Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-22-2019 10:15 PM
27 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones* (2 members, 25 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,563 Year: 3,600/19,786 Month: 595/1,087 Week: 185/212 Day: 27/25 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
56Next
Author Topic:   Is Theistic Evolutionist An Oxymoron?
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 83 (576369)
08-23-2010 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Meldinoor
08-23-2010 5:45 PM


Meldinoor writes:

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.

LOL. The God of the Bible claims to have created the sun on the 4th day, plant life on the 3rd day, the sun & moon on the 4th day, sea and bird life on the 5th day and man and animals on the 6th day.

God declared a curse on anyone who takes away or adds to his holy word. This is declared both in the OT and the NT. Do you and other theist-evolutionists believe that your alleged Biblical God is pleased when you professing Christians reduce the specifics of his claims in Genesis to the status of mythology?

Meldinoor writes:

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.

Poor baby. I know. It's always an annoyance to have one's beliefs faulted. Does deism, defined below, resemble, somewhat, your belief?

Dictionary.com:

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.

Of the tenets of Genesis 1, 2 and 3 which are compatible with your version of Biblical theism, the large majority of the specifics of them are regarded by theist-evolutionists as mythical alegories. How can you say you hold to the major tenets of these origin chapters?

Meldinoor 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)

1. Too vague. It says noting to support your position, being your position is incompatible with the written record.
2. The record does not limit the "in his image" to spiritual." God, being a spirit does have an image form, sitting on a throne.
3. Incompatible, in that Genesis man made perfect in one day but evolved man emerging over millions of years into primitive level of intelligence.
4. Incompatible in that primitive man's intlligence not up to what the record implies.

Meldinoor writes:

Do you really think someone who holds to these tenets fits your definition of a Deist? Please read my posts carefully before responding.

Yes.

Correction: not my definition but the definition of Dictionary.com.

Meldinoor writes:


What qualifies you to demote the Genesis record to mere history?

Say what? Which is more realistic, myth or history? I can't believe you asked that

Meldinoor writes:

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.

Oh. So your version of the Biblical god, Jehovah, is that his acclaimed record is trumped by man's science and likely Jehovah was either ignorant or fooling us but human (creature) science is infallible.

Meldinoor writes:

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.

1. Another dodge of the question. "creation." That's the sum total and you haven't, after reading the Genesis record as to any of the specifics. Can't you see how rediculous you're being, Meldinoor? I can't believe your response got a POM nomination

Meldinoor writes:

Buzsaw writes:


What theist-evolutionist here at EvC has ever admitted to one miracle in the Bible?

I just did.

Yah sure, Meldinoor. I'm sure you, all of the secularists and your theist-evos in EvC town are sure that you indeedy did. They will praise you til the cows come home for being their eloquent spokesman to debunk stupid ole unegukated dummie, Buzsaw.


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 44 by Meldinoor, posted 08-23-2010 5:45 PM Meldinoor has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Nij, posted 08-23-2010 10:34 PM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 53 by Meldinoor, posted 08-24-2010 12:55 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 54 by Blue Jay, posted 08-24-2010 1:06 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 83 (576372)
08-23-2010 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Taq
08-23-2010 6:11 PM


Re: Theists Who View The Bible As Mythology
Taq writes:

God is behind it, but it can never be shown in a scientific sense.

Herein lies the problem with this, Taq. It's more of a strawman than an analogy. Why? Because Jehovah, the Genesis god sanctioned his own words. On the otherhand, he did not sanction get rich quick gambling schemes. In fact in Proverbs, his man Solomon advises against it.


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 45 by Taq, posted 08-23-2010 6:11 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Taq, posted 08-24-2010 12:08 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 83 (576377)
08-23-2010 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by onifre
08-23-2010 5:31 PM


Re: Theists Who View The Bible As Mythology
onifre writes:

Catholic Scientist believes in the miracles claimed in the NT. He has never denied that.

Mmm, Thanks Onifre. It would be nice if he/she were here to confirm or deny and to name some specific miracles which he ascribes to as literal.


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 43 by onifre, posted 08-23-2010 5:31 PM onifre has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 83 (576381)
08-23-2010 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by GDR
08-23-2010 11:14 AM


Re: Theists Who View The Bible As Mythology
GDR writes:

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

Thanks, GDR. That's very interesting. So for you, no changing water into wine, no raising of Lazarus, no feeding of the 5000 with a boy's lunch, no creating anything in a day, etc, but the afterlife raising of the dead.

