|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why are literalists literalists? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Abd that you have a choice between being on the side of God, by saying he created mankind, or you are an evil Godless evolutionist, on the side of atheists. Ofcourse, extremely basic education would show the gullible mass that the dichotomy is unwarranted, fallacious and plain dumb. Not at all. The dichotomy makes perfect sense. ABE: for an explanation see the thread entitled "What we must accept if we accept evolution." This message has been edited by robinrohan, 03-07-2006 11:18 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
I see no reason why we should accept those things, necessarily, Robin of Rohan. IMHo there's no qualifiers. The fact is that evolution theory is the dominantly and evidentially correct and viable theory. Anything other than solid scientific inference, is all opinion, and the ToE has no consequnces, unless you want it to.
Your topic seems like a slippery slope argument, IMHO. (I don't mean this in an unkind way, it's just the name of the type of argument). I understand your beliefs. This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 03-07-2006 01:29 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
I see no reason why we should accept those things, necessarily, Robin of Rohan. IMHo there's no qualifiers. The fact is that evolution theory is the dominantly and evidentially correct and viable theory. Anything other than solid scientific inference, is all opinion, and the ToE has no consequnces, unless you want it to. I'm giving you a reason why the literalists are literal. They see the logical implications of evolution and they reject these implications. One way to reject them is to put your faith in a holy book.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
They are not logical implications. Lol.
It isn't a logical implication, that one has to be a nihilist atheist if evolution is true, or that evolution indicates a nihilist universe. (Forgive me if that's not what you mean) Fair enough if you are merely highlighting the literalist's foggy thought processes, but be reasonable; nobody asked them to become Godless except for themselves. THEY insist they must be Godless if evolution is true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
It isn't a logical implication, that one has to be a nihilist atheist if evolution is true, or that evolution indicates a nihilist universe. (Forgive me if that's not what you mean) That's exactly what I mean, but we can't go into it here.I'm just telling you why somebody might decide to be a literalist, whether you agree with the logic of it or not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I'm giving you a reason why the literalists are literal. They see the logical implications of evolution and they reject these implications. One way to reject them is to put your faith in a holy book. I don't think this is the way it works, certainly not commonly and possibly not ever. Objections to evolution don't occur to most people until they are already believers. And those who have objections who are not believers simply become nihilists. That's pretty much where I was before I believed. Becoming a believer certainly had nothing to do with the implications of evolutionism, which I hated but was pretty much reconciled to, as you appear to be. This message has been edited by Faith, 03-07-2006 01:58 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
I'm just telling you why somebody might decide to be a literalist, whether you agree with the logic of it or not. (I believe we've discussed this many times, and you never accept what I say. What do you seek from me? You always seem to come after me on this one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
I don't think this is the way it works, certainly not commonly and possibly not ever. I suppose I do have it ass-backwards. I was just thinking that if I were to become a Christian, I would logically have to reject evolution. And if I do that, I would have to accept special creation since I need some explanation of how we got here. Whether I'd have to become a strict literalist or not is another matter. I suppose I wouldn't HAVE to become a literalist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
I believe we've discussed this many times, and you never accept what I say. What do you seek from me? You always seem to come after me on this one. I accept that you disagree with my argument. I don't know what else I can accept.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I suppose I do have it ass-backwards. I was just thinking that if I were to become a Christian, I would logically have to reject evolution. And if I do that, I would have to accept special creation since I need some explanation of how we got here. Whether I'd have to become a strict literalist or not is another matter. I suppose I wouldn't HAVE to become a literalist. A real conversion doesn't leave these things to your own druthers. I'm sure there are true Christians who believe in evolution, of course, but I can only think they haven't fully grasped the implications of their belief. Same with literalism. But somebody who has grasped the reality of the gospel is usually someone who has accepted somewhere in their deepest being that everything they had thought they thought is probably wrong, and even literalism and creationism become something amazingly new and possible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
