|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Best approaches to deal w/ fundamentalism | |||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Those who adhere to a theistic evolutionary viewpoint have reduced the Bible to being nothing more than an allegory or a non-literal work. Not ture. I'm a theistic evolutionist and I think there is more to the Bible than allegory. It reveals some of the most important and great truths of our world. A good analogy is the map/territory one. The real world is the territory and the Bible is the map. There will be some places where the map differs from the territory but it is still a useful tool. It is important to remember that the map is not the territory, itself. In other words, don't worship the Bible.
If the creation story is not literal then how does one know what is literal (if anything) in Scripture? You don't.
Do you see the problem? Yes, but only if your faith is a house of cards. I don't know that Jesus was a literal person but I have faith that he was. If it had to be 'proven' to me that Jesus was a literal person before I believed it then I would have knowledge, which is the opposite of faith.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
Was Jesus a literal person?
No.
If Jesus is not literal, then is our salvation literal?
Salvation from what?
Is Heaven Literal?
No.
Do you see the problem?
What problem?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
I know almost nothing about James Orr myself, but looking at the Wikipedia Article on James Orr it would seem that while the term he applied to himself was "theistic evolutionist," the meaning of the term has apparently evolved with time and today he'd be thought of as a progressive creationist.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
So, sticking to the topic of this thread, what would it take to convince you that the Bible should be interpreted using the same criteria one would use for any other historical text?
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Lithodid-Man Member (Idle past 2930 days) Posts: 504 From: Juneau, Alaska, USA Joined: |
Great discussion topic! I have spent some time on this issue and have done a fair number of public evolution seminars to counter creation talks in town. Here are some thoughts/musings on this:
I am firmly convinced that Bob Altemeyer's RWA scale explains a lot about the fundamentalist mindset, especially his work with logic problems. If not familiar, he found a correlation between high RWA's (of which most fundies are) and an inability to recognize flawed logic if they agreed with the conclusion. So they tended to claim a syllogism is logical if they believed the conclusion, no matter if one or more supporting statements were false. Reading this study was enlightening to me because, if true at least part of the time, it explains the head-against-the-wall frustration level when we go around and around in circles making a series of arguments only to have the recipient hand wave it all away and return to the original claim as if it were bullet-proof. The point is that the steps we use to convince our peers of a certain viewpoint will not work with some people. What has to happen is to construct a bridge between their conclusion and another conclusion. For example, instead of trying to tear down young Earth creationism directly try building a case for OEC or theistic evolution (I don't mean you need to believe this, I mean make a case that many strong Christians accept this without compromising their faith). The 'baby-steps' approach. The cases I have seen here and elsewhere where change occurred this seemed to be how it happened. Another tactic I have had success with (and it's a toughie) is to be really familiar with their case. Even though I may not 'win' the argument, I feel a whole better when I frustrate a fundie by knowing their sources better than they do. In my experience many seem to believe that the rest of humanity is as gullible as they are, so are caught off-guard when you not only know the source but know when and how it was refuted. I also make it a point to obtain the primary sources used by creationists, as it is guaranteed that the person you are arguing with has never even read the abstract. It maybe cruel, but I love the look on their face as they are trying to make a claim while knowing that you are holding the actual paper they are citing. Especially when you hand it to them and ask them to show you where the authors said that. I had the pleasure of derailing a claim about intact dinosaur marrow and blood cells by Dave Nutting by asking him to show me where in the paper he cites is this claim (I brought it with me). All he admitted was that he might have put the wrong citation down, but hopefully it was not lost on the audience. It is also really useful to be familiar with older creationist literature. I purchased and read a creation science book (Science and the Bible by Herbert Walker Morris) from 1871. As far as I can tell it is the oldest creation book that was written to directly counter Darwin. But what I like about is that he uses statements like "Every thinking person knows that earth is millions of years if not millions or eras old". Many creationists are unaware that OEC lies at the trunk of their belief system. Morris (HW, not Henry or John) uses the fact that theologians discovered and named the geologic eras to proclaim an old earth as validating the Bible (somewhat ridiculous logic, but there is an irony there). Perhaps the hardest thing to do (especially with the creation discussion) is to keep civil and rational. This is one I am working on myself. I have found that they often come with a preconceived idea of how 'evilutionists' are going to respond to them. And, imo, that response only confirms that they are right regardless of the argument. Genuinely acknowledging and empathizing with their belief (while gently countering) avoids the "You just think I'm stupid" conversation stopper. One thing to keep in mind, at least with Christian fundamentalists, is that they are told that if they are despised it is only because they are right. Anyway, just a few thoughts. Altemeyer's introductory book on RWA:The Authoritarians Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?" Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true" Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?" Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"
|
|||||||||||||||||||
shalamabobbi Member (Idle past 2848 days) Posts: 397 Joined: |
Hi Kelly,
Before you decide whether to swallow the red pill or the blue pill take a couple of aspirin.. I did not change the topic CS, I enlarged it so those who reject the ToE could add comments and participate. For those who do not accept the ToE try to keep the discussion focused on how it would affect your faith if true and how you view the issue of teaching the ToE in school etc. Tell us what you think should be done with all the knowledge that has been gathered by scientists for so long a time. Since we are in possession of facts that dissagree with a particular interpretation of a particular religion are we not to present those facts to students in the school system? Do we do the same thing for all religions? Teach nothing that steps on the toes of anyones' private beliefs?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Kelly Member (Idle past 5495 days) Posts: 217 Joined: |
I don't worship the paper that contains the Word--but the Word contained in writing. You really can't separate God from His Word. If the Bible is full of error and mistakes and falsehoods, then why trust anything it says?
