$133,000 raised for Genesis 3D Movie in 16 days!

[gluadys]

This seems to be the technique of anti-creationists. Just say over and over, creationism is not science, and hope people will believe it. The truth is, creationists use science to show that naturalism is not science.

To pick up an unfinished conversation you ducked out of, what is naturalism?
What is anti-creation or anti-biblical about saying God made a world that functions via natural processes describable by science?

You see, LK, you are a religious naturalist, and you are trying to pass that off as scientifically valid. The truth is, it's a religious philosophy that you choose to apply to the book of Genesis selectively for some reason.

As I see it, on the basis of Gen. 8:22 and numerous other scriptures, all Christians ought to be religious naturalists. And it is scientifically valid.

Show me where I am scientifically wrong.

Even more importantly, show me where I am theologically wrong.

 

[Smidlee]

To pick up an unfinished conversation you ducked out of, what is naturalism?
What is anti-creation or anti-biblical about saying God made a world that functions via natural processes describable by science?




As I see it, on the basis of Gen. 8:22 and numerous other scriptures, all Christians ought to be religious naturalists. And it is scientifically valid.

Show me where I am scientifically wrong.

Even more importantly, show me where I am theologically wrong.

Naturalism is "the idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world; (occas.) the idea or belief that nothing exists beyond the natural world."

Naturalism (philosophy) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nope, I'm not a naturalist.

 

[gluadys]

Naturalism is "the idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world; (occas.) the idea or belief that nothing exists beyond the natural world."

Naturalism (philosophy) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nope, I'm not a naturalist.

Note that by this definition "naturalism" is a philosophical belief that is not part of science. Science does explore and try to explain nature in terms of nature. But it does not require that the scientist hold that only natural laws or forces operate in the world or that miracles never happen.

What adjective or noun would you use to describe God's way of acting in nature that is not an intervention that overrides natural law?

For example, those processes mentioned in Genesis 8:22. Or when the Psalmist speaks of God "knitting together" the embryo in the womb. That's a metaphor, of course, for natural embryological development. It can be described in detail in a scientific text. Yet it is also a work of God.

We can't call it "miraculous" for it does not defy natural process or break any natural laws. We can't call it a supernatural event, for it is part of nature as God created it, acting in the natural way God created it to act.

So, what do we call it--and how do we distinguish it from "naturalism" defined as a belief which excludes God?

By the Wikipedia definition you cited, I am not a naturalist either.
But I do think it is important for Christians to reclaim a way of speaking about nature as Christians.

 

[Calminian]

To pick up an unfinished conversation you ducked out of, what is naturalism?

Ducked! Palease! Glu, IMHO, I've been knocking out of the park just about every pitch you've thrown, you you've thrown a lot. But that's JMO, of course. Now, sometimes when your ideas get a little too out there, I just kind of step back and feed you rope. It's impossible to respond to all the stuff that put forth in these forums.

What is anti-creation or anti-biblical about saying God made a world that functions via natural processes describable by science?

So God made the world natural processes and all, with natural processes? That makes no logical sense. How did God use natural processes to make natural processes?

As I see it, on the basis of Gen. 8:22 and numerous other scriptures, all Christians ought to be religious naturalists. And it is scientifically valid.

If that means you believe God used natural processes to make natural processes, I think I'll pass.

Even more importantly, show me where I am theologically wrong.

I think it's safe to say, you're out in left field theologically.

 

[gluadys]

Ducked! Palease! Glu, IMHO, I've been knocking out of the park just about every pitch you've thrown, you you've thrown a lot. But that's JMO, of course. Now, sometimes when your ideas get a little too out there, I just kind of step back and feed you rope. It's impossible to respond to all the stuff that put forth in these forums.



So God made the world natural processes and all, with natural processes?

No, that is not what I said.

What I mean is that God made a world in which rainbows form because light is refracted through droplets of water hanging in the air. God doesn't pull off a miracle to make every single rainbow. God makes a rainbow using the natural properties he gave to water and light. A rainbow is a natural phenomenon, not a miracle.

God made a world where summer and winter follow each other in sequence because the earth orbits the sun and is tilted relative to the plane of its orbit. Seasons are not miracles. They are natural phenomena.

I was not implying that God used natural processes to establish natural processes as you stated.

But God clearly did establish natural processes. The question now is how does God relate to them.

How do we describe God working non-miraculously through the natural processes God created, yet still be clear that we are not saying natural processes are the be-all and end-all of all reality as the philosophy of naturalism does.

That makes no logical sense. How did God use natural processes to make natural processes?

