Creation: Essential for a Healthy Christian Worldview

[~candice~]

If the story is allegorical, then man didn't fall, sin is not a spiritual problem, and Adam and Eve were not real people, which makes redemption from nonexistent sin passed down from a man who never existed in a Garden that never was, a complete and total farce.

And yes, any solid debater will ask you to justify the rules by which you interpret literature.

A solid debater would recognize the rules of literary analysis. Only a desperate debater who can't argue on the merits of evidence would turn to such a weak and ineffective line of argumentation.

...

Asking me to prove that the rules of literary analysis are true is a weak and ineffective tactic and is an indicator that one does not have a substantive textual case to make for their textual claim. It means that they cannot bear the intellectual burden they have placed on themselves. Since they can't defeat or refute the argument, they try to attack literary analysis itself.

...

At any rate, I don't have to prove anything about the rules literary analysis. There are people who do make up their own rules of interpretation in order to get the kind of results they want, but not all methods are created equal.

I'm going to bed, so just quickly...

The italicised section shows you do not understand TE theology. You are refuting something you are not really familiar with. Their doctrine still has sin and redemption at it's core.

As for defending the rules of literature analysis... Shiloh, this is really basic debating. You have no free pass. EVERYTHING you base your argument on must be defensible. Crying that they are just being "weak and ineffective" is just a decoy. You must defend what has become, in essence, the core issue in the debate. Have a look at what I bolded. Even you acknowledge that there are good and bad rules of interpretation, so you must defend why yours is correct and should be chosen above anothers. As I said earlier, it is possible to invent rules of interpretation in such a manner that, using those rules, your interpretation seems the most robust. But that shifts the goal posts from the interpretation to the rules of interpretation. Don't cry foul, because in a debate all is up for assessment. It's not weak, it is how debate works. If you want to make an assertion that your interpretation is the author's intent, you must also defend the rules you used to make such an interpretation.

Can you see that literary analysis, at least on the surface, can be rather intimidating, confuddled, a bit of a grey issue even for Christians? It's why we have people come up with replacement theology (because their rules allow spiritualisation), why some people come up with preterism, why some people have their strange theologies that are pro gay?

I know TE'ers can have some flawed rules, without a doubt, but they have (wrongly) been given a smorgasbord of interpretation rules to choose from. They really have. Just search through their literature. Search through the literature of RT's and see what rules they use. And when people like yourself opt out of defending your rules, and just asserting your rules as true because debating rules is a "weak an ineffective" debate tactic, I really can't blame them for coming up with TE. I really can't. I already know you feel TE is really an anathama to "authentic christianity", but really it is an anathema only when filtered through your rules. Through their rules, they are absolutely being genuine and honest and authentic.

Defense of your rules of interpretation in this discussion is unavoidable. Dismissing it does no good. And failing to recognise the richness and complexity that surrounds this TE debate, and reaching the conclusion that TE'ers are inauthentic without digging into this... just grates me the wrong way.

[Guest shiloh357]

I'm going to bed, so just quickly...

The italicised section shows you do not understand TE theology. You are refuting something you are not really familiar with. Their doctrine still has sin and redemption at it's core.

No the problem lies with you refuting something I didn't say. I didnt' say anything about their doctirne. I was addressing the theological difficulty that arises from the claim that Genesis 1-3 is really a parable. People make claims like that but have never really thought through what they are saying and where their leads.

It stems form the disconnected view that many people often take with the Bible. They believe in sin and redemption, but they don't understand the implications that Genesis 1-3 has for the plan redemption. The Bible is not a disconnected set of stories. They are all connected and interlocking. What is said about God, man, sin, redemption, etc. in Genesis is built upon layer by layer in succeeding books of the Old and New Testaments.

As for defending the rules of literature analysis... Shiloh, this is really basic debating. You have no free pass. EVERYTHING you base your argument on must be defensible. Crying that they are just being "weak and ineffective" is just a decoy.

