Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Theistic Evolutionist An Oxymoron?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 31 of 83 (575802)
08-21-2010 4:29 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Buzsaw
08-20-2010 10:06 PM


Re: Theists Who View The Bible As Mythology
quote:
Paul, you, Jar, Meldinoor and a host of other professing theist evolutionis all have the same problem.
I'm not a theist. I simply point out the fact that you were utterly wrong to suggest that "theistic evolutionist" was an oxymoron.
quote:
You all try to apply a pseudo-Biblcal theism, all the while denying everything supernatural in the record which happens to be most of the book, supernatural aspects being tenets of all 66 books of the Bible. You're all deluding yourselves into professing Biblical theism when in fact you insult/blaspheme Jehovah, the Biblical designer, reducing his holy book to the status of mythology.
In other words your problem is not with "theistic evolution" as such. Your problem is that you don't like Christians who take a different view of the Bible from yours. You would have done far better to actually start a topic on that rather than trying to argue that the term "theistic evolutionist" is oxymoronic. There is nothing, nothing in the term that ties it to Christianity at all.
What is more you cannot assess another's interpretation of the Bible merely on the question of whether they accept the two creation stories in Genesis and try to harmonise them into a single account. If Christian, they might well believe in some of the Gospel miracles, for instance. Maybe even some OT miracles, too.
And you're a fine one to accuse others of blasphemy when you regularly twist and misrepresent the Bible which you claim to be God's word (being most upset when others read it and find that it does not say what you claim) and even mangle God's very name.
It seems that Ringo was entirely correct. Your real issue with theistic evolutionists is that they dare to disagree with YOU.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Buzsaw, posted 08-20-2010 10:06 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Buzsaw, posted 08-23-2010 9:15 AM PaulK has replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4808 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 32 of 83 (576161)
08-22-2010 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Buzsaw
08-20-2010 10:06 PM


Re: Theists Who View The Bible As Mythology
Before this thread goes the way of the dinosaurs; do you feel that your question has been properly answered in this thread?
Have you reached a conclusion about Theistic Evolutionism, and whether you think it is an oxymoron or not. And do you see where we're coming from?
Just curious.
-Meldinoor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Buzsaw, posted 08-20-2010 10:06 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Buzsaw, posted 08-23-2010 9:41 AM Meldinoor has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 83 (576212)
08-23-2010 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by PaulK
08-21-2010 4:29 AM


Re: Theists Who View The Bible As Mythology
PaulK writes:
Buzsaw writes:
You all try to apply a pseudo-Biblcal theism, all the while denying everything supernatural in the record which happens to be most of the book, supernatural aspects being tenets of all 66 books of the Bible. You're all deluding yourselves into professing Biblical theism when in fact you insult/blaspheme Jehovah, the Biblical designer, reducing his holy book to the status of mythology.
In other words your problem is not with "theistic evolution" as such. Your problem is that you don't like Christians who take a different view of the Bible from yours. You would have done far better to actually start a topic on that rather than trying to argue that the term "theistic evolutionist" is oxymoronic. There is nothing, nothing in the term that ties it to Christianity at all.
You're totally spinning my position. I like many Christians who disagree with me. I consider them as brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus if they have received him as savior, regardless of their interpretation of Genesis.
The theist-evolutionist essentially denies the Genesis record. There is nothing in it that is indicative of the status of myth. All one needs do is read the book of Genesis in order to see that is not intended as myth any more than any other Biblical book was intended as mythical.
Paul writes:
What is more you cannot assess another's interpretation of the Bible merely on the question of whether they accept the two creation stories in Genesis and try to harmonise them into a single account. If Christian, they might well believe in some of the Gospel miracles, for instance. Maybe even some OT miracles, too.
Really? What theist-evolutionist here at EvC has ever admitted to one miracle in the Bible? Can you cite some examples?
Paul writes:
And you're a fine one to accuse others of blasphemy when you regularly twist and misrepresent the Bible which you claim to be God's word (being most upset when others read it and find that it does not say what you claim) and even mangle God's very name.
It seems that Ringo was entirely correct. Your real issue with theistic evolutionists is that they dare to disagree with YOU.
These are below the belt blind assertions which have been debated on other threads relative to topic. They are unsupported cheap shots.
Edited by Buzsaw, : Delete phrase