Of course, that makes no logical sense. But go back to what I actually said. For example: in Mark 4:28, Jesus describes the growth of a seed into a plant: "The earth produces of itself, first the stalk, then the head, then the full grain in the head."

Now, is Jesus saying this is a miracle? It is not a miracle like healing a blind man or walking on water. No, it is natural.

Does this mean Jesus is preaching naturalism (the belief that only natural forces operate in the world and nothing exists beyond the natural world)? Clearly not.

So, how do we describe these natural processes in relation to God?

When Jesus describes the earth producing of itself to make a plant from a seed, is he saying this natural phenomenon happens without God or with God?

THAT is my question to you and you have never answered it.

If that means you believe God used natural processes to make natural processes, I think I'll pass.

No, that is your distortion of what I mean.

So, if I have sufficiently clarified what I do mean, will you respond properly?


You see, over and over and over again, I get this strong impression that creationists are closet Deists. That they really do believe God is absent from this world except when he intervenes with a miracle. I don't think it is deliberate. But it does seem as if creationists have no theology of nature. And then they misrepresent a theology of nature as if it were atheistic naturalism.

I think it's safe to say, you're out in left field theologically.

That doesn't show that I am wrong.

 

[Calminian]

No, that is not what I said.

What I mean is that God made a world in which rainbows form because light is refracted through droplets of water hanging in the air. God doesn't pull off a miracle to make every single rainbow. ....

I'm not going to keep reading, as all your ideas are pretty much based on the same reasoning.

But I don't think there were rainbows in existence before the flood, as God gives the specific reason why he set his rainbow in the clouds. Had he just said, the rainbow is to now to be a sign, etc., that would tell me they may have existed before. But when God says, I'm going to make a sign for you. I set my rainbow in the clouds and.... and gives a reason doesn't apply in the past, then that's a good sign rainbows didn't exist prior.

For one could make the argument (and I've heard it made), that God may have just used the rainbow as a sign after the flood, even though it already existed. But if so, He wouldn't have talked about setting it in the clouds, he just would have told them the rainbow is now a sign. But instead he speaks about the creation/formation of rainbows.

The key though, is the text. That's where we disagree. You interpret the text based on modern scientific theories. I leave them out, and let the text inform me about the truth of man's theories. It appears in this text, the plainest interpretation is a change in the earth's atmospheric makeup which resulted in rainbows existing from that point on.

BTW, I'm not suggesting rainbows are violations of science. Nor am I suggestion that rain didn't occur before the fall. But I am suggesting that the text implies a historic miracle in the past, and resulted in the natural appear of rainbows after the flood.

 

[Calminian]

update: The Movie project has now raised $280,000 and is just 20,000 away from funding for a theater release. Still 17 days left.

Genesis 3D Movie | Indiegogo

 

[kellhus]

How sad. I will pray that it doesn't reach its goal.

 

[Calminian]

How sad. I will pray that it doesn't reach its goal.

LOL! God forbid a different view is presented.

 

[gluadys]

I'm not going to keep reading, as all your ideas are pretty much based on the same reasoning.

But I don't think there were rainbows in existence before the flood, as God gives the specific reason why he set his rainbow in the clouds. Had he just said, the rainbow is to now to be a sign, etc., that would tell me they may have existed before. But when God says, I'm going to make a sign for you. I set my rainbow in the clouds and.... and gives a reason doesn't apply in the past, then that's a good sign rainbows didn't exist prior.

That may be. I wouldn't argue it the point. But note how you have switched again from looking at God and ordinary nature to focusing on a miracle.

BTW, I'm not suggesting rainbows are violations of science. Nor am I suggestion that rain didn't occur before the fall. But I am suggesting that the text implies a historic miracle in the past, and resulted in the natural appear of rainbows after the flood.

But you are only willing to discuss one rainbow that may have been a miracle--not the rainbows you personally see.

That is what I mean by ducking the conversation. That is what I mean about not having any theology about ordinary nature and how God is revealed through its non-miraculous processes.

Is God only to be known through miracles and not through the world as we experience it day by day by day? Must "natural" mean "godless"?

 

[Assyrian]

I'm not going to keep reading, as all your ideas are pretty much based on the same reasoning.

Why not try to understand her reasoning so at least you will know what you are trying to argue against?

 

[Calminian]

Why not try to understand her reasoning so at least you will know what you are trying to argue against?

Do your read every single post on these boards? I don't think anyone has given you 2 more attention than me. I understand your arguments better then you understand them yourselves. I could make the arguments for you and probably more effectively.

You and Glu don't believe. It really comes down to that. I wish you guys understood that. You spend so much time trying to make your unbelief sound intellectual, you've never stopped to realize you're simply making the case for unbelief.

