they are so focused on defending the literal interpretation. It is like being a marathon runner who is obsessed with his shoes instead of running the race. Make sense?

It makes more sense now. I understand your thinking better now from one direction. I am really not trying to be a "smarty pants" or "nit pick". I want to understand this point of view because I have never considered it.

I am guilty. I equate literal with truth and would be hard pressed to stop (I admit it). I am not saying that everyone taking something literally makes it truth, but to that person it is truth. For example, some may take the qur'an literally, and to that person it is absolute truth. I do not take the qur'an literally, and do not accept it as truth.

I said I understand the argument you are making from one direction. I understand and agree that there is no requirement for taking the bible literally to accept it as truth. But to be truth, don't you have to take it literally? Literalness is intricately tied to truth because literalness is based in fact, the only fact we can know. Now, I understand that one mans fact is another mans opinion and when everything is boiled down to the brass tacks, anything can be questioned...we have much less fact than we think on almost any subject.

In my opinion, you can accept the bible as truth without ever considering whether it is tied to being literal. (child like faith) However, again, in my opinion, if a person stops to think about it they should come to the conclusion that it can (maybe should?) be taken literally.

Please tell me where you think I am wrong. I do not get offended and I find this to be an interesting thought. I "literally" froze in front of my screen when I read those words. It was funny.

SL

 

[aspen]

SL, I am glad you decided to ask me about my post - I appreciate how you spoke with River Jordan. You seem to be a sincere and kind person. I do not think you are wrong - I have no problem with Christians that like to rely on a literal interpretation of the Bible. I only have two issues:

1. When literalists make it a requirement for Christians to take every word of the Bible literally - I have even heard some literalists on this board claim that the parables that Jesus told were about real people and events because if they weren't Jesus would be a liar.

2. When literalists redefine science to include incredible events. I am not saying incredible events are impossible, but if there is no evidence for the events, it is not science.

 

[KingJ]

Aspen, a Christian relies on scripture as much as a marathon runner his shoes. Now what happens if your laces are untied? What if they aren't but you are constantly being told by others to see if they are? Meditate on 2 Time 3:7 always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.

You think I take a literal interpretation of scripture? 1/3 of the angels = 100 of 300 that fell? No. But I do acknowledge that what is written is for a reason. There was NO dishonest intentions. No inspired writer you meet in heaven will be impressed with you disregarding what God told Him to write. 1/3 of the angels = 75 to 120 of the angels, not ''irrelevant'' / 0/300.

Then the other problem TE's have is that .... evolution does not even require a verse in Genesis to be disregarded. It requires a basic understanding of scripture and use of that matter between the ears. See the last paragraph of my post #175.

Don't be ignorant, with River. Rivers scriptural interpretation goes like this....Adam and Eve could be 4000 bc or 5500 bc....therefore what is wrong with accepting 200k bc? Completely oblivious / uninterested in investigating the truth of why different versions took it as 4000 bc and others 5500 bc. That is dishonesty and disrespect for scripture. That is calling the bible a joke and being a joke at the same time.

 

[Floyd]

Interesting conversations here on fact/literalism/opinion etc.
I remember as a young man agonising over these issues, putting questions to "wise" men and elders; all to no avail; because ultimately we arrive with the question "do I believe/ don't I believe. Habakkuk; the just shall live by faith!
Faith, runs from Abel to now, see Heb.11.
I still speak to myself as well all out there!
In my case, since many years ago accepting the Bible unreservedly; the results have on a personal level been remarkable, but do not stop conflict with others
whether family or Sect!
When shown something by the Holy Spirit from lifef/Scripture and it bears out in practice, from a personal point of view it is greatly rewarding; but we all plough our own furrows!
Floyd.

 

[River Jordan]

River, how many times must I explain to you the SIMPLE facts that 1. Evolution says God is evil as natural selection = evil 2. Evolution says the cross is a joke as intelligence / accountability evolved and 3. Evolution says all scripture / every religion is a joke as intelligent man = 200k bc. Hence we have the latest religious dogma.

Except those are not "facts". They are your opinions based in your fundamentalism, rather than anything "evolution says" (as silly a phrase as that is).