It is not a deco at all. We know what a metaphor is. We know what allegory is. We know what a parable is. They are making literary claims that are testable. They are acknolwedging those very rules you claim I have to defend. By making a literary claim that Genesis 1-3 is allegorical, they are appealing to an objective standard of analysis that we all use every day. They are appealing to those rules as a basis for their argument. Therefore, they have to show that their appeal to allegory has merit based on the rules that govern allegory.

If I say that the text of Genesis one doesn't follow the rules the govern allegory, the burden is not on me to defend the rules but lay out the rules that govern that literary device. It is up to them to show me that in Genesis 1-3 how it is an allegory. God is allegorical for..., Adam is allegorical for... Eve, Satan the two trees, the light, darkness, etc. are all allegorical for...

You must defend what has become, in essence, the core issue in the debate. Have a look at what I bolded. Even you acknowledge that there are good and bad rules of interpretation, so you must defend why yours is correct and should be chosen above anothers. As I said earlier, it is possible to invent rules of interpretation in such a manner that, using those rules, your interpretation seems the most robust.

Yes I said that there are good and bad rules of interpretation. But the bad rules fall into subjectivity. They are a reader-based set of rules that make the text servant to the whims of the reader. That is not really "interpretation." We often refer to it as "eisogesis," or basically reading what someone wants into the text. They force the text to mean what they need for it to mean. There is also what is known as "apogesis." That is when you read out of the text what you don't want. The allegorical method is often employed to read sin out of the text so as to replace it with something else. The TOE can't make a place for sin, so the eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil MUST be an allegory for some evoluionary stage of development...

But that shifts the goal posts from the interpretation to the rules of interpretation. Don't cry foul, because in a debate all is up for assessment. It's not weak, it is how debate works. If you want to make an assertion that your interpretation is the author's intent, you must also defend the rules you used to make such an interpretation.

What this amounts to is someone assertring that Genesis 1-3 is an allegory, but when faced with the literary construct and what makes an allegory an allegory, and when faced with the fact that Genesis 1-3 doesn't follow that literary construct, suddenly I am faced with having to defend the very construct they were using in the first place. They appealed to rules of allegory, but when the rules suddenly are found not to work in their favor, I have to defend the veracity of rules??? That is complete nonsense. They had no problem with the rules until their argument failed.

That does not place a burden on me to defend the rules. What it means is that their argument was wrong and now that is has been exposed that Genesis 1-3 isn't an allegory, they need to concede their error.

Can you see that literary analysis, at least on the surface, can be rather intimidating, confuddled, a bit of a grey issue even for Christians?

But it wasn't so confusing and intimidating when they made literary arguments in the first place. The rules are not confusing and we use them every day. I learned about metaphors, similes, hyperbole, and other figures of speech in 6th grade English. We use literary analysis every day. It's why you don't read a cookbook like a novel or why you don't read the newspaper like a piece of Shakespere. Your maind naturally adjusts to understanding the intent of the author and what the author wants you to understand. IN every day usage, "interpretation" is always based on what the author wants you to understand, whether it is a news article, or a work of fiction. You operate under those objective rules of interpretation at work, and in school and everywhere else.

For some reason, people don't do the same with the Bible. They read the Bible through the lens of what they are willing to believe and accept from it. The Bible, in that way, becomes servant to the reader.

Expecting me to defend the very same rules that people use everyday is a weak because it is an attempt to muddy waters when they can't make their arguments work on the universally, established rules of literary analysis.

It's why we have people come up with replacement theology (because their rules allow spiritualisation), why some people come up with preterism, why some people have their strange theologies that are pro gay?

But those are based on eisogesis, in most cases. They are the ones who have to show the veracity of their claims. I don't have to defend the correct rules of interpretetation any more than I have to defend the rules of grammar.

I know TE'ers can have some flawed rules, without a doubt, but they have (wrongly) been given a smorgasbord of interpretation rules to choose from.

