The Clergy Project

The problem with this is that they almost posit evolution as an absolute, and the literal bible as absolutely certainly not the case.I personally can't take this approach as it renders God incapable of something, which is ludicrous. It's as though they place more credence in evolution rather than God. I can't understand that, as a believer.Not that I think evolution didn't happen, but rather that I would say that all science is a worthy pursuit, via the gift of knowledge and intellect God has endowed us with.One doesn't need to say, "I accept evolution, to the demise of literal possibilities". In this sense, I think these people's hands are somewhat forced, because the debate is well known, and it's not good to be seen to be supporting radical theorists like YECs.For example; a clergyman wouldn't be under pressure to accept gravity, rather than scriptures. It begs the question as to the actual posited misconception evolutionist's claim; that evolution doesn't thwart BibleGod. Is there some truth to it thwarting him, afterall?Honesty would pay off. Scientifically we can't say he's thwarted, but the opinions of many, is that he is. And it's a complex issue, because of the ambiguity of the bible, and when it was written.I think there is a pretence that evolution doesn't favour a random and Godless picture. Not that evolution excludes God, but it certainly removes his sting, wouldn't you say?The YEcs don't want this. Thus they will only accept a clearly intelligent answer, because an intelligence is still valid, even if evolution is the case.

It's a fair point that you're making. And infact, depending on what part of the bible you're reading, then God could have ordered to kill.I personally only believe in Christ, for sure. So my own ideology would say that God wouldn't order this.I'm happy to say atleast, that a literal interpretation of scripture that specifically excludes evolutionary science, is infact something which cannot be supported by any reasonable person, IMHO. Such an exclusive ideology on what God says, is heavily biased, and infact no man can claim to understand scripture this thoroughly, IMHO.God would be asking us to observe something in nature, which appears to happen, according to the evidence, as false. He would be asking me to dismiss the causality of honest atheists/theists etc, which led them to such brilliantly clever findings.The only argument with credence, is that God didn't say we should investigate these matters in the first place. But that contradicts my statement about God-given intellect which insists on such pursuits. Nevertheless, God's intention might have been that these pursuits could have been meant to happen, with God. That we should proceed, with him in mind. (Yet that could have been the case to believing investigators)I think one can believe the bible literally, in a way.For example; I do think there was evidence of a local flood which could have been misconstrued as "the whole world", in that; to a person in those days, his whole world was flooded. Do you know how I mean? This is why I reserve a complete refrain from condemning literal possibilities. Because stories such as Noah, could have literal meaning to an extent.We are partaking of unwitting equivocation simply by observing scripture in English. There's so many interpretations, aswell as mis-understandings. (Like the sea of reeds. Red sea).So my personal statement, would be to allow for every viewpoint; as all things being equal, they are all somewhat guesses, and should be equally and freely allowed at the individual's discresion, as long as they don't do harm to others.P.S. I might not respond to this post for a while, and others like Tusko's post to my I.D. viewpoint. You reserve the right to forego responding to my post, IMHO. Forgive my lack of presence at EvC.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 11-26-2005 12:37 PM

[content deleted](I made a link to a closed thread)This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 11-27-2005 09:12 AM

Neither does your post. It's full of appeals to consequences, slippery slope fallacies and the fallacy of composition.Your stance seems similar to the typical fallacious YEC argument.Jar contradicts your claim as he has believed for many years, without putting stock in literal and scientific interpretations of text. So he's taking his time to "run the course" you erroneously posited that was being "played out".What Jesus said about the few, pertains to sin. It has nothing to do with creationism.You are partaking ot the tired old false dichotomy;Believe in evolution and be atheist, or believe in creationism and JesusThis message has been edited by mike the wiz, 11-27-2005 08:25 PM