Is Theistic Evolutionist An Oxymoron?

jar writes:If you mean that they deny that the Genesis fables were meant as factual accounts, then certainly.

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

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.

Nij writes: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.

Nij writes: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.

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.

jar writes:But maybe you know of one and can educate us about it. Pick one that you think has been fulfilled and let's discuss it.

Nij writes:This has no bearing on any of the other miracles: there is no evidence telling us that Jesus didn't do the water-wine thing, nor that Jonah wasn't swallowed by a whale, so they remain open possibilities. In the case of either, it is a personal choice as to whether you believe it happened or it didn't.

Nij writes: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:But that is not what the theistic evolutionist believes. The T-Eist believes that yes, God did create life in whatever fashion, and left it to evolve on its own, but that he also showed up every so often and made adjustments of whatever kind he thought were necessary.
While this can fill the requirement for deism, it ignores the later "interference" such as allowing Jesus to do all his fancy tricks or even whether God interfered to ensure humanity's development. The deist believes that the baker left the bread and went home forever; the T-Eist believes that every now and then, God came back to maybe turn the heat down or to move the loaf down a level.

PaulK writes:That's already been done. For all of them.

Nij writes:But the point of difference is, we have zero evidence suggesting that Jeebus did not do it. Hence, while it's not possible* that it happened, we have no way of saying whether it actually did or not. We have substantial evidence that can only lead to the fact that the Fludde did not happen, in addition to the implausibility when considering natural laws.

Dr Adequate writes:For exactly the same reason you take passages which suggest geocentrism, flat-earthism, and the Earth having four corners non-literally. Although you must believe that an omnipotent God could have made a flat four-cornered stationary Earth, you also know perfectly well that he didn't.There is no similar objection to the miracle of Lazarus, so you take that literally.If people who have a sounder knowledge of biology than you do follow the same basic hermeneutic principle, I don't see how you get to complain about it.