Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is the creation/evolution debate taboo in our churches?
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4432 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


(1)
Message 1 of 51 (528170)
10-05-2009 2:46 AM


I was just wondering what people's experience was on this topic.
It seems that the debate is avoided in most churches i have been to, even though the implications of what we believe in this area are far reaching. So here are some questions for discussion:
1. Have you ever experienced a sermon that mentions the debate, or preferably a whole sermon on the topic?
(I haven't, the closest was a mention of the big bang.)
2. Do you know what the leadership of your local/denominational church believes on this issue?
(In some churches I did, however often i did not find out directly. most were theistic evolutionists, and had the attitude of "It's not really an important issue and would just cause division in the church")
3. Is it ever discussed outside of sermons (so in other additional church meetings, etc.)?
(I have in some small and close homegroups, however not in larger gatherings)
4. In fact is there any emphasise put on apologetics at all?
(Not in my experience)
This next one is for any non-christians who are reading this. As a way of introduction, my brother was watching a video on youtube of Dawkins and some other guy having a chat, afterwards he made the comment "I,ve heard better arguments for atheism from my own mind." So i was wondering when you (the non-christians, although christians can answer it too i guess) confront some christian on why they believe what they believe are they able to give a decent answer? Or do you think "I,ve heard better arguments for christianity from my own mind." ?
In other words, is it noticeable even to non-christians that this topic is never really addressed in churches?
Thanks,
Arphy
Edited by Arphy, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by iano, posted 10-06-2009 6:58 AM Arphy has replied
 Message 6 by Jazzns, posted 10-06-2009 1:57 PM Arphy has not replied
 Message 7 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 10-06-2009 8:25 PM Arphy has not replied
 Message 8 by SammyJean, posted 10-07-2009 12:02 AM Arphy has not replied
 Message 9 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-07-2009 12:13 AM Arphy has not replied
 Message 12 by DavidOH, posted 10-07-2009 1:55 PM Arphy has not replied
 Message 14 by Larni, posted 10-07-2009 3:01 PM Arphy has not replied
 Message 15 by slevesque, posted 10-07-2009 4:38 PM Arphy has replied
 Message 18 by Peg, posted 10-08-2009 9:24 AM Arphy has not replied
 Message 20 by Jon, posted 10-08-2009 1:04 PM Arphy has not replied
 Message 39 by riVeRraT, posted 10-18-2009 10:04 PM Arphy has replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4432 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 3 of 51 (528398)
10-06-2009 1:07 AM


Re: Clarification
yeah possibly, I was meaning it in terms of, is it noticeable to non-christians that these sort of matters are never discussed in our churches by the inability of christians to answer questions properly. Hope edit clarifys this a bit better.

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Otto Tellick, posted 10-12-2009 12:08 AM Arphy has replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4432 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 16 of 51 (529062)
10-08-2009 4:05 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by slevesque
10-07-2009 4:38 PM


wow!
I coming to quebec (hehe)
Nothing like that here in NZ. I've been mainly in Methodist, Presbytarian, Baptist, Salvation Army, plus numerous other churches for various reasons and never heard of anything like that. Over here it feels like they are trying to sustain the church on "baby food" without ever getting to the "meat".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by slevesque, posted 10-07-2009 4:38 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by slevesque, posted 10-08-2009 12:18 PM Arphy has not replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4432 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 17 of 51 (529068)
10-08-2009 5:12 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by iano
10-06-2009 6:58 AM


What are these 'far reaching implications' you speak of?
Well, it influences on how you view the bible,
also your view of sin
and a number of other doctrines.
Also most importantly when i hear phrases like this:
I imagine that folk just don't see the issue as having much relevance this way or that.
But again, the creation/evolution debate isn't mission-critical to Christian apologetics.
Jazzns writes:
What good would talking about evolution denial do in terms of saving that person at the end of the pew or at the other end of the table?
which when placed next to phrases like this:
SammyJean writes:
I must say that the subject 'evolution vs. creation' is probably one of the most heated points that drove me away from the JW's and ultimately all religion.
SammyJean writes:
There's probably no better way to drive away some followers then to make them choose between being rational or believing.
Larni writes:
I find it just does not make sense that the universe needs some kind of supernatural element for it to work.
I think it becomes quite obvious why the first set of quotes have missed the mark. If Christianity is just about "believeing" without having any reasons for why we believe it, and just helping us to more "christian living" then what's the point. Sammy jean is spot on with the comment that in the end it seems like a choice between being rational and believeing. I believe Christianity is rational however most christians don't seem to be able to defend a rational faith, also because they see no-one else defending it rationally many walk away because they think it cannot be defended rationally.
Another thing brought out in some of the other replies is that for most church leaders these sort of discussions are just way out of their league and so they stay away. OK, fair enough, but why is this way out of their league? Why aren't they trained in this? Is it not important? I think it is.
Also i agree with DavidOH that yes these discussions can get quite emotional and confrontational (as exemplified on EvC), but is that a good reason to ignore the debate altogether? I'd rather be confrontational and get to the truth, than just sit back and watch more people walk out the door.
Also Jaywill I think your right that it is also avoided in spritual terms, I think mainly because of the fear that that whatever is said will be controversial. However from a YEC perspective it is not enough to just raise these spiritual issues but it is also important to YEC theology that these things actually occured in history.
Thanks for all the responses, keep them coming