Why do you have faith that Jesus existed if you don't have faith in the source that reveals Him? Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. Hebrews 11:1. It is not a wishful thinking sort of thing or blind in any way. In fact, the Scriptures are filled with *proof* that what is written is true. The reason God's Word is loaded with prophecy--which we can then find fulfilled is so that we would develope stronger faith in Him and what He has revealed as we walk with Him. How does one walk with God? It is done through His Word. Jesus rebuked the religious leaders of His day for favoring their tradition over God's Word and called all of them, and us as well, to know God's Word as revealed in the Scriptures.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
I'm sorry,but did you just use these two sentences:
Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. Hebrews 11:1. It is not a wishful thinking sort of thing or blind in any way. concurrently and not see the contradiction? You just said that your faith is not blind while also stating that you are certain despite being unable to see. You also stated that your faith is certainty of what you hope for and then claimed that it is not wishful thinking. You described blind faith and then claimed your faith is not blind. You described wishful thinking and claimed that yuor faith is not wishful thinking. Are you in fact a walking contradiction, or is there something I'm missing here?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Kelly Member (Idle past 5495 days) Posts: 217 Joined: |
Until people here finally come to terms with what creation Science really is, I am afraid that debate and normal conversation cannot progress. We are on entirely different pages and I feel like I am banging my head on a brick wall.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Kelly Member (Idle past 5495 days) Posts: 217 Joined: |
The kind of evidence that makes us certain is not material, biut it is just as real. Without it our faith would be blind. How can one be *certain* of something that we cannot see physically? A good example is found in the born-again conversion where a person's life literally changes overnight without explanation. It happened to me. This experience is powerful and people who knew me before and know me now can't really believe the change sometimes. This is proof--evidence enough for me that God is true, though I can't prove it to you. But be sure that it is not blind faith.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Hi shalamabobbi,
shalamabobbi writes: As an aside, do you preach that the ToE is false from your pulpit? I preach the Bible from my pulpit. The ToE is not in it and neither is politics so they don't get preached. I stated in Message 5 ICANT writes: The first thing as a Fundy as Taz calls us is I would require evidence that life can come from non life. The second thing I would require is evidence of transmutation. The conditions of the earth at the time life appeared is not known and can not be as no one was there to record them. No one has lived long enough to record the transmutation of anything.The little changes over millions and billions of years that is said to be made to get from one creature to another can not be tested as it can not be reproduced. shalamabobbi writes: What if you received this "sufficient proof" that the ToE were true beyond any doubt. How does this affect your theology? If that were to happen I would have to tell CS he was right all along and that is how God did it. I would then come to the conclusion that either the idiots that recorded the OT or the ones that copied it just messed up. Because my faith is not based in whether the OT is correct or not. My faith is based in a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Nothing can shake that. I tried not to argue anything. Only point out what the 3/4 million fundamentalist that I know and fellowship with believe concerning the ToE. Having been raised on a farm I believe in evolution. I just don't believe transmutation has ever taken place. This will be my last post to this thread. We can argue in proper threads. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3291 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Kelly, the phrase "blind faith" is redundant in that faith, by definition, does not base on evidence. It's not up for debate. It's part of the English language. If you want to add "evidence" to whatever it is you have, use a word other than "faith".
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2131 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:I believe you are overstating things. They may view the Bible LESS literally than you do, but this is not the same as NON-literal. quote:No, this is an overstatement. They don't view EVERYTHING as symbolic. quote:What about James Orr and G.F. Wright? Were these two original fundamentalists not TRUE fundamentalists? That would be odd! I generally agree with your idea, but your caveat is too narrow. I believe there are other indicators that a passage is not to be taken literally.
quote:I think you are making the problem much bigger than it really is. Do the mountains literally "shout" and the trees literally "clap their hands" (Is 55:12)? If this is not literal, is our salvation literal? Is heaven literal? NO ONE takes EVERYTHING in the Bible literally, not even you. Figuring out how to interpret the text is not just a simple, formulaic task. It requires some thought and study to do properly. But this doesn't make everything fall apart like a house of cards.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2131 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:Perhaps so, though I believe he was open to more aspects of evolution than most who call themselves "Progressive Creationists". There seems to be a good article here, though I've only skimmed it: http://www.asa3.org/asa/PSCF/1999/PSCF6-99McGrath.html
|
|||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Kelly writes: Those who adhere to a theistic evolutionary viewpoint have reduced the Bible to being nothing more than an allegory or a non-literal work. They think everything in the bible is therefore just symbolic. True fundamentalists believe that Scripture is meant to be taken literally, except where instructed by the content to take it otherwise. If the creation story is not literal then how does one know what is literal (if anything) in Scripture? Was Jesus a literal person? How does one know the difference between what is literla or symbolic if not through the actual context of the Scripture itself? If Jesus is not literal, then is our salvation literal? Is Heaven Literal? Do you see the problem? Hi Kelly You ask how you can trust in the Bible if you can't read it literally. Actually I'd ask you how you can trust it if you have to read it literally. There are just too many things that obviously don't fit when you try to read it literally. (Two creation stories for a start.) I take the Bible very seriously and my Christianity is the basis for how I live my life, but I suggest that trying to turn the Bible into a science text or a newspaper just demeans the message that God is attempting to pass along. Here is a quote from CS Lewis, (which I have posted before), that you might find helpful.
quote: Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024