Do you realize how shakey this makes your resurrection hopes? How do you figure God will do miracle after you die, for you when he or his son allegedly never did these Biblically acclaimed miracles, for man while alive? How do you determine which miracle/miracles you pick and choose to believe?


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 42 by GDR, posted 08-23-2010 11:14 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by GDR, posted 08-24-2010 1:39 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Nij
Member (Idle past 2966 days)
Posts: 239
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-20-2010


Message 50 of 83 (576386)
08-23-2010 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Buzsaw
08-23-2010 10:01 PM


Missing one?
Hey Buz,

I don't know if you're aware of it, but I have answered your points about both why "theist evolutionist" is not an oxymoron, by demonstrating a non-conflicting definition, and that Christians who acknowledge one or more Biblical miracles without also believing in Genesis as a literal or factual account are not necessarily deists nor anything close to it. This was done in message 36 and message 39 of this thread.
If this were not enough, people have previously demonstrated the same, in the latter case by posting that they themselves believe in a Biblical miracle (specifically the Resurrection as I discussed) that directly contradicts the notion of deism.

It would be nice if you had some reply to any of these arguments. Otherwise, may I consider lack of response to indicate capitulation on those topics?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Buzsaw, posted 08-23-2010 10:01 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Buzsaw, posted 08-23-2010 10:52 PM Nij has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 83 (576392)
08-23-2010 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by jar
08-23-2010 10:30 AM


Re: Theists Who View The Bible As Mythology
jar writes:

Buzsaw 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.

Ah, so we have a "Genesis fables/factual accounts" oxymoronic argument attempt to debunk the acclaimed oxymoron. Sorry, no comment except, that it falls on it's own weight.

jar writes:

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.

Jar, that argument, like the above, is so far fetched that it's not worth a response.

jar writes:

Where is the evidence that they are not allegorical and mythological?

The rule of thumb of any astute and accredited Biblical scholar is that unless the context clearly states or implies not literal, keep it literal. The Bible attests to that in both OT and NT scriptures, Revelation 1:3, for example says read, hear and keep what is written. That's repeated in the last chapter of the Bible, Revelation 22 with a curse applied for adders to or subtractors from the written record.

jar writes:

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.

What do you say to someone arguing that that's a fable and you're deluded to take it literal? This is a classic example of how theist-evos want what's in it for them after death while denying the power of God for the here and now.

This hypocracy is easy to see through, robbing the creator of the credit for all of the wonderful complex design he has done by his wisdom, knowledge and might and selfishly acclaiming his power for your own benefit when you need his salvation after death.


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 41 by jar, posted 08-23-2010 10:30 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by jar, posted 08-24-2010 10:10 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 83 (576394)
08-23-2010 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Nij
08-23-2010 10:34 PM


Re: Missing one?
Hi Nij. Thanks for the heads up. My apologies for the delay. I'm a sole proprietor with a whole lot on my plate. I pick off as many as I can when I can. Tonight it took me over an hour on one post in order to get it right. It's bed time now but I'll try to get to you next.


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 50 by Nij, posted 08-23-2010 10:34 PM Nij has not yet responded

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 2885 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 53 of 83 (576405)
08-24-2010 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Buzsaw
08-23-2010 10:01 PM


Hi Buz,

Buzsaw writes:

The God of the Bible claims to have created the sun on the 4th day, plant life on the 3rd day, the sun & moon on the 4th day, sea and bird life on the 5th day and man and animals on the 6th day.

Genesis 2:4-7 writes:

When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Are you sure the plants came first?

--------------------------------

Buzsaw writes:

God declared a curse on anyone who takes away or adds to his holy word. This is declared both in the OT and the NT. Do you and other theist-evolutionists believe that your alleged Biblical God is pleased when you professing Christians reduce the specifics of his claims in Genesis to the status of mythology?

I haven't taken away a word. Just because I realize that parts of the Bible are not literal history, does not mean that I want to put the scissor to it.

Buzsaw writes:

It's always an annoyance to have one's beliefs faulted

Au contraire. I'm overjoyed when my beliefs are faulted. I remember when I was in elementary school, my parents told me there was a troll living in the river next to my house (to keep me from playing in the water and drowning). Imagine if that belief had never been faulted. I'd still be afraid to go near running water.

The same applies to other more recent beliefs as well, of course.

Buzsaw writes:

Does deism, defined below, resemble, somewhat, your belief?

Dictionary.com writes:

1. belief in the existence of a god on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation ( distinguished from theism)

Nope. In fact, if I rejected supernatural revelation I would have rejected the foundation of my belief in God.

Dictionary.com writes:

2. belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it.