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by iano, posted 10-06-2009 6:58 AM iano has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Otto Tellick, posted 10-11-2009 9:58 PM Arphy has replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4432 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 28 of 51 (531309)
10-16-2009 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Otto Tellick
10-11-2009 9:58 PM


Re: Is it taboo to explore different interpretations of scripture?
To the first part of your post.
The sermon might have made sense to you, but did it make sense to everyone. Without hearing it I can't really tell whether or not it makes sense. But yes, i have heard sermons like this. Often they are accompanied by a lot of conjectures seemingly the musings of the pastor as he sits at his desk wondering how to fill up time for his sermon on sunday. Hmm.. maybe a bit too critical.
What do you think should be the "reasons for why we believe" Christianity, and what do these reasons have to do with literal vs. non-literal interpretations of particular OT passages?
People should believe or reject Christianity based on whether or not it is true or not, as in whether the claims it makes are true. These claims come from the bible. Taking millions of years, common descent, etc. and adding them to the bible means that you are now adding claims to the bible. You are no longer evaluating the bible according to the truthfulness of what it claims. If you no longer take it as literal (and I mean not a "wooden" literalism, but rather a natural literalism) and you begin adding claims then basically you can end up making the bible say anyhting you want it to say.
Can people have reasons for believing in Christ that do not involve ignoring, misrepresenting, or falsely denying physical evidence?
Yes, hence why I believe in Christ
Is there a problem with "just helping us to more 'christian living'"? Why would this, taken by itself, be pointless?
It becomes pointless because there are other religions out there that promote "being nice", prayer, meditation etc. You can even be atheistic and still practice most of "christian living", however if christianity is not based on truth then why not just throw it out altogether? You can still practice "christian living" without Christianity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Otto Tellick, posted 10-11-2009 9:58 PM Otto Tellick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Otto Tellick, posted 10-17-2009 6:41 PM Arphy has not replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4432 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 29 of 51 (531311)
10-16-2009 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Otto Tellick
10-12-2009 12:08 AM


Re: About the question posed to the non-religious
anyone who lacks suitable instruction in scientific methods and in particular fields of research will have trouble with that.
Fair enough.
but...
The reason why "these sort of matters" (i.e. literalist creationism) "are never discussed in our churches" is because a lot of churches do not consider these "matters" essential, or even relevant, to their various concepts of Christian faith.
It is important!! as me and slevesque have pointed out.
there are people who sincerely consider themselves true and faithful Christians, and also reject any notion that they must renounce astronomy, physics, geology and biology in order to profess their Christian faith.
And you think I do "renounce astronomy, etc...."?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Otto Tellick, posted 10-12-2009 12:08 AM Otto Tellick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Otto Tellick, posted 10-17-2009 2:17 PM Arphy has replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4432 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 32 of 51 (531442)
10-17-2009 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Otto Tellick
10-17-2009 2:17 PM


