Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
You seem very confused about a lot of things, Inan.
First, question-begging is a term for the logical fallacy of assuming certain facts to be true in your statement, when really those facts are exactly what is at issue! You seem to be assuming the the literal reading is somehow the default or "non-interpreted" meaning, and that anything other than that is reading something into the text.
This is just not true. Why do you think that, among all the various literary styles available to the an author to describe past events, the literal historic narrative is the best one, or should be the default one that we assume? Maybe you think this because it is the type of writing about the past that we prefer today.
But it is NOT what the ancient Israelites preferred. At that time, they did not write history in that way. Anywhere. For hundreds of years. They preferred to write about past events using figurative language. So, if that is how they would have written about their past, why should we insist that in reading it how WE like to write about the past? It makes no sense.
I would like you to read the following article, by a fellow Christian:
I have some quibbles here and there with a few of his points, but it is a good start.
As for how evolution is consistent with God creating Mankind in His image, do you think that refers to our physical form? Do you think God is some humanoid with two arms and two legs? Of course not, God is Spirit. Being created in God's Image means a lot of things, but NOT our physical form. God did something special with Mankind that made us unique from all other creatures, even if we all descended from common ancestors. God breathed a soul into us, for one thing.
Here is another article better explaining what I am talking about. If you are going to go into near hysterics over my points, you had best do a little research into what you want to rail against:
When you have read those (or either of them) and want to address some of the issues they raise, feel free.
Lastly, you seem a bit over-reactive to a position held by the majority of Christians worldwide. You act as if you have never heard of Christians who accept evolution and who read Genesis as a figurative account of past events. I find that odd, but maybe it comes from growing up in America, where the fundamentalist movement has come to predominate so much of our Christian body. But, my gosh, even in America, if Billy Graham is willing to accept that evolution could be true, you would think that even the most ardent fundamentalist would be aware that it is a very common Christian position.
__________________ In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture, different Interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. - St. Augustine, in his analysis of Genesis.
Last edited by Vance; 23rd February 2008 at 02:29 AM.
And, not surprisingly, this is how the author would have intended it!
You have no idea what the author would have intended. It is merely your own opinion of it.
As to Augustine we don't even know if he was a real christian. I know that might get some peoples shorts all in a knot but not all religious people are true christians whether they are Catholic or not. And if he wasn't a born again Christian, he wouldn't get the interpretation right anyway.
__________________ "Blessed are they who have not seen and yet have believed."
I'm with AV1611VET and FoeHammer, GOD DID IT --- CASE CLOSED.
You have no idea what the author would have intended. It is merely your own opinion of it.
As to Augustine we don't even know if he was a real christian. I know that might get some peoples shorts all in a knot but not all religious people are true christians whether they are Catholic or not. And if he wasn't a born again Christian, he wouldn't get the interpretation right anyway.
Well, it is not my own opinion, but that of nearly every expert on the ancient near east. Read that article I linked you to, then tell me what you think.
As for Augustine, are you saying that no one was truly Christian before . . . when, really? You seem to have a very exclusive view of who qualifies as a Christian, which is, as you know, a strong sign of the definition of a cult, which you seem to be so wary of. Be careful, then, when you point that finger. Honestly, do you even know anything about Augustine?
__________________ In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture, different Interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. - St. Augustine, in his analysis of Genesis.
And if he wasn't a born again Christian, he wouldn't get the interpretation right anyway.
...so if you arn't a born again christian, you can't interpret the bible? ... is there really something that difficult about a strait-up literal interpretation?
Fine, play the "not a true christian card". Does that apply to everyone who disagrees with you, or just Augustine?
What if I think you're not a true christian? Is it possible that someone named inan3 who makes inane posts could be a troll?
You seem very confused about a lot of things, Inan.
First, question-begging is a term for the logical fallacy of assuming certain facts to be true in your statement, when really those facts are exactly what is at issue! You seem to be assuming the the literal reading is somehow the default or "non-interpreted" meaning, and that anything other than that is reading something into the text.