 

[KingJ]

Except those are not "facts". They are your opinions based in your fundamentalism, rather than anything "evolution says" (as silly a phrase as that is).

You can't get out of this corner with ''I am fundamentalist'', River. Unless you want everyone here to think of you as a troll. Lateral thought off facts is not an opinion.

1. Evolution = evil, fact (just ask the individual being eaten). God is not evil = Christian fact (you said 'yes' to Him being 'good' remember). Factual conclusion = Evolution, unless it can be traced to 'evil' man or 'evil' angels influence, is not of God.

2. Jesus died for all mankind = Christian fact. Intelligence = accountability, fact (Ask any parent, teacher or look at the law). Every person on this planet will agree that sending babies to hell is evil. Evolving intelligence makes giving account of our actions before God and scripture teaching ''Jesus died for mankind'' seem ridiculous, fact!

3. Bible is 4000 bc to 5500 bc = Christian fact. To disregard that is to disregard a lot more then just Genesis, fact. Intelligent mankind found 200k years ago in Ethiopia = ''science'' fact. 194 000 years of missing ''God's word'' makes our bible look stupid, fact! It took God 196k years to find a worthy 'Abraham'....

Now, is a thoughtful reply from you, expecting too much?

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Sure....when you describe barbers and plumbers as "trying to bypass God" be sure to let me know.

Is that supposed to be funny? This discussion doesn't concern barbers and plumbers, but I am sure that they too are guilty of bypassing God. This is just another attempt to muddy the discussion by trying to throw out smart remarks. According to the Bible "all men are liars". That, of course, doesn't mean that everything that men say are non-truths, but we have to deal with that in relation to how we view the ideas that are born in the hearts of men. If you want to ignore that fact and smugly roll your eyes then do so, but don't expect me or anyone else to.

That's how this forum works. If you respond to two people consecutively, it puts the responses into the same post.

Yes, I realize that (which is annoying), but both comments came under a quote made by me. Are you saying that your comment was directed at Floyd? It certainly doesn't look that way since you refer to him in the third person.

 

[River Jordan]

KingJ,

Nope, those are not "facts". If they were, all of Christianity throughout history would be on your side. Yet history shows that your science-denialism and fundamentalist literalism are recent, primarily western Protestant phenomena and minority viewpoints in Christianity.

Is that supposed to be funny? This discussion doesn't concern barbers and plumbers, but I am sure that they too are guilty of bypassing God. This is just another attempt to muddy the discussion by trying to throw out smart remarks. According to the Bible "all men are liars". That, of course, doesn't mean that everything that men say are non-truths, but we have to deal with that in relation to how we view the ideas that are born in the hearts of men. If you want to ignore that fact and smugly roll your eyes then do so, but don't expect me or anyone else to.

Yeah, let me know when fundamentalists start dedicating even a percentage of the resources they current expend on attacking the work of scientists, on barbers and plumbers.

Yes, I realize that (which is annoying), but both comments came under a quote made by me. Are you saying that your comment was directed at Floyd? It certainly doesn't look that way since you refer to him in the third person.

Yes, it was directed at Floyd.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

Floyd, the barber?

Lol. lol.

 

[Secondhand Lion]

SL, I am glad you decided to ask me about my post - I appreciate how you spoke with River Jordan. You seem to be a sincere and kind person. I do not think you are wrong - I have no problem with Christians that like to rely on a literal interpretation of the Bible. I only have two issues:

1. When literalists make it a requirement for Christians to take every word of the Bible literally - I have even heard some literalists on this board claim that the parables that Jesus told were about real people and events because if they weren't Jesus would be a liar.

2. When literalists redefine science to include incredible events. I am not saying incredible events are impossible, but if there is no evidence for the events, it is not science.

I understand better now. Thank you. I have been away for a day and put a good amount of time into thinking about this subject. I understand your position now and think we have enough in common on the subject to not squabble about.

Anything done to a super extreme is generally not a good idea, and some literalists are not necessarily a good example of all literalists. It seems some people start with their viewpoint and make scripture match it no matter the cost. I am sure I am as guilty as anyone sometimes, but I try as hard as possible to not be that way.