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by PaulK, posted 08-21-2010 4:29 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by PaulK, posted 08-23-2010 9:44 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 36 by Nij, posted 08-23-2010 9:47 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 41 by jar, posted 08-23-2010 10:30 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 43 by onifre, posted 08-23-2010 5:31 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 83 (576215)
08-23-2010 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Meldinoor
08-22-2010 11:37 PM


Re: Theists Who View The Bible As Mythology
Meldinoor writes:
Before this thread goes the way of the dinosaurs; do you feel that your question has been properly answered in this thread?
Have you reached a conclusion about Theistic Evolutionism, and whether you think it is an oxymoron or not. And do you see where we're coming from?
I remain convinced that you're trying to have it both ways. It's not only oxymoronic but borders on deism as per the Dictionary.com definition of deism.
deism   /ˈdiɪzəm/ Show Spelled[dee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
—noun
1. belief in the existence of a god on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation ( distinguished from theism).
2. belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it.
Where do you draw the line and what qualifies you to demote the status of the Genesis record to alegorical myth. What in it indicates to you that it was intended to be alegorical or mythical?
What miracles in the Biblical record do you ascribe to as literal? What qualifies you to make a private judgement as to which are alegorical/mythical and which are not?

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Meldinoor, posted 08-22-2010 11:37 PM Meldinoor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Nij, posted 08-23-2010 10:16 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 44 by Meldinoor, posted 08-23-2010 5:45 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 45 by Taq, posted 08-23-2010 6:11 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 35 of 83 (576216)
08-23-2010 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Buzsaw
08-23-2010 9:15 AM


Re: Theists Who View The Bible As Mythology
quote:
You're totally spinning my position. I like many Christians who disagree with me. I consider them as brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus if they have received him as savior, regardless of their interpretation of Genesis.
You're the one who started this thread to accuse them of adopting a self-contradictory position. You're the one who classed their views as blasphemy, not me.
quote:
The theist-evolutionist essentially denies the Genesis record. There is nothing in it that is indicative of the status of myth. All one needs do is read the book of Genesis in order to see that is not intended as myth any more than any other Biblical book was intended as mythical.
Of course the creation accounts are obvious myths with their primordial ocean, geocentric cosmology, talking snakes and the like. The Flood and babel stories are obvious myths, too.
quote:
Really? What theist-evolutionist here at EvC has ever admitted to one miracle in the Bible? Can you cite some examples?
I guess you left reason and logic at home again. Even if none of the few theistic evolutionists here said that they believed in any Biblical miracles it doesn't mean that all Christian theistic evolutionists deny all of the Biblical miracles. The fact that you can't remember such a statement isn't even a very good argument when it comes to dealing with those who DO post here.
quote:
These are below the belt blind assertions which have been debated on other threads relative to topic.
By which you mean that they are facts that have been demonstrated many times. And I can certainly provide proof of THAT. And if you are going to accuse others of blasphemy simply for taking a different view it seems rather relevant that you have no problem blaspheming yourself - or at least blaspheming by the standards you claim to believe in.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Buzsaw, posted 08-23-2010 9:15 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Nij, posted 08-23-2010 9:54 AM PaulK has replied

  
Nij
Member (Idle past 4890 days)
Posts: 239
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-20-2010


Message 36 of 83 (576217)
08-23-2010 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Buzsaw
08-23-2010 9:15 AM