Nope. Clearly he cared enough about the world to redeem us and make the ultimate sacrifice.

Once again you've grossly misrepresented my position.

Buzsaw writes:

1. Too vague. It says noting to support your position, being your position is incompatible with the written record.

The "Buzsaw interpretation" of the written record isn't even compatible with itself, let alone the geological record. At least I don't have that problem.

Buzsaw writes:

2. The record does not limit the "in his image" to spiritual." God, being a spirit does have an image form, sitting on a throne.

That's interesting. Last I checked, spirits were a bit on the undetectable side. But I'll keep a look out. Maybe next time I see a fatal car crash I'll keep an eye out for the victims' "spiritual image form" flying off to heaven.

Buzsaw writes:

3. Incompatible, in that Genesis man made perfect in one day but evolved man emerging over millions of years into primitive level of intelligence.

Evidently, created man was not perfect enough to resist the temptation of forbidden fruit.

Buzsaw writes:

4. Incompatible in that primitive man's intlligence not up to what the record implies.

The record is not about primitive man, so your point is irrelevant.

Buzsaw writes:

Say what? Which is more realistic, myth or history? I can't believe you asked that

As history, Genesis 1-2 is mostly worthless. As a mythology it provides an insight into the beliefs and influences of the original writers. Not only does it communicate the aforementioned core tenets, a historian could actually use it to learn about the people who wrote it, and discover how it relates to the creation myths of other contemporary cultures.

Buzsaw writes:

Oh. So your version of the Biblical god, Jehovah, is that his acclaimed record is trumped by man's science and likely Jehovah was either ignorant or fooling us but human (creature) science is infallible.

I never claimed that science is infallible, nor that God is an ignorant trickster. You're misrepresenting me again (one-trick pony?). Why are you getting so worked up when everybody else in this thread is keeping their cool? It ill-suits you.

Buzsaw writes:

Yah sure, Meldinoor. I'm sure you, all of the secularists and your theist-evos in EvC town are sure that you indeedy did. They will praise you til the cows come home for being their eloquent spokesman to debunk stupid ole unegukated dummie, Buzsaw.

I never called you a "dummie". And I'm not trying to debunk you. I'm explaining why my belief is valid, I'm not trying to change yours. As for being a spokesperson, I'm sure you'll find that my opinions differ from the majority of other members, and I've even sparred occasionally with other "theistic-evolutionists".

Buzsaw writes:

Can't you see how rediculous you're being, Meldinoor?

No. Perhaps when you've calmed down enough to be civil you can explain.

Respectfully,

-Meldinoor

Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Buzsaw, posted 08-23-2010 10:01 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 775 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 54 of 83 (576407)
08-24-2010 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Buzsaw
08-23-2010 10:01 PM


Hi, Buzz.

Buzsaw writes:

God declared a curse on anyone who takes away or adds to his holy word. This is declared both in the OT and the NT. Do you and other theist-evolutionists believe that your alleged Biblical God is pleased when you professing Christians reduce the specifics of his claims in Genesis to the status of mythology?

This is pretty easy to explain. The two verses you refer to are Deuteronomy 4:2 and Revelation 22:18-19.

Deuteronomy 4:2 (NIV) says this:

quote:
Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.

This statement refers explicitly to commandments, and, as far as I can tell, God doesn't command people to treat Genesis 1 like fact.

And, since He doesn’t command it explicitly, saying that He does command it would be adding to the commands He gives, which means you are actually the one in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2.

Kind of funny, isn’t it?

-----

And, Revelation 22:18-19 (NIV) says this:

quote:
I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

Note the phrase “this book.” It is very clearly referring to the Book of Revelation, not the whole Bible, for the following reasons:

  1. The phrase “this book” is only used in conjunction with things from the Book of Revelation, so there's no evidence that it refers to anything outside of Revelation.

  2. The Holy Bible didn’t exist when Revelation 22:18-19 was written anyway, so it’s pretty stupid to say the whole Bible is the book referred to.

And, since the Book of Revelation doesn’t contain the creation story, adding to or subtracting from the creation story is not in violation of this warning, either.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Buzsaw, posted 08-23-2010 10:01 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4782
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


(3)
Message 55 of 83 (576410)
08-24-2010 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Buzsaw
08-23-2010 10:25 PM


Re: Theists Who View The Bible As Mythology
Buzsaw writes:

Really? What theist-evolutionist here at EvC has ever admitted to one miracle in the Bible? Can you cite some examples?

GDR writes:

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 miracles of the NT

Now you've replied with this.