No they haven't. They simply change the rules when it suits them. They use the same rules everyone else does every day. The problem is that Genesis 1-3 can't be made compatible with the TOE unless one changes the TOE or one changes the text and/or meaning of the Genesis 1-3. As long as Genesis 1-3 is viewed as an actual historical account, it won't jive with the TOE. So they have to find another approach because the notion that maybe the reason they dont' jive is because evolution isnt' true, is not something they are not willing to accept. So, the Bible then pays the price and has to take a backseat to their agenda and becomes a selectively, expendable document.

They really have. Just search through their literature. Search through the literature of RT's and see what rules they use. And when people like yourself opt out of defending your rules, and just asserting your rules as true because debating rules is a "weak an ineffective" debate tactic, I really can't blame them for coming up with TE.

Again, that is a ridiculous as telling me that I have to defend the rules of English grammar, or the rules that govern good manners or what not. It is a weak and ineffective tactic because it shifts from an argument based on evidence to muddying waters in such a way that all of a sudden, none of can read a book anymroe because we can't really be certain that the literary rules we are using to read are really true. It is foolish and extremely silly approach.

[Guest shiloh357]

Continued from Previous post

I really can't. I already know you feel TE is really an anathama to "authentic christianity", but really it is an anathema only when filtered through your rules. Through their rules, they are absolutely being genuine and honest and authentic.

But they are not MY rules. I didn't make them up. They have been around for forever. Trying to make them MY rules is an attempt to diminish their authority. Because if we accept that they simply the universally accepted and established rules that they are, they are not as easy to challenge. Making them my rules, forces me to defend something I don't realy have to defend. It is up to te challenger to show me that the rules as they stand are wrong. I am not challenging the sincerity of the TE'ers. I am saying that they are sincerely wrong.

Defense of your rules of interpretation in this discussion is unavoidable.

And if owned the rules, if I coined them and codified them and owned the copyrights on them, you might actually have a point, there. But they are no more my rules than are the rules of English grammar. I don't have to defend what everyone uses everyday.

Dismissing it does no good. And failing to recognise the richness and complexity that surrounds this TE debate, and reaching the conclusion that TE'ers are inauthentic without digging into this... just grates me the wrong way.

They may authentically believe what they claim. I never said they were insincere. That is just another false value you are assigning to me. In fact, I have made the case that while they may believe the Bible is true, they have their own notion about what kind of "truth" it is that the Bible is conveying. They can be sincere and be sincerely wrong. And they are.

[~candice~]

I'll be back tonight (gimme 12 hours) but I don't have time to put into this right now.

[~candice~]

Yes, an immortal soul exists, and God owns it.

So, who was the first organism who got one? If evolution is true, there is no reason to have an immortal soul when your parents don't. If, on the other hand, all parents have an immortal soul, then all animals, plants and fungi have an immortal soul.

God is the source of moral values.

The problem is the same. What was the first organism with moral values emanating from God? From an evolutionar -point of view, morality is not available all at a sudden, but it evolved as well.

Sin is the root of pain and death, and sin in man's heart is reflected in his indifference towards pain and death.

What i meant is the apparent indifference of nature towards pain and death. Pain and death were present millions of years before man's advent and his alleged sin. And sin of whom exactly? Homo sapiens, homo erectus, australopitecus, the common ancestor we share with gorillas?

Yes, sin makes sense. It is a violation of His plan and will.

Was it his plan to make animals eating other animals? Since i do not see a lot of change between natural mechanisms now and 200 millions years ago, i am not sure if there is a violation of His will at all.

Jesus died out of love for us, to forge a way to reconcile man and God by bearing our sin on Himself.

What do you mean with us? Where is the demarcation line between us and them? According to evolution, there isn't any.

God designed and created humans, we are the only species made in His image.

As before, what is human? Does that include all hominids of the far past? And where is the demarcation line?