A real conversion doesn't leave these things to your own druthers OK, but I was just speaking theoretically. What, logically, would be the minimum I would have to accept to be a Christian? I figure it's this: 1. disbelief in evolution2. belief in special creation 3. belief in the Fall 4. belief in Christ as divine savior. I think that's it. I would not have to have any particular belief about the Bible. I could say that some parts are historical and other parts are not if I chose. So I would not have to be a literalist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
subbie writes: I'd like someone to explain to me why it is so necessary to their faith that every word of the bible be literally correct. I have a rather large wall chart which I bought that is called Denominational Comparisons. The compilers state that "information is from official documents, websites, or catechisms of each denomination, as well as from encyclopedias and directories of various denominations. The descriptions..are necessarily short and only generally representative..." , One Category is called How Is Scripture Viewed? Here is how the chart lists the denominational responses: Catholic Church: The scriptures teach without error the truth needed for our salvation. Scripture must be interpreted within the Tradition of the Church. The canon includes 46 books for the Old Testament including deuterocanonical books (the Apocrypha) and the 27 books of the New Testament. Orthodox Churches The Scriptures are without error in matters of faith only. Scripture is to be interpreted by Sacred Tradition, especially the seven Ecumenical Councils which met from ad 325-787. The canon includes 49 Old Testament books and the 27 New Testament books. Anglican Churches Scripture contains the truth that is necessary for salvation and is the primary norm for faith, but must be interpreted in light of tradition and reason. Baptist Churches Scripture is inspired and without error, the sole, final, totally trustworthy rule of faith. Standard Protestant canon. (Mainline churches vary in the extent to which they continue to view Scripture as without error.) Pentacostal Churches Scripture is inspired and without error, the final, totally trustworthy rule of faith. The standard Protestant canon is accepted. Some church bodies view certain leaders as prophets with authoritative messages that are to be confirmed from Scripture. So you see how different denominations have different angles and perspectives from each other! This message has been edited by Phat, 03-08-2006 02:50 AM Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart, and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. Even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained; and even in the best of all hearts, there remains a small corner of evil. --Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
b
Robin of Rohan writes: What, logically, would be the minimum I would have to accept to be a Christian? I figure it's this: 1. disbelief in evolution2. belief in special creation 3. belief in the Fall 4. belief in Christ as divine savior. Actually, I only see #4 as absolutely necessary. Even then, I think that God gives lots of Mulligans. Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart, and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. Even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained; and even in the best of all hearts, there remains a small corner of evil. --Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
Actually, I only see #4 as absolutely necessary I agree. That makes two of us, and even three (Faith?) Christians, who pose that it is only belief in Christ which is important in comparison to those other qualifiers, and as I have always posited, to follow his peaceable teachings. Logically, premisses have to have backing or they are vacuous assertions worth the same as the litter in your bins. 1,2 and 3 have no grounds for backing, and have been refuted by intellects here on the board, many times over. Those 3 qualifiers, of themselves, demand many assumptions, which have no credence. Since those three start with an assumption of bible belief: http://EvC Forum: Post-scriptural modern dogma of biblically exclusive inerrancy -->EvC Forum: Post-scriptural modern dogma of biblically exclusive inerrancy This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 03-08-2006 08:57 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Focus on the Family sends me e-mail and I excerpted this blurb from the latest letter:
FOTF writes: What’s a biblical worldview? A biblical worldview is based on the infallible Word of God. When you believe the Bible is entirely true, then you allow it to be the foundation of everything you say and do. That means, for instance, you take seriously the mandate in Romans 13 to honor the governing authorities by researching the candidates and issues, making voting a priority. Do you have a biblical worldview? Answer the following questions, based on claims found in the Bible and which George Barna used in his survey: 1. Do absolute moral truths exist? 2. Is absolute truth defined by the Bible? 3. Did Jesus Christ live a sinless life? 4. Is God the all-powerful and all-knowing Creator of the universe, and does He still rule it today? 5. Is salvation a gift from God that cannot be earned? 6. Is Satan real? 7. Does a Christian have a responsibility to share his or her faith in Christ with other people? 8. Is the Bible accurate in all of its teachings? Did you answer yes to these? Only 9 percent of “born- again” believers did. But what’s more important than your yes to these questions is whether your life shows it. Granted, we are all sinners and fall short, but most of our gut reactions will reflect what we deep-down, honest-to-goodness believe to be real and true. I figured that Dobsons stuff would be almost as literal as it gets! BTW I answered yes to the first 7---saying No only to #8. This message has been edited by Phat, 03-08-2006 08:20 AM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024