Buzsaw writes:

Thanks, GDR. That's very interesting. So for you, no changing water into wine, no raising of Lazarus, no feeding of the 5000 with a boy's lunch, no creating anything in a day, etc, but the afterlife raising of the dead.

First off you're trying to change the channel. You essentially made the claim that those of us who don't believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis, and are prepared to accept that He used an evolutionary process, don't believe in miracles. I was simply pointing out that wasn't the case.

Then because I don't specifically point out all the NT miracles you accuse me of not believing in the ones I don't mention. Frankly it so happens that I do, and seeing as how I quoted Lewis' view earlier in this thread that the NT should be viewed as historical I would have thought that it would be safe to assume that you would know that.

Buzsaw writes:

Do you realize how shakey this makes your resurrection hopes? How do you figure God will do miracle after you die, for you when he or his son allegedly never did these Biblically acclaimed miracles, for man while alive? How do you determine which miracle/miracles you pick and choose to believe?

This is the problem I have with your brand of fundamentalism. You seem to feel that the big concern I should have is what happens to me when I die. What you have effectively done is turned Christianity 180 degrees from what Christ intended. You have made it all about me and my salvation.

Christianity at its most basic is about taking the focus off of the self and putting it on God and neighbour. It is about living a life transformed by God and His Holy Spirit in service of His creation, which of course includes our neighbour who has been made in His image.

In my view you have twisted Christ's message, turning it into a magic formula of believing the right stuff so that one can get to live forever. Read Matthew 25 and the separating of the sheep from the goats. It isn't about what you believe it's about the condition of your heart. It’s about feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting those in prison etc. There is nothing there about believing the right doctrine making you righteous.
Read Matthew 7:

quote:
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

It is no wonder so many people have a problem with the message that you are trying to sell. It isn't scriptural and as a matter of fact it is anti-scriptural. Jesus is the word of God. Jesus is God incarnate. The Bible is a gift from God that should be used with wisdom. The Bible is not God.

The Bible is very clear that when we meet God in the next life it is the condition of our heart that we will be judged on, not our theology. The thing about being a Christian is that if we truly are sincere in our faith, making Christ Lord of our lives so that our lives are dedicated to working for His love, justice, truth, forgiveness, mercy etc, we have the gift of the Holy Spirit to help with that change of heart.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Buzsaw, posted 08-23-2010 10:25 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 56 of 83 (576498)
08-24-2010 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Buzsaw
08-23-2010 10:48 PM


Re: Theists Who View The Bible As Mythology
Buz writes:

jar writes:

Buzsaw 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.

Ah, so we have a "Genesis fables/factual accounts" oxymoronic argument attempt to debunk the acclaimed oxymoron. Sorry, no comment except, that it falls on it's own weight.

Do you know the meaning of "Oxymoron"?

Buz writes:

jar writes:

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.

Jar, that argument, like the above, is so far fetched that it's not worth a response.

Have you ever read Genesis 1 and Genesis 2&3?

The God in Genesis 1 is aloof, apart, overarching, creating by a simple act of will. The God in Genesis 2&3 is fumbling, hands on, unsure, sometimes fearful but very human.

The stories themselves are also factually wrong. The Earth cannot have been created before the sun. The order that critters are created is factually wrong.

Buz writes:

jar writes:

Where is the evidence that they are not allegorical and mythological?

The rule of thumb of any astute and accredited Biblical scholar is that unless the context clearly states or implies not literal, keep it literal. The Bible attests to that in both OT and NT scriptures, Revelation 1:3, for example says read, hear and keep what is written. That's repeated in the last chapter of the Bible, Revelation 22 with a curse applied for adders to or subtractors from the written record.

So you claim. However talking snakes doesn't ring the fairytale bell? Come on. What am I adding or subtracting? When a story is shown to be factually wrong as the Creation Myths have been shown to be factually wrong, an astute reader will look to see if the stories are instead teaching tools, allegory.

Buz writes:

jar writes:

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.

What do you say to someone arguing that that's a fable and you're deluded to take it literal? This is a classic example of how theist-evos want what's in it for them after death while denying the power of God for the here and now.

This hypocracy is easy to see through, robbing the creator of the credit for all of the wonderful complex design he has done by his wisdom, knowledge and might and selfishly acclaiming his power for your own benefit when you need his salvation after death.

Except once again you simply post untrue statements.

