Is Theistic Evolutionist An Oxymoron?

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? 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. 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. 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.

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.

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. 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. 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.

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.

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?

Stating the obvious, much? 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.

I see others have replied to you already, but I will present my own ideas for comparison: It makes sense if we have evidence telling us that man was not made "relatively suddenly" by having life breathed into him. If you have two options, and one is made impossible by evidence, you are left with the other.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. 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. No. One couldn't apply that to every miracle. When I say "certain facts" I mean things like the evidence denying spontaneous formation of all biodiversity in its current form or the event of a global flood wiping out everything except one little boatload. These things have been conclusively denied by evidence - they could not have happened. But, this does not include things like the Resurrection. Yes, natural laws say that it shouldn't be possible, but if you add the god-factor, you can bend or break those rules. And we have no evidence to say it didn't happen, so again, it is a possibility and it is up to you whether to believe it or not.Agreed, miracles by definition defy reality, but there are miracles we have evidence for, miracles we have no evidence of, and miralces we have evidence denying. There are the laws broken for the miracle, and then there are the effects that miracle has. These are not the same thing.Jeebus waking up again is of the second category; the Fludde is of the third; and I have as yet not heard of any in the first category. There is no hypocrisy in recognising an open possibility and choosing one side of it, yet denying the possibility of something that is evidenced to be untrue and therefore either fiction or embellishment.

No; we have physical laws that suggest it isn't possible for water to immediately become wine beyond an extremely extremely unlikely turn of events. That is where you invoke miracles.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.I think you have not grasped that difference, between "know it shouldn't, but don't know it didn't" and "know it shouldn't, and know it didn't". And that's when threads get derailed by people turning it into "God exists!" "No it doesn't!". We'll skip that here for obvious reasons. {You quoted yourself there, not me. I think you meant to quote my section of that reply, so...}But once you have done the kneading, you let it rise. You come back, you knead it again, you let it rise for a second time. Then you come back, you put it in the oven, and you leave it to bake into its final form with only a little bit of initial input into the shape.
Every time you knead the dough, you interfere. But God's kneading is done by the nature he manipulates: mutations to give rise to oxygen production in plants to create an oxygen atmosphere, meteorites to remove the dinosaurs and permit mammalian dominance. In the same way as a baker kneads dough then lets it rise, God only gets involved when necessary at crucial points, then leaves nature to run its course otherwise. Hell, I don't know, I'm an atheist arguing the devil's advocate.On what basis can you deny the possibility that your god did not only design man in its image, but designed a system that would bring about exactly what he had designed with minimal interference? Methinks that if your deity exists, it might be far more intelligent than you would ever give credit for.