A short explaination of the human-nature

[2PhiloVoid]

From what I hear, somewhere close to 88% of kids who grew up in church (Christian parents and maybe Christians themselves) reject their faith when they go off to college. The reason? Evolution.

Yes, I get that part of it. I studied it as a social factor during my Master's degree studies.................................................................................

There are a couple of reasons young Christians lose their faith at college these days. It happens. But, it doesn't have to. And, what's more, it doesn't require Alisa Childers style apologetics to avert an irrational, knee-jerk reaction toward Christianity. It just requires a little more education that both secularists and many evangelical Christian simply don't provide.

Personal story: I witnessed to a co-worker of mine about Jesus death and resurrection, that we can believe in life everlasting because of Him. His response? "I can't believe in that because of science. He grew up going to church. His mother was a Christian (Not sure about his father).

Personal story: I grew up in a semi-secular household. I never came to "believe" in the historicity of the Garden of Eden/Adam and Eve account, at least not any longer than what those hardcover Bible story books at the doctor's office were able to instill in me. Which wasn't all that much since Dinosaur books took over the prime spot in my thinking at age 6. ................ But you know what? That didn't stop me from finding Jesus Christ anyway.

Another personal story: my son went to a science-based college. The first semester one professor quizzed the students whether they believed in a 6 day creation somewhere around 6-10k years ago. 10 or 15 answered yes. Throughout the semester he would repeat the question, and graph the response! At the end, there were 3. My son and his roommate, and one other guy. And my son admitted he struggled greatly with the issue. It was a major issue for the God-denying professor. Shouldn't it also be for those who love God?

Another personal story: my son went to a semi-prestigious university and double-majored. He lost his belief too. But oddly enough, it was a simple youtube video or two that did that, not his expensive educational venture.

As for that professor who taught your son, I'm sure there's a lot more going on in that professor's overall psychology than merely that "he was scientific."

My approach to spreading the faith is to concern myself with the person over and above his thoughts. And if and when he/she is ready, I can introduce him/her to another approach to the whole "faith" thing. So, sure. We as Christians should be concerned, but not simply over the fact that the Theory of Evolution is scientific and possibly a very true explanation about the structures of our world. I do know that it serves as a convenient scape-goat for a bunch of other things that are going on in the world, things of a more Screwtapian complexity.

If you care about future generations of Christians, including your own children, you would care about this issue. It IS a faith issue. The message the kids get is "faith vs science". But "science" has repeatedly been wrong in the evolution front.

Again, I think it's a non-issue. But by that I don't mean it can't be or shouldn't need to be addressed. It's just that when I'm done with it, it becomes nearly a moot point. Best to focus on those other factors causing people today---especially the younger (Millennial/Gen Z) people----to fall way.

1 Timothy 6:20 KJV — O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called

2 Peter 3:5-6 KJV — For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

Right. But there are some serious issues involved with this simple "cut-and-paste-a-bible-verse" approach. And because of those issues, that's why quoting the bible, like you're doing here, doesn't quite hit on all cylinders, Derf. I know you mean well, but you're misdirecting your fire here.

 

[Derf]

Yes, I get that part of it. I studied it as a social factor during my Master's degree studies.................................................................................

There are a couple of reasons young Christians lose their faith at college these days. It happens. But, it doesn't have to.

Of course it doesn't have to. But that suggests you know how to prevent it. Do you?

And, what's more, it doesn't require Alisa Childers style apologetics to avert an irrational, knee-jerk reaction toward Christianity.

What does that mean?

It just requires a little more education that both secularists and many evangelical Christian simply don't provide.

Right. So what is that elusive education? And why would I expect that secularists would even want to provide some kind of education that helps Christians not to lose their faith.

Personal story: I grew up in a semi-secular household. I never came to "believe" in the historicity of the Garden of Eden/Adam and Eve account, at least not any longer than what those hardcover Bible story books at the doctor's office were able to instill in me.

Those aren't meant to provide adult-level understanding of God.

Which wasn't all that much since Dinosaur books took over the prime spot in my thinking at age 6. ................ But you know what? That didn't stop me from finding Jesus Christ anyway.

Another personal story: my son went to a semi-prestigious university and double-majored. He lost his belief too. But oddly enough, it was a simple youtube video or two that did that, not his expensive educational venture.

I'm sorry to hear that.
How do you know the education wasn't at least partially responsible?

As for that professor who taught your son, I'm sure there's a lot more going on in that professor's overall psychology than merely that "he was scientific."

I agree. But the point is that many in the scientific community have the same thing going on.

My approach to spreading the faith is to concern myself with the person over and above his thoughts.

I don't know what that means either.