Small samples and smaller minds
The theist-evolutionist essentially denies the Genesis record.
For many theist-evolutionists, this would be a necessity, given that their own religion requires them to see others as incorrect by the virtue of not being identical to their own. You must be aware, of course, that not all theism derives from the Bible, and thereby does not rely on it?
There is nothing in it that is indicative of the status of myth. All one needs do is read the book of Genesis in order to see that is not intended as myth any more than any other Biblical book was intended as mythical.
I've read Genesis several times, often with a priest or qualified religious teacher in guidance. And all I saw is that regardless of intention, it must clearly be a myth, because that much incongruity to reality is only ever seen in fiction and/or mythology.
Really? What theist-evolutionist here at EvC has ever admitted to one miracle in the Bible? Can you cite some examples?
I don't recall Paul ever saying that any theist evolutionist specifically on this site believed in any of the Biblical miracles to be real events. He merely stated the possibility existed in the real world.
Not a bad idea, I think, since certainly a Christian must believe at least the miracle of the Ressurection (possibly the best demonstration of divine vestment) else deny the whole idea of Jesus being what they say he is?
In that case, every Christian would have count as an example, and whichever among us happen to be one can be cited.
These are below the belt blind assertions which have been debated on other threads relative to topic. They are unsupported cheap shots.
Ringo apparently made the observation that your issue was not with the term "theist evolutionist" being an oxymoron, as it demonstrably is not for many different kinds of theist and anybody with reasonable understanding of the terms can see that.
{aside: If your issue was really with one specific type of theist evolutionist, then this should have been made clearer in the OP. If you would like to redefine your position in this way from now, then it will likely eliminate much of the debate and you would daresay stand a good chance in a battle purely of theology.}
He then asserted that you made issue with any theist who disagreed with your interpretation of Genesis, as indicated by their acceptance of evolution as fact and Genesis as only myth or nonliteral guidance. From this point, one must conclude that you then take issue with theistic evolutionism because such a position is on contrast to your own, and thereby that they disagree with you.
Do you deny or rebut any of these points? If not, then the statement is quite supported. Given the evidence built on, then at least one is also not blind assertion.
Whether or not the remarks are a cheapshot or below the belt is a matter of personal tastes and I make no comment on that matter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Buzsaw, posted 08-23-2010 9:15 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Nij
Member (Idle past 4890 days)
Posts: 239
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-20-2010


Message 37 of 83 (576219)
08-23-2010 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by PaulK
08-23-2010 9:44 AM


Playing nice?
Are you? Because Buz is only defending his position, and he could be justified in calling at least one of your remarks below the belt or a cheapshot.
I covered the area of Christians that believe in NT and/or other Biblical myths; there was an obvious one sticking right out in front of me there.
Whether or not one plays by the religious rules they set is between their god, such as it is, and them. We should not judge them for this reason alone, although pointing out an inconsistency is a valid method of attacking the argument at hand. Don't disservice logic and turn a good defense into a bad ad hom. It could easily come back to bite you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by PaulK, posted 08-23-2010 9:44 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by PaulK, posted 08-23-2010 10:01 AM Nij has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 38 of 83 (576221)
08-23-2010 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Nij
08-23-2010 9:54 AM


Re: Playing nice?
quote:
Are you? Because Buz is only defending his position, and he could be justified in calling at least one of your remarks below the belt or a cheapshot.
He might IF he wasn't the one who started making accusations of blasphemy and if he didn't have a long record of misrepresenting the Bible. Unfortunately he did and he does.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Nij, posted 08-23-2010 9:54 AM Nij has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Nij, posted 08-23-2010 10:20 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Nij
Member (Idle past 4890 days)
Posts: 239
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-20-2010


Message 39 of 83 (576224)
08-23-2010 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Buzsaw
08-23-2010 9:41 AM