This is just not true. Why do you think that, among all the various literary styles available to the an author to describe past events, the literal historic narrative is the best one, or should be the default one that we assume? Maybe you think this because it is the type of writing about the past that we prefer today.
But it is NOT what the ancient Israelites preferred. At that time, they did not write history in that way. Anywhere. For hundreds of years. They preferred to write about past events using figurative language. So, if that is how they would have written about their past, why should we insist that in reading it how WE like to write about the past? It makes no sense.
I would like you to read the following article, by a fellow Christian:
I have some quibbles here and there with a few of his points, but it is a good start.
As for how evolution is consistent with God creating Mankind in His image, do you think that refers to our physical form? Do you think God is some humanoid with two arms and two legs? Of course not, God is Spirit. Being created in God's Image means a lot of things, but NOT our physical form. God did something special with Mankind that made us unique from all other creatures, even if we all descended from common ancestors. God breathed a soul into us, for one thing.
Here is another article better explaining what I am talking about. If you are going to go into near hysterics over my points, you had best do a little research into what you want to rail against:
When you have read those (or either of them) and want to address some of the issues they raise, feel free.
Lastly, you seem a bit over-reactive to a position held by the majority of Christians worldwide. You act as if you have never heard of Christians who accept evolution and who read Genesis as a figurative account of past events. I find that odd, but maybe it comes from growing up in America, where the fundamentalist movement has come to predominate so much of our Christian body.
I'm not confused about anything, Vance, and I don't need a definition on what question begging is. At this time I am not interested in reading your articles. My disagreeing with you has nothing to do with your personal points...meaning is it not a reflection on you personally. I would disagree with whomever or whatever article suggests a random and free-for-all interpretation of the Bible. I have been studying the Bible for over 30 years and I know what I am talking about. I could give you articles of my own for you to read but I see no need to do that. You have stated your views and I have stated mine.
You have not answered my questions but merely made it clear how you think I am confused, emotional, and in error. It seems you think you win the arguement by being condescening. How intellectual. How smug. How predictable and laughable.
l'm sorry but if you can't refrain yourself from discussing your opinion of my intellect and emotional state then I think we have nothing to discuss.
__________________ "Blessed are they who have not seen and yet have believed."
I'm with AV1611VET and FoeHammer, GOD DID IT --- CASE CLOSED.
...so if you arn't a born again christian, you can't interpret the bible? ... is there really something that difficult about a strait-up literal interpretation?
Fine, play the "not a true christian card". Does that apply to everyone who disagrees with you, or just Augustine?
What if I think you're not a true christian? Is it possible that someone named inan3 who makes inane posts could be a troll?
So now you play the troll card because I don't agree with you or Vance. It really doesn't matter if you think I am a real Christian or not. I know I am and so does the Lord. The Bible makes it very clear that there is a difference between the believer and the unbeliever. I'm sorry if that offends. It's not my word but God's. Jesus said you must be born-again to see (perceive) the kingdom of God. That's MUST, not if you want to, or you can come your own way, but MUST. Pretty strong language and pretty clear language.
The scriptures tell us how to be born again. It's not by religion. It's by believing in the Lord Jesus Christ. ONE WAY. NOT "anyway you want". Just ONE WAY. Jesus Christ. That's it my friend. No other name under heaven whereby men can be saved. Just ONE WAY. Not by goods works just by believing in Christ. All are welcome and any can do it. It is a choice, though. You have to decide to believe. You have to want God.
__________________ "Blessed are they who have not seen and yet have believed."
I'm with AV1611VET and FoeHammer, GOD DID IT --- CASE CLOSED.
1. You did seem confused about what "question-begging" was based on your response to that point.
2. You definitely seemed very dramatic and over-reactive to what is, after all, a fairly common position among Christians worldwide. Almost all of the mainstream Protestant Christian denominations hold a similar position, as does the Catholic Church. But you reacted as if it was just some extreme, radical position.
