Creationists False on Key Point

[Speedwell]

Then you understand the concept of origins is inherently metaphysical and to say all change, organic and inorganic, to include all time going all the way back to and including the Big Bang is inherutantly transcendant, and ontological.

To put it another way, science studies Material and Efficient causes, but Formal and Final causes are beyond its scope.

 

[mark kennedy]

To put it another way, science studies Material and Efficient causes, but Formal and Final causes are beyond its scope.

Then why does it get to categorically reject them?

 

[Speedwell]

Then why does it get to categorically reject them?

It doesn't. It merely doesn't deal with them. Some scientists who are also metaphysical naturalists reject them, but that's an individual thing. That is why science in itself is not a problem for theists--except the "Bible-believing" kind.

 

[mark kennedy]

It doesn't. It merely doesn't deal with them. Some scientists who are also metaphysical naturalists reject them, but that's an individual thing. That is why science in itself is not a problem for theists--except the "Bible-believing" kind.

Yea right, so there is a variety of Christian that can be Bible un-believing and still be considered a Christian?

 

[Speedwell]

Yea right, so there is a variety of Christian that can be Bible un-believing and still be considered a Christian?

The vast majority, considering Christianity worldwide, and (according to the numbers which have been quoted on this board by "Bible-believing" Christians themselves) about 60% of US Christians, even though "Bible-believing" Christians are most numerous here.

Naturally it depends on how you define it, but I take a "Bible-believing" to mean the belief that the Bible is the literal, inerrant, perspicuous and self-interpreting product of plenary verbal inspiration.

 

[mark kennedy]

The vast majority, considering Christianity worldwide, and (according to the numbers which have been quoted on this board by "Bible-believing" Christians themselves) about 60% of US Christians, even though "Bible-believing" Christians are most numerous here.

Naturally it depends on how you define it, but I take a "Bible-believing" to mean the belief that the Bible is the literal, inerrant, perspicuous and self-interpreting product of plenary verbal inspiration.

Yea, and you have to take in to consideration things like the incarnation, death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ into consideration when you think about what it means to actually believe the Bible.

 

[Dale]

Rejection of the Genesis account as mere myth strikes at the very heart of Christianity for the following reasons.

1. Jesus himself is described as lending it historical credence
2. Peter. Paul, Jude, Luke, Mathew, John, specifically lend it historical credence
3. It removes the basis for the theme of paradise lost to paradise regained.
4. It removes the need for redemption and a redeemer-the fall of man from original perfection.
5. It strikes at Jesus' authenticity as the Son of God by describing him as gullible and a propagator of mere myth.


These five things alone are extremely serious reasons why Christians are opposed to accepting the anti biblical demonically inspired, propaganda which has become popular during these last days.

Radrook,

I don't believe that any of your claims are true.

Do you understand that every day people are leaving Christianity because creationism doesn't make sense? I've talked to these people. No one ever became a Christian because they thought creationism works out.

I talk to people in their 80's who have been creationists all their lives. Even they can't make sense out of it. They still want to know who Adam and Eve's sons married. I don't have to ask this question, they bring it up.




Just to deal with your points (1) and (2):

Many creationists say that the world is 6,000 years old, even though written history alone goes back 6100 years.

Jesus never said that the world was 4,000 years old, when he was on earth.

Peter never said that the world was 4,000 years old.

Paul never said that the world was 4,000 years old.

Jude never said that the world was 4,000 years old.

Luke never said that the world was 4,000 years old.

Matthew never said that the world was 4,000 years old.

John never said that the world was 4,000 years old.

 

[Dale]

Rejection of the Genesis account as mere myth strikes at the very heart of Christianity for the following reasons.

1. Jesus himself is described as lending it historical credence
2. Peter. Paul, Jude, Luke, Mathew, John, specifically lend it historical credence
3. It removes the basis for the theme of paradise lost to paradise regained.
4. It removes the need for redemption and a redeemer-the fall of man from original perfection.
5. It strikes at Jesus' authenticity as the Son of God by describing him as gullible and a propagator of mere myth.