I do not think you can find a place where I have claimed that I will be saved.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Buzsaw, posted 08-23-2010 10:48 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7673
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 57 of 83 (576531)
08-24-2010 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Buzsaw
08-23-2010 10:08 PM


Re: Theists Who View The Bible As Mythology
Herein lies the problem with this, Taq. It's more of a strawman than an analogy. Why? Because Jehovah, the Genesis god sanctioned his own words. On the otherhand, he did not sanction get rich quick gambling schemes. In fact in Proverbs, his man Solomon advises against it.

You totally missed the point.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Buzsaw, posted 08-23-2010 10:08 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Tram law
Member (Idle past 2782 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 58 of 83 (576909)
08-26-2010 11:58 AM


I have something of a different take on it.

Theistic evolution to me doesn't really suggest Darwin's evolution.

But rather, how religion itself evolves over time.

Example, a religion usually starts small. Sometimes, such as in Christianity, it starts out with different sects. Then one sect dominates the other sects or wipes them out, becoming the dominant religion. Then over time people become dissatisfied and some rebel against it creating a protestant movement. And more and more sects of the religion are created. Some of those religious beliefs even affect society and government and continue to to this day.

Because for me, evolution is not compatible with creationism. Creationism states that God creates everything out of thin air at every single step of the way, rather than small incremental steps over time.

Which, incidentally, beats me why he would require humanity to give birth since he can just poof things out of thin air. In a similar vein, if he can just poof things out of thin air, why would he have the need to require things to change slowly over time?


Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Nij, posted 08-26-2010 10:20 PM Tram law has not yet responded

  
Nij
Member (Idle past 2966 days)
Posts: 239
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-20-2010


Message 59 of 83 (577025)
08-26-2010 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Tram law
08-26-2010 11:58 AM


Because for me, evolution is not compatible with creationism. Creationism states that God creates everything out of thin air at every single step of the way, rather than small incremental steps over time.

Stating the obvious, much?

Which, incidentally, beats me why he would require humanity to give birth since he can just poof things out of thin air. In a similar vein, if he can just poof things out of thin air, why would he have the need to require things to change slowly over time?

Maybe he wanted to see if he could do something he couldn't do: create something that creates something better than anything he could create, thereby he is creating something he couldn't create. beats the old omnipotence contradiction, doesn't it?

Maybe he got bored and wanted to see what free will could do. Maybe it's just one big experiment with the guiding hand only interfering where absolutely necessary - Gaia of Poul Anderson's Genesis springs to mind. Maybe "these are God's ways, not the ways of men, and we are not meant to understand!".

Deities don't often make sense, so wondering "why?" is normally more than a little pointless.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Tram law, posted 08-26-2010 11:58 AM Tram law has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 83 (577027)
08-26-2010 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Nij
08-23-2010 10:16 AM


Hi Nij. I've been in and out away from the computer for a few days. I said you would be first when I could get back to responding, so here I am.

Nij writes:

Buzsaw writes:

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.

    1. It doesn't make sense to take things like changing water into wine, resurrecting from the dead, sudden restoration of limbs and other sudden healings, commanding the wind to stop, etc literally but taking the relatively sudden creation of a man from dirt and breathing into him the breath of life metaphorically, i.e. mythical.

    Creating something complex from dust would be no more difficult than raising a dead corpse that had been dead for days or milleniums to life. Why should one sensibly choose to take one literally and the other mythically?

    2. If you were to set the ingredients of a bread recipie on the table and walk away from it expecting it to become bread is essentially abanding the ingredients to somehow assemble themselves into a baked loaf of bread. That's what theist-evos are essentially claiming as theists, when in fact, it is better defined by deism which is defined as abandoning the elements to natually effect the bio-complexity which is observed.

Nij writes:

Buzsaw writes:

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.

But, as you put it, certain facts have been discovered discounting the possibiity of it as truth or reality, one could apply that to any miracle. Any miracle rises above reality. How can theists justify one miracle, given they all rise above reality? They act and debate here at EvC as if they were deists when it comes to origins, prophecies and about everything else.

It's easy for them to mouth something future like resurrection for whatever reason, but hypocricical to deny most of past acclaimed miracle like Intelligent Designing things and prophecy, etc.

Nij writes:

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.

LOL. I'll be watching for some indication that some of the EvC professing theistic-evos support fulfilled prophecy, the Jonah & whale account any of the other miracles acclaimed in the Biblical record, including the ones on your list above.


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 39 by Nij, posted 08-23-2010 10:16 AM Nij has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-26-2010 10:35 PM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 62 by jar, posted 08-26-2010 10:42 PM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 63 by Nij, posted 08-26-2010 11:48 PM Buzsaw has responded

  
Prev123
4
56Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019