 

[Calminian]

...But you are only willing to discuss one rainbow that may have been a miracle--not the rainbows you personally see.

Where did I ever say the rainbow itself was a miracle? It's rather the result of one.

You have to understand, theology is difficult, and takes study and practice. You keep missing the theological points, and trying to apply them to science.

The miracle was not the appearance of the rainbow. The miracle was the modification to the world that allowed that process to happen. Understand??

 

[Assyrian]

Do your read every single post on these boards? I don't think anyone has given you 2 more attention than me. I understand your arguments better then you understand them yourselves. I could make the arguments for you and probably more effectively.

You and Glu don't believe. It really comes down to that. I wish you guys understood that. You spend so much time trying to make your unbelief sound intellectual, you've never stopped to realize you're simply making the case for unbelief.

How about you try presenting what you think Glaudys's view is so we can see if you have it right?

 

[gluadys]

Where did I ever say the rainbow itself was a miracle? It's rather the result of one.

You have to understand, theology is difficult, and takes study and practice. You keep missing the theological points, and trying to apply them to science.

The miracle was not the appearance of the rainbow. The miracle was the modification to the world that allowed that process to happen. Understand??

You are still focused on that one rainbow.

Let me try to get through to you once again. You and I have no quarrel about miracles. We both accept that God does miracles. OK? So please, set that one miracle aside and look at other ordinary rainbows.


What I am looking for is how you relate God's work to the rainbows you have personally seen and that I have personally seen.



Why is it you can never find a way to talk about them?


Or any other phenomenon you agree is not a miraculous event.

God in the ordinary events of nature--this is the topic you keep ducking and refusing to discuss.

What is your belief about these? Or have you simply never thought of looking for God in ordinary nature?


I see a huge gap in your theology. What theological points do you think I am missing?

 

[Calminian]

How about you try presenting what you think Glaudys's view is so we can see if you have it right?

That's an entire book. Is there something more specific about her beliefs (unbeliefs) you want to know about?

 

[Calminian]

Y...Let me try to get through to you once again. You and I have no quarrel about miracles. We both accept that God does miracles. OK? ...

But you don't believe creation was a miracle. That's the difference. You believe miracles exist, but won't accept the testimony in Genesis about the 6 days of miracles.

What I am looking for is how you relate God's work to the rainbows you have personally seen and that I have personally seen.

God upholds the natural laws and processes that allow us to see rainbows and other natural phenomenon. God is the author of the natural laws. But a miracle is when he acts outside those normal upholdings or adds to them. A miracle is when God acts differently than the normal upholding. These are special acts of God, verses normal upholding acts of God.

Anything systematic theology will lay this out very carefully.

God in the ordinary events of nature--this is the topic you keep ducking and refusing to discuss.

I acknowledge God's work in all natural events. I've did so the moment you brought it up weeks ago. So do all creationists. It's something creationists talk about often, in books and every other media. If you were a creationists and read up on creation, you wouldn't just be discovering this issue now.

 

[Calminian]

update: $18,000 to go. They're at $282,000 counting the $100,000 donation from a church.

 

[Assyrian]

That's an entire book. Is there something more specific about her beliefs (unbeliefs) you want to know about?

I want to see if you understand what you are trying to argue against. Since her view that God can work though natural processes has been Christian theology for two thousand years, I think your fear (hence calling it unbelief) of the implications hold your mind from trying to even understanding the ideas you reject. It is ridiculous since Creationists should and do believe God God works through natural processes which you can see when the pray for God to give them their daily bread, which they know comes from farmers growing wheat. There is just a disconnect when it comes to evolution which must exclude God because it is a natural process.

 

[gluadys]

But you don't believe creation was a miracle. That's the difference. You believe miracles exist, but won't accept the testimony in Genesis about the 6 days of miracles.

It's not that I don't believe creation was a miracle. I just don't think it is the same miracle you think it is.

It is not the testimony in Genesis I reject; it is your understanding of that testimony I reject.

I reject no testimony which I know comes from God.

God upholds the natural laws and processes that allow us to see rainbows and other natural phenomenon. God is the author of the natural laws. But a miracle is when he acts outside those normal upholdings or adds to them. A miracle is when God acts differently than the normal upholding. These are special acts of God, verses normal upholding acts of God.

Anything systematic theology will lay this out very carefully.

Ok, so far we are in agreement. See that wasn't really so hard to say, was it? Now let's keep the focus on the natural, non-special acts of God.

They are still acts of God, right?

So why the knee-jerk reaction to "natural explanations" as if such explanations were automatically rejections of God and God's doings?

I acknowledge God's work in all natural events.

Except the natural events of evolution, right?

Why the exception for evolution?