And if and when he/she is ready, I can introduce him/her to another approach to the whole "faith" thing. So, sure. We as Christians should be concerned, but not simply over the fact that the Theory of Evolution is scientific

(not a fact)

and possibly a very true

(Rather: antibiblical)

explanation about the structures of our world. I do know that it serves as a convenient scape-goat for a bunch of other things that are going on in the world, things of a more Screwtapian complexity.

Again, I think it's a non-issue.

That your son lost his faith, and that you don't believe the foundation of faith in God found in Genesis is true? That's a non-issue?

But by that I don't mean it can't be or shouldn't need to be addressed. It's just that when I'm done with it, it becomes nearly a moot point.

When you were done with our conversation above, it wasn't even nearly a mooted point.

Best to focus on those other factors causing people today---especially the younger (Millennial/Gen Z) people----to fall way.

Which are??

Right. But there are some serious issues involved with this simple "cut-and-paste-a-bible-verse" approach.

Like what?

And because of those issues, that's why quoting the bible, like you're doing here, doesn't quite hit on all cylinders, Derf.

Is that all I was doing? It didn't seem like it to me, especially when I cited secular sources.

I know you mean well, but you're misdirecting your fire here.

You mean I'm focusing on a non-issue that causes almost 90% of Christian kids to lose their faith, and I should rather focus on something that causes only a few percent of kids to lose their faith?

Or are you saying that we should let out own kids lose their faith and hope we can replace them with random millennials/gen-Zers?

You're like the blind leading the deaf. Across a highway. To hell.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Of course it doesn't have to. But that suggests you know how to prevent it. Do you?

It's not really a matter of preventing. From what I see, the World is going to attempt to claw its way into the minds and hearts of people no matter how good our apologetics is. But as they say personal safety courses, "Knowledge is the first line of self defense."

What does that mean?

It just implies that I disagree with her approach to apologetics and with the strict scope she places upon what constitutes the Christian faith.

Right. So what is that elusive education? And why would I expect that secularists would even want to provide some kind of education that helps Christians not to lose their faith.

The elusive education is simply that folks need to trade out their Biblical Presuppositionalism and stiff literalism for a different, less dogmatic epistemology and hermeneutics.

As for secularists, I was intending to imply that any of them would even want to provide Christians with helpful directions, especially if a lot of those in the secular positions now are----Ex-Christians. Some of them are just as dogmatic about their current views as they were before they lost their faith. Of course, you already know this.

Those aren't meant to provide adult-level understanding of God.

Tell that to the Independent Baptist folks that my mom and day took my family to when I was just a very wee boy.

I'm sorry to hear that.
How do you know the education wasn't at least partially responsible?

I know because I kept tabs on which classes he was taking. Unlike me in my university studies, my son didn't study any humanities, social science or philosophy. He didn't even have to take any science courses in his double major. It was all business and music.

More later

I agree. But the point is that many in the scientific community have the same thing going on.

Right. Many (actually all) of those in the scientific community are individual human beings who have lived their own long lives socially soaked in their respective cultures [and/or sub-cultures], their family [or remnants thereof], competing ideologies and competing "facts" [as they've understood and interpreted them], along with all which the human brain and body regularly requires. Some of those things have led to various emotional strains that militate against the having of faith.

And each case is a "special" case, none of which can really just be generalized in wholesale, stereotypical fashion. They say the Devil is in the details; well, sometimes he even gets into the jots and tittles. But that's life, and that's to be expected. [Remeber Jesus' parable of the sower?]

I don't know what that means either.

It means: My concern for another human beings well-being generally comes first; only aftward do I concern myself with whatever dysfunctions...........................or sins........................that person may be "into."

(not a fact)

I think that you and I each have a different hermeneutic where the Bible is concerned. You have your understanding of what a "fact" is and how "facts" work, and it may be a little different than mine. In fact, I'm fairly certain that you and I come at our spiritual lives in Christ from different epistemological frameworks. But that's ok. It doesn't mean that where the Christian faith is concerned, we won't find some common ground or some conceptual overlaps between us.

(Rather: antibiblical)

I'd rather say "extra-biblical" rathern than anti-biblical.

That your son lost his faith, and that you don't believe the foundation of faith in God found in Genesis is true? That's a non-issue?

No, I didn't say that. My son didn't enter into a mindset of disbelief due to the Theory of Evolution in precise terms. His had more to do with someone (and I don't know who) told him that there is no evidence by which to "believe in God." I'm still working with him at the moment to introduce some things that he never learned at the university.