Re: About the question posed to the non-religious
Do you consider it essential to your Christian faith to believe in Young Earth Creationism? If so, then yes, you must renounce astronomy, physics and geology at least
So you think there is no such thing as a YEC astronomer, physicist, or geologist?
To hold such beliefs is to ignore, misrepresent, or falsely deny the evidence. There's no way around it.
Ahh, thanks for informing me.
Obviously I don't think that your statement above is correct otherwise I wouldn't take the position i do.
at least, not as far as the creation and flood stories are concerned; presumably, they do view the stories about Christ as historical fact, which is a separate matter involving no dispute with major fields of science)
So why become inconsistent with belief in the bible when it comes to the creation and flood account?
it's an irrelevant topic for church-goers
or so many church-goers would like to believe. Unfortunatly it isn't irrelevant.
wooden literalism: Take this random example of a metaphor
Epic of Gilgamesh:
My friend, the swift mule, fleet wild ass of the mountain, panther of the wilderness, after we joined together and went up into the mountain, fought the Bull of Heaven and killed it, and overwhelmed Humbaba, who lived in the Cedar Forest, now what is this sleep that has seized you? (Trans. Kovacs, 1989)
A wooden literalism would be to say that the friend is actually a real live mule, and somehow also a real live wild ass, and also a real panther. It is quite obvious however that a metaphor is being used in describing the friend.
Same thing with the bible a natural literalism just reads the bible as you would read any other book. i.e. If something is written in a historical narrative style, that is because it is historical narrative. If it is a song/poem style then that is because it is a song/poem. Genesis is written as historical narrative, yet in order to fit in millions of years and evolution some people decide that the passages must be reinterpreted. Note that OEC ideas and the like do not originate from the bible. OEC brings an already accepted belief about the age of the earth and then reinterprets the bible. YEC's let the bible speak for itself and then interpret evidence in that framework.
With all due respect to scripture and to people who are sincerely devout, I believe it is inescapably in the nature of scriptural text and personal belief that each reader makes the text say what he/she wants it to say
Really? Is this so for every other book on the planet. I think that generally a historical narrative is quite recognisable. We read historical narratives everyday, nobody goes "oh, hey, maybe this is actually just an allegory, it looks like historical narrative, I agree with some of it but this part doesn't fit in my worldview therefore I am going to say that the author was using allegory, even though it doesn't look like it."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Otto Tellick, posted 10-17-2009 2:17 PM Otto Tellick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Coyote, posted 10-18-2009 12:00 AM Arphy has replied
 Message 34 by Meldinoor, posted 10-18-2009 12:24 AM Arphy has replied
 Message 35 by Granny Magda, posted 10-18-2009 6:46 AM Arphy has replied
 Message 36 by Otto Tellick, posted 10-18-2009 10:37 AM Arphy has replied
 Message 37 by Coragyps, posted 10-18-2009 11:29 AM Arphy has not replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4432 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 38 of 51 (531575)
10-18-2009 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Coyote
10-18-2009 12:00 AM


Re: About the question posed to the non-religious
Hi Coyote
You either follow the scientific method, or you do not. Its that simple. If you reject the scientific method in favor of scripture or some other belief, at least admit that you are not doing science.
Why should the scientific method be opposed to scripture? They are not opposites. They can work together quite fine. They have done so in the past and they will continue to do so.
Because they have been shown to be inaccurate! The empirical evidence tells a much different story.
When christians believe this they become inconsistent because they still believe the doctrines which are based on what they think is a "myth". These people are being inconsistent. If christianity and the bible are true then they must also be consistent with reality. I believe they are consistent with reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Coyote, posted 10-18-2009 12:00 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Coyote, posted 10-19-2009 12:04 AM Arphy has not replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4432 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 40 of 51 (531582)
10-18-2009 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Meldinoor
10-18-2009 12:24 AM


Re: About the question posed to the non-religious
And you know this because...?
ok we assume it is, because it is written in the style of a historical narrative. So unless the author is being deceptive, then it seems like a good assumption to make. Same goes for a work of fiction. If it is written in a fictional style then we presume that it is fictional.
Tell me. How is "interpreting evidence in that framework" following the scientific method?
How is it in disagreement with the scientific method?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Meldinoor, posted 10-18-2009 12:24 AM Meldinoor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Meldinoor, posted 10-19-2009 1:11 AM Arphy has replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4432 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


(2)
Message 42 of 51 (531590)
10-19-2009 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Granny Magda
10-18-2009 6:46 AM


Re: About the question posed to the non-religious
What would you do if, hypothetically, you found a passage in the Bible that you could see was just wrong? I'm talking about a historical/factual type passage here, not one that is merely employing metaphor or poetry. What if you could see that the passage was simply at odds with reality?
I have to say I'm not too sure what i would do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Granny Magda, posted 10-18-2009 6:46 AM Granny Magda has not replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4432 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 44 of 51 (531601)
10-19-2009 3:56 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Otto Tellick
10-18-2009 10:37 AM