3. I am not advocating any type of free-for-all interpretation, but a sensible and rational approach to exegesis. Kind of ironic that you would think this was wild speculative interpretation when this entire thread is about the approach of one of the founding pillars of our Christian tradition.
4. This is not an attack on you personally, either, but just asking you to take a step back and look at the tone and nature of your post. You all but called me a heretic and non-Christian. Even in writing, your tone came across as a significant "rant". I am merely stating that this is an odd reaction to something that is not very dramatic within the Christian world.
The articles are merely there for your assistance in understanding a position that seems to take you by such surprise. If you choose not to look at them, that is fine. But I think it would be a bit disingenuous to argue so vehemently against a position that you don't even want to bother to understand. Polemics without research is not really sensible.
__________________ In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture, different Interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. - St. Augustine, in his analysis of Genesis.
You know, Nathan, there have been cases where non-Christians come on this forum and take very dramatic and unreasonable positions for the sole purpose of undermining Christianity. While I have sometimes considered whether AV is one of these since his posts fit the profile very well, I really don't think Inan is one of them. At least I am giving her the benefit of the doubt.
__________________ In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture, different Interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. - St. Augustine, in his analysis of Genesis.
So now you play the troll card because I don't agree with you or Vance. It really doesn't matter if you think I am a real Christian or not. I know I am and so does the Lord. The Bible makes it very clear that there is a difference between the believer and the unbeliever. I'm sorry if that offends. It's not my word but God's. Jesus said you must be born-again to see (perceive) the kingdom of God. That's MUST, not if you want to, or you can come your own way, but MUST. Pretty strong language and pretty clear language.
then what gives you the right to take shots at augustines' faith then? wasn't that between him and god? i still think you just don't agree with him so you say hes not a true christian, even though you have no right to say this.
The scriptures tell us how to be born again. It's not by religion. It's by believing in the Lord Jesus Christ. ONE WAY. NOT "anyway you want". Just ONE WAY. Jesus Christ. That's it my friend. No other name under heaven whereby men can be saved. Just ONE WAY. Not by goods works just by believing in Christ. All are welcome and any can do it. It is a choice, though. You have to decide to believe. You have to want God.
so you agree that believing in creationism doesn't make you more or less of a christian then?
that believing genesis is literal is not part of being christian and its absurd to try to hack up science so creationism is right?
its funny but creationists like to argue that you aren't a true christian unless you agree with creationism. yet people say to be a true christian all you need to do is believe in jesus. so which is it?
__________________ We have seen thee, Queen of Cheese, Lying quietly at your ease, Gently fanned by evening breeze; Thy fair form no flies dare seize.
All gaily dressed, soon you'll go To the provincial show, To be admired by many a beau In the city of Toronto.
from "Ode on the Mammoth Cheese" by James McIntyre
All are welcome and any can do it. It is a choice, though. You have to decide to believe. You have to want God.
A choice... is that so?
Romans 9:15-18 15For he says to Moses,
I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.
16So it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who shows mercy.
17For the scripture says to Pharaoh, I have raised you up for the very purpose of showing my power in you, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.
18So then he has mercy on whomsoever he chooses, and he hardens the heart of whomsoever he chooses.
Do people like Vance and augustine not want or choose God? Has he revealed them the truth, and are they true christians, and are they born again, or are they not? Or is every one a God-hating liar?
And can anyone really choose what they believe? Proclaim whatever you want, but you cannot make one hair white or black.
Jn 6:64-65 But among you there are some who do not believe. For Jesus knew from the first who were the ones that did not believe, and who was the one that would betray him.
65And he said, For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted by the Father.
Jn 6:44 44No one can come to me unless drawn by the Father who sent me; and I will raise that person up on the last day.
Jn 8:47 "47Whoever is from God hears the words of God. The reason you do not hear them is that you are not from God."
Linear Mode