As for myself? No, I don't believe that the book of Genesis is the "foundation" of faith in the Lord. Also, I don't exactly think in terms of Axioms and/or presuppositions. Moreover, for us Christians, the essence of faith is in how we answer the question posed to Peter, "Who do you say that I am?" It also doesn't require that we suppose the bible is inerrant. To do so isn't to affirm God's Word; rather, making a claim of innerrancy is to open the bible up to even more problems dealing with Higher Criticism than it already had before Darwin OR the Logical Positivists ever came along to incentivize the Fundamentalist movement in the early 1900s.

When you were done with our conversation above, it wasn't even nearly a mooted point.

Sure. I didn't even begin the conversation, and what's more, my point about mootness was only about how I see the issue of the Evolution VS. Creationism controversy. For me, after all I've studied, for as long as I've studied, I find personally little to be concerned about.

However, I'm NOT saying that there is a personal program that I have to convert fellow Christians away from any more evangelical or fundamentalist views on Creation that they may have. My view isn't an ideology nor a social program. Although, my approach could be made out to a latter resort for those who can be cited as "wanting to believe but finding it very, very hard to do so." Think of me as a kind of Neo-Pascalian, with Kierkegaardian aplomb and the practicality of a Francis Collins.

Which are??

All of those that have been cited by the likes of Barna and/or the Pew Research over the past 20 or so years...

Do you want me to take the time cite my specific sources? I can.

Like what?

ALL of those that pertain to the scrupulous attentions of Higher Critics of the Bible, both those good and bad, both valid and invalid. (Yes, I said invalid because I firmly believe that, as the philosopher that I am, "What serves as sauce for the goose serves as sauce for the gander," and I have a fair amount of sauce to apply to the whimsies of atheism. )

Is that all I was doing? It didn't seem like it to me, especially when I cited secular sources.

That's not all you were doing, but look: I'm not here to throw you from your evangelical perch. I'm here to maintain a fellowship with all other Trinitarian Christians. I'm not here to cut other Christians down; on the other hand, I'm also not here to be all that longsuffering with any accusation they decide to throw my way in high volumes. Low volumes of that kind of thing are acceptable, though.

You mean I'm focusing on a non-issue that causes almost 90% of Christian kids to lose their faith, and I should rather focus on something that causes only a few percent of kids to lose their faith?

No. I didn't say that. What I'm attempting to say, and apparently not yet doing a very fine job of, is that the Theory of Evolution is but one single issue on the table. It really isn't the only one or the main one. If there is a person out there who uses evolution alone as "THE REASON," I don't think they on the most reasonable footing for denying that the Christian faith has any veracity whatsoever. No, the Christian faith has veracity for various reasons, more than simply that it can be made out that God created our universe, world and humanity in whatever way He did so.

So, yeah. Find me a "kid" who think evolution is that "one thing" that does it in.

Or are you saying that we should let out own kids lose their faith and hope we can replace them with random millennials/gen-Zers?

What????????????????????????????????????????? No. Exactly the opposite. I'm saying that there is more than one way to skin a cat.

You're like the blind leading the deaf. Across a highway. To hell.

Thank you for your last word and judgment. Your friendliness, Christian compassion and love has been duly noted.

Also, brother, please take NOTE that I don't do the same in return. So, Be blessed in Christ and I pray and hope your son (and my son) continue toward eternal life in Jesus Christ.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Of course it doesn't have to. But that suggests you know how to prevent it. Do you?


What does that mean?


Right. So what is that elusive education? And why would I expect that secularists would even want to provide some kind of education that helps Christians not to lose their faith.


Those aren't meant to provide adult-level understanding of God.


I'm sorry to hear that.
How do you know the education wasn't at least partially responsible?


I agree. But the point is that many in the scientific community have the same thing going on.


I don't know what that means either.


(not a fact)

(Rather: antibiblical)

That your son lost his faith, and that you don't believe the foundation of faith in God found in Genesis is true? That's a non-issue?


When you were done with our conversation above, it wasn't even nearly a mooted point.


Which are??

Like what?

Is that all I was doing? It didn't seem like it to me, especially when I cited secular sources.


You mean I'm focusing on a non-issue that causes almost 90% of Christian kids to lose their faith, and I should rather focus on something that causes only a few percent of kids to lose their faith?

Or are you saying that we should let out own kids lose their faith and hope we can replace them with random millennials/gen-Zers?

You're like the blind leading the deaf. Across a highway. To hell.

see the above post, in full.

 

[Derf]

It's not really a matter of preventing. From what I see, the World is going to attempt to claw its way into the minds and hearts of people no matter how good our apologetics is. But as they say personal safety courses, "Knowledge is the first line of self defense."

They may say that, but knowledge without God is foolishness. And fear is the beginning of knowledge.

It just implies that I disagree with her approach to apologetics and with the strict scope she places upon what constitutes the Christian faith.

The elusive education is simply that folks need to trade out their Biblical Presuppositionalism and stiff literalism for a different, less dogmatic epistemology and hermeneutics.

