Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 89 (8876 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-10-2018 9:32 PM
212 online now:
Dr Adequate, GDR, Tanypteryx (3 members, 209 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Bill Holbert
Post Volume:
Total: 843,775 Year: 18,598/29,783 Month: 543/2,043 Week: 95/386 Day: 45/50 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
Author Topic:   Is the creation/evolution debate taboo in our churches?
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2408 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 yet responded

    
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 47 of 51 (531616)
10-19-2009 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Arphy
10-19-2009 3:56 AM


Re: About the question posed to the non-religious
Arphy writes:

And you know this [about the writing of the flood story] how?

In the same way a YEC "knows" that every current land creature is directly descended from an occupant of Noah's Ark. I've made these bare assertions about the how the story was first put into scripture because it's the only way the story makes sense to me. The flood story does make sense to me, and I appreciate its importance, given these assertions.

But I think there is a difference between my assertions above, and the assertions about the ancestors of current land creatures being traceable to occupants of the Ark. It's a matter of being plausible, as opposed to being directly refuted, on the basis of available objective evidence.

As for the essentially individual nature of interpretation for biblical text, as opposed to news reports: the latter are generally attributable and trackable to first-hand observation and confirmable evidence. There's video, documents, and eye-witnesses; responsible news outlets require confirmation before they report.

Even with all that validation, of course, there is still ample room for individual interpretation about things like why certain events are happening, what they are likely to lead to, and so on. There's only so much a reporter can tell us.

Even if we do not fully understand a passage it doesn't mean that it is incorrect.

If we do not fully understand a passage, we have no basis for determining whether or not it's "correct" -- it's either ambiguous or it's incomprehensible. When it's a matter of ambiguity, that in itself is not a bad thing. If a text is really well written, it can lend itself to numerous interpretations, and they would all be considered "truthful" by the people who understand the text in those various ways.


autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Arphy, posted 10-19-2009 3:56 AM Arphy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Arphy, posted 10-19-2009 6:21 AM Otto Tellick has acknowledged this reply

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2408 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 acknowledged this reply

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

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 11574
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 49 of 51 (531650)
10-19-2009 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by bluegenes
10-08-2009 5:46 PM


Re: Also not much discussed on MTV.
I dont like that chick! She seems arrogant, though certainly not stupid.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by bluegenes, posted 10-08-2009 5:46 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 11574
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 50 of 51 (531652)
10-19-2009 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Arphy
10-19-2009 6:21 AM


Phats Two Cents
Arphy writes:

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?

Phat writes:

No. I have heard some of Ken Hams ramblings on the topic, but don't respect him or his organization, since to me they are in it for the money. Besides...why would there be such a rift in science? Is one side deluded, and if so, why?

2. Do you know what the leadership of your local/denominational church believes on this issue?

Phat writes:

Most Protestant fundamentalists and charismatics stubbornly cling to Biblical Innerrency, though the implications of such a belief are never carried out to a final conclusion.


3. Is it ever discussed outside of sermons?
Phat writes:

Of course, though overall the topic does not interest me much.

4. In fact is there any emphasis put on apologetics at all?

Phat writes:

Apologetics is an ongoing debate, yet neither side as either proved nor disproved the Bible as a whole. Perhaps folks should begin to think about re-framing the questions rather than finding answers that fit their world views.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Arphy, posted 10-19-2009 6:21 AM Arphy has not yet responded

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 1213 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 51 of 51 (531717)
10-19-2009 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Arphy
10-19-2009 6:21 AM


"Historical" writings
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.

But so does the vast amount of fictional writing, all myths, all creation stories, etc. It's the way we tell stories. Using the voice of the authro doesn't do anything to indicate whether the story is supposed to be considered "true" or not, nor does it help us suss out what the author and intended audience got out of reading it versus what we get out of it now.

A good example is Lord of the Rings. JRR Tolkien came up with an entire creation story, complete with battles between heavenly hosts, good/evil, heroes and demons, etc. He came up with races and languages and back stories so complex and detailed and interwoven with each other, it seems all but impossible to believe he's just making it up. It's told in a historical way, detialing who, what, when, where, why, and often, how. It has been interpreted many times since it was written. First, it was interpreted as an attack on the wars of Tolkien's experience (World War One). It was trotted out again during World War Two as anathema to Nazism and fascism. The hippies embraced it as an attack on conformity and promoting civil rights and freedoms. More recently, it has been touted as an ecological book, attacking the destruction of the natural world and deforrestation.

The point is, the stories were written a bed-time stories for his children and because of a bet between Tolkien and C.S. Lewis. (Narnia came out of that bet as well.) What other statements Tolkien wanted to make are mostly lost to history or his family. People have written theses, books, and entire curricula on it, and most of them disagree. In less than a century, we have many, amny interpretations, all of them supposedly saying exactly what the people of the time wanted it to say. If the book were not intentionally marketed and sold as fiction, it would be very easy to see people accepting it as actual religion, in fact, some still do. If we were to come back in 2,000 years, how many interpretations and ideas would you expect to find...all from one story, written in a "historical" mode.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Arphy, posted 10-19-2009 6:21 AM Arphy has not yet responded

    
Prev123
4
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018