You can resolve all these problems only if you arbitrarily fix a beginnig of humanity; all those people were human but their parents weren't. But this does not make any sense in the framework of evolution by natural selection.

Ciao

- viole

I will ask around if you wish, between my TE friends, but remember this isn't really my stance. What I remember from interacting with them is a discussion about which position has more merit and coherence. They admit that there are some unanswered questions when it comes to reconciling nature and TE, and they are happy to wait til the other side of the pearly gates to get those answers. But there are also questions unanswered from the YEC/OEC point of view that they consider to be even less likely to be satisfactorily answered. So my point is... they might not even have a perfect reconciliation between the bible and science, but they have experienced enough of the Christian God to know that He is true, enough of science to know evolution is true, and they marvel at how it might reconcile while not shying away from the actual evidence.

I do think it is unfair of YEC/OEC people (not that you are one, LOL) to ask TE to provide a perfectly reconciled account of the bible and science, when they themselves don't have one, in particular I am thinking of their explanation for why modern science seems to point so fervently towards evolution. If I personally accept that I have a partial understanding, I'm willing to extend that to them too.

I realise that this doesn't help YOU, because you no longer have this experience with the God of the bible to tether you, but it is how I personally approach the issue. Anyway, I will still do as I said, and come back with some answers for you, but remember they are not mine, and I don't feel any panic about their strength or otherwise.

[~candice~]

I'm feeling a bit ill so I will be a few days, sorry.

In the mean time, something to distract you.

[enoob57]

really.....................

[~candice~]

Steven, that's Maxwell Planck you are planking on .

[Guest shiloh357]

It isn't muddying the waters. PN means no supernatural anything, in order for ToE to be part of PN it must rule out Deism. If ToE is part of PN than ToE isn't science as nothing in science is PN but rather MN.

I didn't say that the TOE was part of PN. I said that it is a threory rooted in a PNistic worldview. By its very design, reflects the philosophical naturalstic notions and ideology. Therefore the TOE does not to address Christianity or Deism or any other belief in a deity of any kind. But the theory is crafted to reflect a disbelief in any deity by virtue of the fact that it is an impersonal, unguided and unplanned process.

I agree that ToE is perfectly compatible with PN, so is literally everything else in science (as MN is wholly compatible with PN).

The problem is that the Bible isn't compatible with PNism. IF the TOE is perfectly compatible with PNism and the Bible is diametrically opposed to PNism the attempt to make the Bible compatible with the TOE runs into some problems. The Bible is not incompatible with science. It is incompatible with the one area of science that is upheld in the scientific community as the alternative to the creation account of Genesis 1. No other field of science outside of the TOE is upheld as an alternative to the Bible or as incompatible with the Bible. The science of origins is the only field that is based on an ideology that sets itself at odds with the Bible. You are trying to make EVERYTHING in science parallel to evolution so that whatever criticism is leveled at the TOE must also be true about every other field of science, and I don't buy that at all.

What do you mean that ToE is meant to usurp the notion that the earth came into existence through any supernatural means? As you know, ToE is only concerned about life once it is already present on earth, not how life originated, not how the earth got here, not how the universe came into existence. I agree that many prop up ToE, the big bang, solar-nebula hypothesis, principles of chemistry/physics and geology etc. as THE alternative to Genesis' creation account, but that is because those things are science with physical evidence to back it up - what else is there to compete with your beliefs?

The TOE is upheld as the the alternative to Genesis 1. Even though it is not a creative theory, it is used to oppose creationism. So I am simply responding to it on the platform on which it is presented to us.

If you believed in the Greek concept of chaos splitting into the various elements creating the known universe, we'd still use these scientific theories and principles as THE alternative to those sets of beliefs as well. It really doesn't matter what you believe, (no offense) but those into modern science will always use science as the alternative to that which is incompatible with modern science.