I remain convinced that you're trying to have it both ways. It's not only oxymoronic but borders on deism as per the Dictionary.com definition of deism.
But Christian theist evolutionism can also include the miracles such as Jesus at Cana, the fish and loaves, and most importantly the Ressurection, while simultaneously viewing evolution as the mechanism of that deity's action. By the same token, the god has directly intervened in the world since its formation, and these events alone indicate a belief that the god does not operate at only natural levels (these miracles being of divine or supernatural origin, of course).
Therefore, such a god defies both aspects of the definition you supply for a deist deity by manner of being entirely opposed to them, and therefore such a Christian is not remotely bordering on deism.
Where do you draw the line and what qualifies you to demote the status of the Genesis record to alegorical myth. What in it indicates to you that it was intended to be alegorical or mythical?
While several parts and similarities indicate it was not intended to be mythical or allegorical, it is evident that since the time of its writings, certain facts have been discovered discounting the possibility of it as truth or reality. It is these which lead us to treating it as myth, and for the nonliteral believer to see it as allegory.
Of course, one realises you discount these facts themselves, but that is a debate carried in every other thread, so it is a moot point here.
What miracles in the Biblical record do you ascribe to as literal? What qualifies you to make a private judgement as to which are alegorical/mythical and which are not?
Speaking from the believer's perspective (as I personally don't ascribe to them; nor it seems, does Paul, but Meldinoor may still view them nonliterally):
  • The Resurrection must be seen as literal. Otherwise, much of the basis for Christianity is gone right off the bat.
  • Jonah's travel inside the whale, quite plainly a physical impossiblity in the modern world, must be a miracle if one accepts it as a true account.
  • Pretty much all of Jesus' work and ministry would also be included as literal should one accept the general idea of Christianity; after all, if a man rising from the dead is okay, why not the water-to-wine tale too?
As to making a private judgement, that is easy: being myself qualifies me to make a personal judgement for myself. I think the more useful question would be, what qualifies one to make an objective judgement of any story as either myth or literal? And indeed, since claims of nonconformity to the evidence can be met with the notion of the miracle or divine involvement or with contrary evidence or rebuttal, one cannot conclusively demonstrate any story to be a myth without some recognition, on behalf of any party concerned, that at least some of the ideas in question are false.
Either the believer sees the evidence, accepts it and thinks the story to be not only impossible, but not to have occurred, then the story is a myth. If the nonbeliever sees the evidence to be false, inflated or otherwise invalid, they may indeed begin to see the story as more than mere fiction. Then again, both groups keep their side and dismiss anything against it by whatever means, and the result is disagreement. Just as we see in the real world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Buzsaw, posted 08-23-2010 9:41 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Buzsaw, posted 08-26-2010 10:24 PM Nij has replied

  
Nij
Member (Idle past 4890 days)
Posts: 239
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-20-2010


Message 40 of 83 (576226)
08-23-2010 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by PaulK
08-23-2010 10:01 AM


Re: Playing nice?
I make no comment on whether Buz has indeed misrepresented any text as you say, nor upon who was first to label another as blasphemer. But nevertheless, you making a personal attack on someone is not justified by them having done it first or in the past.
Two wrongs do not make a right; indeed, they do nothing but procreate more wrongness, and I think that is not the purpose we are on this site for.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by PaulK, posted 08-23-2010 10:01 AM PaulK has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 41 of 83 (576228)
08-23-2010 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Buzsaw
08-23-2010 9:15 AM


Re: Theists Who View The Bible As Mythology
Buz writes:
The theist-evolutionist essentially denies the Genesis record. There is nothing in it that is indicative of the status of myth. All one needs do is read the book of Genesis in order to see that is not intended as myth any more than any other Biblical book was intended as mythical.
If you mean that they deny that the Genesis fables were meant as factual accounts, then certainly. That should be fairly obvious. For example, the god in Genesis 1 is described as something totally different then the god in Genesis 2&3, the order of creation is different, the methods used are different and the stories themselves are factually wrong.
Where is the evidence that they are not allegorical and mythological?
Buz writes:
Really? What theist-evolutionist here at EvC has ever admitted to one miracle in the Bible? Can you cite some examples?
Maybe you will present an example so that it can be tested? Perhaps this is you opportunity to actually present some evidence instead of simply claiming you have done so? I, as one example, have said that I believe that Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into heaven.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Buzsaw, posted 08-23-2010 9:15 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by GDR, posted 08-23-2010 11:14 AM jar has seen this message but not replied
 Message 51 by Buzsaw, posted 08-23-2010 10:48 PM jar has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 42 of 83 (576237)
08-23-2010 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by jar
08-23-2010 10:30 AM