Re: About the question posed to the non-religious
Yes, certainly, for every book that purports to be divine revelation (there are many of those).
So we somehow read the language in these books differently from the language that we know and understand? My point is: Don't try to make the issue more complicated than it is. You read a book and generally if the book is well written most people should be able to understand what the author is saying. Yes, the bible is written in ancient hebrew and greek which does make it a bit more difficult, but not as difficult as people try to make it.
Note also that yes there are some ambiguous passages where hebrew scholars make an educated guess as to what they might mean. Even if we do not fully understand a passage it doesn't mean that it is incorrect.
But everyone should go "oh, hey, this directly contradicts another historical narrative, and that other one has a lot evidence to support it whereas this one does not, so this one appears to be inapplicable as historical narrative."
Yip.
Gilgamesh: Just googled metaphor and came up with the gilgamesh quote in the wiki article. But yeah I think Gilgamesh is supposed to be earlier than Moses.
The people who put the OT into writing (these were people, not God Himself) decided it would be taken amiss by their contemporaneous readers, all of whom had heard some version of the flood story since childhood, if the flood were not accounted for somehow in the book of Genesis. So the writers sought for some sort of divine inspiration about how to put it in.
And you know this how?
If they had known then what we know now, the story would have been written differently -- if indeed it would be included at all.
And you know this how?
In religion, you either reject or reinterpret old texts, and perhaps you add new text, according to your current belief.
Some people do, but i don't think they should, unless of course that is part of their religion.
If you are reading the text in an attempt to formulate or refine your belief, you will either be getting help from someone else who already has an interpretation in mind for you, or else you will be puzzling out an interpretation on your own (i.e. "making stuff up"). Your choice.
So what do people do when they read a news report in their newspaper, for example? Do you think most people interpret it by "making stuff up"? Is it unreasonable to assume that the journalist is trying to report the facts? Even if the facts are wrong the point is that the story is reported in a way that shows that the journalist thinks the facts are correct.
... in your personal form of religious belief. I think I can understand how that would be unfortunate for you.
Good. I don't think i am being unreasonable in asking christianity to back up its claims.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Otto Tellick, posted 10-18-2009 10:37 AM Otto Tellick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Otto Tellick, posted 10-19-2009 5:35 AM Arphy has replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4432 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 45 of 51 (531611)
10-19-2009 4:59 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Meldinoor
10-19-2009 1:11 AM


Re: About the question posed to the non-religious
Hi Meldinoor
I like your attitude and content of your posts. Good work.
Can an objective scientist not find evidence for YEC?
Yes, I think you can find evidence for a young earth, intelligent design of organisms, the supernatural, etc. independantly, but in order to make sense of these various pieces of evidence you need a "story" that incorporates them. The bible gives a framework which seems consistent with this evidence. New evidence is tested to see if it is compatible with this framework, if so then we begin to trust the framework.
This is curious, because in my experience many stories are written in what I'd consider a historical narrative style. This isn't necessarily because the writer is being deceptive, it's just that he tends to use that style.
True, but we still recognise fiction from non-fiction. Why? I think some language expert would be able to give you a more in-depth answer, but I think there are usually grammatical signs which allow us to recognise the type of writing we are dealing with.
More importantly, I wonder what prompts you to label Genesis as "historical narrative". Is there any telltale sign that gives it away as such?
Yes, there are grammatical features which indicate that it is (hermeneutics). It is interesting to note that from Genesis 12 onwards most people agree that the bible is written as historical narrative, but when it comes to the first 11 chapters people make up all sorts of arguments why they shouldn't be historical narrative even though grammatically no one can work out where this supposed transition takes place.
To everyone in general:
hmm... yes, i find all this quite interesting but I would also like a bit more discussion on the OP topic.
btw, if you want to just address the topic in general, without answering the individual questions that's fine too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Meldinoor, posted 10-19-2009 1:11 AM Meldinoor has not replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4432 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 46 of 51 (531613)
10-19-2009 5:19 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by riVeRraT
10-18-2009 10:04 PM


Thanks for your reply Riverrat
Hopefully in the near future I might be able to give a talk on it, or perhaps create a small group about it.
Good on you!
I don't know what you would apologize for.
hmmm...You do know what the word "apologetics" means, don't you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by riVeRraT, posted 10-18-2009 10:04 PM riVeRraT has not replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4432 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 48 of 51 (531624)
10-19-2009 6:21 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Otto Tellick
10-19-2009 5:35 AM


Re: About the question posed to the non-religious
The difference between your assertion and what i was saying is that you just made up your assertion, while I was just reporting what is written in a historical document. If you think that the historical document is wrong in what it asserts, then yes, you should bring evidence to support your view, but that is a different topic. Just because you reinterpret something to fit it into what makes sense to you, doesn't mean that the author viewed it in the same way as you.
News reports and the Bible: My main point here was not if the information is accurate or not, but about the way that information is presented. Genesis presents itself as a historical narrative as do many news-stories irrespective of their accuracy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Otto Tellick, posted 10-19-2009 5:35 AM Otto Tellick has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Phat, posted 10-19-2009 9:14 AM Arphy has not replied
 Message 51 by Perdition, posted 10-19-2009 1:21 PM Arphy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024