Modern is relative. What modern science said was true 100 years is ago is far different than it is now. What makes you think all of the evidence is in? Years ago, anthropologists and historians were absolutely certain based on "the evidence" that there was never a united monarchy under King David the available evidence from archeology digs simply didn't support the Bible's claims. But in the 1980s evidence surfaced at the foot of Mt. Hermon at Tel Dan that changed all of that. Extra biblical evidence of the "House of David" was discovered along with other writings that confirmed other stories of later kings after David. Science said that the Bible's claims were false, until further evidence surfaced. Lots of books and peer reviewed journal articles had become obsolete and rather embarrassing to their authors. There was even a move afoot to hide the discovery to protect the reputations of the scientists and scholars who had long mocked the "rubes" who were just dumb enough to believe the Bible. Now these scholars were faced with having eat crow.

The argument that if modern science and the Bible disagree, science should get the benefit of the doubt, doesn't always pan out. And that is not ONLY case in which fields of science have had their claims refuted by new archeological and anthropological discoveries related to the Bible. If you are hanging your hat on science, you might be very disappointed.

Is it your contention that ToE is rooted in PN because it is impersonal, wholly natural, and relies on no outside intelligence? How is that different than gravity being impersonal, wholly natural, and relies on no outside intelligence? Gravity doesn't care who it hurts or helps, it just follows the natural order (do does evolution as an emergent property of the natural order) completely indifferent to our plight. Gravity is only ever conceptualized as wholly naturalistic - to suppose that God created or guides it is outside the purview of the theory and law of gravity. Gravity relies on no outside intelligence either. Heck, Hawkings himself said that properties of gravity are such that there is no need posit a God for the beginning spark.

I don't want a theological answer, I already know you think God created gravity and evolution doesn't "look" like God. Without bringing in theology, how is the theory of gravity different from the theory of evolution in this regard?

All I have is the answer that I have given. Gravity doesn't operate independently of God. Gravity is a natural law that works the same way all of the time. That speaks to the God that sustains it. That God is not part of the theory of gravity is not indispute. I would not expect it to be. God created natural laws to work, but that doesn't mean that He is not sustaining them and maintaining them. The consistent order, uniformity and over all dependability of the universe should tell us that something is ordering, guiding and keeping it. That natural laws are guided and sustained by supernatural Creator is not opposed to science. That science can't confirm that, doesn't mean that the Bible is incompatible with science. But any theory in science that asserts that is NOT guided, not planned and has no connection to a personal creator IS incompatible with the Bible because it rules out the Bible's claims on the most fundamental level.

So how is it different for you to suppose that God controls gravity, versus someone who says that God controls evolution? I'm not asking for a theological answer, but a sciency answer.

Because the TOE doesn't allow for God to control Evolution. The point is that natural selection, not God is the explanation for the species of animals and life forms that are on this planet. Evolution states that those creatures which are able to reproduce their DNA will remain and those that can't won't. It has nothing to with a God who decides. The notion of natural selection makes the involvement of God impossible and/or unecessary.

How is that different than anything else in modern science? What modern scientific anything isn't devoid of a connection to the supernatural?

I think you are viewing the natural world as "science." Gravity, to you, is "scientific" and thus disconnected from the supernatural. I view gravity as part of the created world. The theory that describes gravity is "science." Gravity is natural law that God created supernatrally when He spoke the universe into existence.

Okay, I'm a little confused here. So ToE isn't philosophical naturalism, but it is philosophically naturalistic? I thought they were the same thing, just different parts of speech; PNism is the noun and PNistic is the adverb, or something like that. I was always bad when it came to parts of speech. IOW if something is PNistic, you're saying that it follows PNism. Or do I have it wrong.

PNism is an ideology. It is not interchangable with the TOE. The TOE is rooted in that ideology but it is not that ideology. The TOE is not philosophical naturalism. It is simply a theory rooted an ideology held by the people who explain it, define it, teach it.