These five things alone are extremely serious reasons why Christians are opposed to accepting the anti biblical demonically inspired, propaganda which has become popular during these last days.

I object to your statement “Rejection of the Genesis account as mere myth ...”



I most emphatically did not reject the Genesis account, I interpret it differently. You should realize this.


Radnook points (3) and (4):

<< 3. It removes the basis for the theme of paradise lost to paradise regained.
4. It removes the need for redemption and a redeemer-the fall of man from original perfection. >>


Is Christianity about being ejected from a fool's paradise and the possibility of getting back into it? I don't think so. Do you realize that there is no Original Sin in Judaism? Defenders of Original Sin have taken to pointing to the Book of Romans since it is so hard to find it in Genesis 3. However, Original Sin would be another thread.


A non-literal interpretation of the first few chapters of Genesis does not remove the need for redemption. Every mortal has sinned. The word “sin” means to miss the target. Every one of us has fallen short and missed the target. We all have a need for redemption.

 

[Radrook]

I object to your statement “Rejection of the Genesis account as mere myth ...”

Objection duly noted.

I most emphatically did not reject the Genesis account, I interpret it differently. You should realize this.

Interpretation and rejection are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they usually go hand in hand.

Radnook points (3) and (4):

Is Christianity about being ejected from a fool's paradise and the possibility of getting back into it? I don't think so.

Really? Very sad since then you unfortunately don't really understand Christianity.

BTW
Misspelling names in order to annoy proves NOTHING.

Do you realize that there is no Original Sin in Judaism? Defenders of Original Sin have taken to pointing to the Book of Romans since it is so hard to find it in Genesis 3. However, Original Sin would be another thread.

I have absolutely no difficulty locating original sin in Genesis and neither did first century Christians and all the millions of Christians who have followed them. Neither is there anything to defend since the Genesis contend concerning sin is self-explanatory. I think that you are tilting at windmills.

A non-literal interpretation of the first few chapters of Genesis does not remove the need for redemption. Every mortal has sinned. The word “sin” means to miss the target. Every one of us has fallen short and missed the target. We all have a need for redemption.

I didn't say a few chapters bon ami. I clearly said GENESIS.

 

[Speedwell]

Yea, and you have to take in to consideration things like the incarnation, death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ into consideration when you think about what it means to actually believe the Bible.

Not necessarily. I agree with you that belief in the incarnation, death and resurrection of Christ is a key test when it comes to determining who is a Christian. But the majority of Christians are not Protestants, not bound by the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
They don't believe in those events of Christian history just because "it says so in the Bible." In particular, the doctrines of perspicuity and self-interpretation are, as far as I am aware, not to be found outside of conservative Evangelical Protestantism.

 

[Radrook]

Not necessarily. I agree with you that belief in the incarnation, death and resurrection of Christ is a key test when it comes to determining who is a Christian. But the majority of Christians are not Protestants, not bound by the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
They don't believe in those events of Christian history just because "it says so in the Bible." In particular, the doctrines of perspicuity and self-interpretation are, as far as I am aware, not to be found outside of conservative Evangelical Protestantism.

Do you consider first-century Christians, such as Paul who said hat all scripture is inspired of God, to have been conservative evangelists?

Paul wrote the following:

2 Timothy 3:16 (NIV)
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness

Without the Word of God a Christian soldier is considered to be deprived of his sword!
Ephesians 6:17
And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

 

[Speedwell]

Do you consider first-century Christians, such as Paul who said hat all scripture is inspired of God, to have been conservative evangelists?

Paul wrote the following:

2 Timothy 3:16 (NIV)
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness

Without the Word of God a Christian soldier is considered to be deprived of his sword!
Ephesians 6:17
And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

No. At least, there is nothing in those passage to support the doctrines of perspicuity and self-interpretation. He was an evangelist, but a radical not a conservative, and he was most certainly not an Evangelical Protestant.

 

[mark kennedy]

Radrook,

I don't believe that any of your claims are true.