Re: Theists Who View The Bible As Mythology
Buz writes:
Really? What theist-evolutionist here at EvC has ever admitted to one miracle in the Bible? Can you cite some examples?
Hi Buz
I have no problem with the idea that God created using an evolutionary process. That is a miracle of creation itself. I believe fervently in the bodily resurrection. I argued for that a number of times on this forum. I believe in the healing miracles of Jesus.
CS Lewis (who hasn't posted here lately I'll agree) also had no problem with evolution and even wrote a whole book called Miracles in support of the the miracles of the NT.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by jar, posted 08-23-2010 10:30 AM jar has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Buzsaw, posted 08-23-2010 10:25 PM GDR has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 43 of 83 (576317)
08-23-2010 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Buzsaw
08-23-2010 9:15 AM


Re: Theists Who View The Bible As Mythology
Really? What theist-evolutionist here at EvC has ever admitted to one miracle in the Bible?
Catholic Scientist believes in the miracles claimed in the NT. He has never denied that.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Buzsaw, posted 08-23-2010 9:15 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Buzsaw, posted 08-23-2010 10:12 PM onifre has not replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4808 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


(1)
Message 44 of 83 (576322)
08-23-2010 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Buzsaw
08-23-2010 9:41 AM


Hi Buz,
Buzsaw writes:
I remain convinced that you're trying to have it both ways.
Certainly. I believe in the God of the Bible. And I also "believe" in Electricity, Gravity, Heliocentrism and Evolution. I also believe in the existence of carrots. None of these beliefs conflict.
Buzsaw writes:
It's not only oxymoronic but borders on deism as per the Dictionary.com definition of deism
Buzsaw, your misrepresentations are starting to annoy me. In my last post (did you even read it?) I wrote about how the central tenets of Genesis 1 and 2 don't conflict with the ToE.
I writes:
1. God created everything (compatible)
2. God chose the human species to be made "in his image" spiritually (compatible)
3. Humanity fails to live up to God's standards (compatible)
4. God promises to redeem humanity (compatible)
Do you really think someone who holds to these tenets fits your definition of a Deist? Please read my posts carefully before responding.
Buzsaw writes:
Where do you draw the line and what qualifies you to demote the status of the Genesis record to alegorical myth
What qualifies you to demote the Genesis record to mere history?
Buzsaw writes:
What in it indicates to you that it was intended to be alegorical or mythical?
Whatever the intents of the fallible (albeit perhaps inspired) human authors were, a simplistic literal reading of the account set forth in Genesis clearly contradicts the evidence we have of the past.
Buzsaw writes:
What miracles in the Biblical record do you ascribe to as literal? What qualifies you to make a private judgement as to which are alegorical/mythical and which are not?
Well, creation for one. I don't know how God created the universe (whether through "natural processes" operating "before" the Big Bang, or just ex nihilo), but I think it qualifies as a miraculous event. And the resurrection of course.
Beyond that, I won't deny the plausibility of most of the miracles in the Bible. I'm not qualified to judge which ones are mythical or historical, so in the absence of contrary evidence, I don't. I do believe that God is fully capable of performing any miracle described in the Bible.
Buzsaw writes:
What theist-evolutionist here at EvC has ever admitted to one miracle in the Bible?
I just did.
Respectfully,
-Meldinoor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Buzsaw, posted 08-23-2010 9:41 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Buzsaw, posted 08-23-2010 10:01 PM Meldinoor has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 45 of 83 (576335)
08-23-2010 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Buzsaw
08-23-2010 9:41 AM


Re: Theists Who View The Bible As Mythology
I remain convinced that you're trying to have it both ways. It's not only oxymoronic but borders on deism as per the Dictionary.com definition of deism.
I haven't put on my TE hat in a long time, but let's see if it still fits . . .
The one analogy that worked for me in my TE days was the lottery. When someone would win the lottery they would often claim that God was behind it, that God had blessed them. This is not a statement on numbered ping-pong balls magically poofing from nothing. In fact, no one could ever show that the results were anything but random. However, one is still free to believe that God played a part in it. That belief is separate from any demonstration of the non-random nature of the lottery.
This is how TE works. God is behind it, but it can never be shown in a scientific sense. From a natural view of life, evolution is all that is necessary just as the random movement of the ping pong balls was all that was necessary to describe the outcome of the lottery.
Hope that helps a little bit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Buzsaw, posted 08-23-2010 9:41 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Buzsaw, posted 08-23-2010 10:08 PM Taq has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024