Thanks for the clarification. I always love running into viewpoints I hadn't considered before.

 

[KingJ]

KingJ,

Nope, those are not "facts". If they were, all of Christianity throughout history would be on your side. Yet history shows that your science-denialism and fundamentalist literalism are recent, primarily western Protestant phenomena and minority viewpoints in Christianity.

Saying 'they are not facts' does not make them ''not facts''. You see natural selection as something other then evil?

You have been given scripture teaching the need to correct from scripture many times. You have no excuse before God. Whenever you open your mouth / teach a young naive kid that evolution is fact....leaving them to conclude (as all with more then half a peanut between their ears will) that God is evil / cross is joke and scripture is religious dogma....you would be wise to fear Luke 17:2. Your period of blissful ignorance is over.

Christians denying evolution is not recent. The pope speaks for many Christians but not all. Then there is their infallible dogma on creation which places limiting factors on TE's. But a discussion for another time.

BTW, thanks for the compliment! Saying I am part of the minority stirs my spirit .

 

[River Jordan]

Saying 'they are not facts' does not make them ''not facts''. You see natural selection as something other then evil? [/size]

Nope, just as calling them "facts" does not make them facts. And that's exactly my point...given the subjective nature of what you're talking about, calling your beliefs on this "facts" is pretty arrogant.

As far as natural selection, that is a fact. Why is it a fact? Because we see it happen right in front of our eyes, all the time. It's why we need new antibiotics, new flu vaccines, and new pesticides. Calling it "evil" is as ridiculous as calling erosion or gravity "evil".

You have been given scripture teaching the need to correct from scripture many times. You have no excuse before God. Whenever you open your mouth / teach a young naive kid that evolution is fact....leaving them to conclude (as all with more then half a peanut between their ears will) that God is evil / cross is joke and scripture is religious dogma....you would be wise to fear Luke 17:2. Your period of blissful ignorance is over. [/size]

See, this is just ridiculous, and is why you and I have these problems. In my world, not only can I tell a kid "evolution is fact", I can show them it happening in real time. I'm even lucky enough to be able to take them to a nearby site where we've seen an entirely new species evolve.

But you apparently believe it's evil to show kids reality and doing so is something I'll have to answer to God for? How absolutely backwards! Who do you think created that reality? In fact, if I were pressed, I'd say God would be more upset with you and would want to know why you tried to hide and deny the wonders of His creation!

Christians denying evolution is not recent.

That's not what I said. Pay closer attention.

BTW, thanks for the compliment! Saying I am part of the minority stirs my spirit .

Yeah, I know....fundamentalists just love thinking themselves martyrs.

 

[Secondhand Lion]

In my world, not only can I tell a kid "evolution is fact", I can show them it happening in real time. I'm even lucky enough to be able to take them to a nearby site where we've seen an entirely new species evolve.

Do you have more details on this? May I see them?

 

[River Jordan]

The new species I spoke of is the goatsbeard example I've posted here several times. We're fortunate enough that the area where this occurs is a relatively short drive away.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

Does the child exclaim, "this one just looks like the other one!"

Hmmmm, martyrs.....Jesus, Paul, Peter, John, all those psychologically impaired fundies!

 

[Secondhand Lion]

The new species I spoke of is the goatsbeard example I've posted here several times. We're fortunate enough that the area where this occurs is a relatively short drive away.

Sorry about asking for it again. I don't get to read all the posts and then get confused trying to get caught back up.

I read the article. What new information was added? I can't find it. I can only find where two of the chromosomes copied themselves and a statement about "no genomic rearrangements in Tragopogon allopolyploids that have arisen multiple times in North America within the last 80 yr."

I am not trying to "trap" you. I don't know what I am missing that proves this to be any kind of evolution. If you have already gone over this somewhere, you can just link me to it.

SL

 

[River Jordan]

It's exactly what I've described it as....the observed evolution of new species. The addition of "new information" (whatever that is) is irrelevant to whether or not the new population is a new species.

In this case, the new populations are physically unable to interbreed with the parent species, but are fully capable of breeding on their own. In fact, the new species are more robust than the parent species.