According to Paul:

Sin came as the result of, 'many died by the trespass of the one man' (Rom. 5:15), 'judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation' (Rom. 5:16), the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man (Rom. 5:17), 'just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men' (Rom. 5:18), 'through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners' (Rom. 5:19).
​

The book of Romans tells us that God's invisible attributes and eternal nature have been clearly seen but we exchanged the truth of God for a lie (Rom 1:21,22). As a result the Law of Moses and the law of our own conscience bears witness against us, sometimes accusing, sometimes defending (Rom 2:15). We all sinned but now the righteousness of God has been revealed to be by faith through Christ (Rom 3:21). Abraham became the father of many nations by faith and the supernatural work of God (Rom 4:17). Through one man sin entered the world and through one man righteousness was revealed (Rom 5:12).

You don't believe anything Radrook said but what he said squares with Scripture perfectly, which tells me something about you and what you don't believe.

Do you understand that every day people are leaving Christianity because creationism doesn't make sense? I've talked to these people. No one ever became a Christian because they thought creationism works out.

People can leave Christianity but a believer can't leave Christ without going on to perdition. If this kind of pedantic skepticism drives people away from the Christian faith then they were not Christians to begin with.

I talk to people in their 80's who have been creationists all their lives. Even they can't make sense out of it. They still want to know who Adam and Eve's sons married. I don't have to ask this question, they bring it up.

There is a reason inbreeding is dangerous to your health. Let's take Charles Darwin for example, this is a guy who knew so much about how favorable traits were inherited he married his cousin. Then his daughters would die of fever because of compromised immune systems because that's the first to go. What happens is the gene pool gets smaller so the genes don't get a chance to produce the variation essential to good health.

In the earlier chapters of Genesis the genomes would have been pristine, in breeding could continue for generations with no ill effects.

Many creationists say that the world is 6,000 years old, even though written history alone goes back 6100 years.

History goes back to creation and the cumulative relative dates of the Old Testament will only get you 6000 to 8000 years. Moses did say 6000 when you actually sit down and study the time line in Scripture you will find an unbroken chain of sequential relative dates.

 

[Hieronymus]

One thing that Creationists should consider is that Creationist doctrine is very damaging to Christianity.

Then the Bible is damaging to Christianity.

 

[Speedwell]

Then the Bible is damaging to Christianity.

Depending on how you interpret it.

 

[Hieronymus]

Depending on how you interpret it.

I suggest you just read it and let the text speak.

 

[Dale]

I suggest you just read it and let the text speak.

Hieronymus,
Reading the Bible without inserting your preconceptions is harder than you think. I know from experience that most of the people who say they believe the Bible believe what their pastor says about the Bible.

 

[Hieronymus]

Hieronymus,
Reading the Bible without inserting your preconceptions is harder than you think. I know from experience that most of the people who say they believe the Bible believe what their pastor says about the Bible.

I read it myself (not often enough though) and especially Genesis 1 2 and 3.
My preconception was mostly evolutionary thinking, because that's what i grew up with, although i never was an atheist.
So Genesis 1 simply clashes with evolutionary thinking.
"Let us make man in our image" and "God formed man from (the dust of the) earth".

Now in order to obtain a human brain as an ape, in incredible / impossible mutation had to have taken place, nd that's just the brain of man.

 

[Speedwell]

I suggest you just read it and let the text speak.

That is an interpretation. In fact, it is an interpretation which assumes the Doctrine of Perspicuity, which not all Christians share.

 

[Hieronymus]

That is an interpretation.

Without interpretation no text has a meaning.
That doesn't mean you need a presupposition, and frankly, as a theist, it's silly to subscribe to far fetched and problematic naturalistic (i.e. atheistic) models for origins of our highly complex ad fine tuned reality (and (some of) its problems).
Also, we're supposed to test everything. (if possible)

In fact, it is an interpretation which assumes the Doctrine of Perspicuity, which not all Christians share.

Well, i just read the text and i try to understand what it wants to get across.