You seem pretty dogmatic about that.

As for secularists, I was intending to imply that any of them would even want to provide Christians with helpful directions, especially if a lot of those in the secular positions now are----Ex-Christians. Some of them are just as dogmatic about their current views as they were before they lost their faith. Of course, you already know this.

Tell that to the Independent Baptist folks that my mom and day took my family to when I was just a very wee boy.

I know because I kept tabs on which classes he was taking. Unlike me in my university studies, my son didn't study any humanities, social science or philosophy. He didn't even have to take any science courses in his double major. It was all business and music.

More later

Right. Many (actually all) of those in the scientific community are individual human beings who have lived their own long lives socially soaked in their respective cultures [and/or sub-cultures], their family [or remnants thereof], competing ideologies and competing "facts" [as they've understood and interpreted them], along with all which the human brain and body regularly requires. Some of those things have led to various emotional strains that militate against the having of faith.

The bible calls them fools:
Psalm 14:1 KJV — The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

And each case is a "special" case, none of which can really just be generalized in wholesale, stereotypical fashion.

Except that I just did.

They say the Devil is in the details; well, sometimes he even gets into the jots and tittles. But that's life, and that's to be expected. [Remeber Jesus' parable of the sower?]

It means: My concern for another human beings well-being generally comes first; only aftward do I concern myself with whatever dysfunctions...........................or sins........................that person may be "into."

I think that you and I each have a different hermeneutic where the Bible is concerned.

Well...I do, anyway. I can't tell if you have such or not.

You have your understanding of what a "fact" is and how "facts" work, and it may be a little different than mine.

You have an understanding? Prove it. Tell me what it is.

In fact, I'm fairly certain that you and I come at our spiritual lives in Christ from different epistemological frameworks. But that's ok. It doesn't mean that where the Christian faith is concerned, we won't find some common ground or some conceptual overlaps between us.

There has to be ground/conception before there can be common ground or conception.

I'd rather say "extra-biblical" rathern than anti-biblical.

I'm sure you would.

No, I didn't say that. My son didn't enter into a mindset of disbelief due to the Theory of Evolution in precise terms. His had more to do with someone (and I don't know who) told him that there is no evidence by which to "believe in God." I'm still working with him at the moment to introduce some things that he never learned at the university.

If they are so vital to him at this juncture, I hope you can actually explain then to him better than you have to me.

As for myself? No, I don't believe that the book of Genesis is the "foundation" of faith in the Lord.

Do you believe the book of Genesis at all?

Also, I don't exactly think in terms of Axioms and/or presuppositions. Moreover, for us Christians, the essence of faith is in how we answer the question posed to Peter, "Who do you say that I am?"

Can you do that without acknowledging what God said about himself in Genesis?

It also doesn't require that we suppose the bible is inerrant. To do so isn't to affirm God's Word; rather, making a claim of innerrancy is to open the bible up to even more problems dealing with Higher Criticism than it already had before Darwin OR the Logical Positivists ever came along to incentivize the Fundamentalist movement in the early 1900s.

Ooh. I'm starting to detect something.

Sure. I didn't even begin the conversation, and what's more, my point about mootness was only about how I see the issue of the Evolution VS. Creationism controversy. For me, after all I've studied, for as long as I've studied, I find personally little to be concerned about.

Of course not. Since you have no truth source you can rely on.

However, I'm NOT saying that there is a personal program that I have to convert fellow Christians away from any more evangelical or fundamentalist views on Creation that they may have. My view isn't an ideology nor a social program.

Is it even a "view"?

Although, my approach could be made out to a latter resort for those who can be cited as "wanting to believe but finding it very, very hard to do so."

Believe what? Not the bible, as you've been quite clear about.

Think of me as a kind of Neo-Pascalian, with Kierkegaardian aplomb and the practicality of a Francis Collins.

Or some guy with nothing to say, and nothing to believe in, who likes to name-drop.

All of those that have been cited by the likes of Barna and/or the Pew Research over the past 20 or so years...

They don't deal as much in fixes as in stating the problem (which is good), one of which is that so many Christians don't actually believe the bible is true.

Do you want me to take the time cite my specific sources? I can.

Not sources...concepts. verbalize!

ALL of those that pertain to the scrupulous attentions of Higher Critics of the Bible, both those good and bad, both valid and invalid. (Yes, I said invalid because I firmly believe that, as the philosopher that I am, "What serves as sauce for the goose serves as sauce for the gander," and I have a fair amount of sauce to apply to the whimsies of atheism. )

Blah, blah, blah.

That's not all you were doing, but look: I'm not here to throw you from your evangelical perch.

If I'm wrong, you should. If I'm not wrong? Where does that leave you?

I'm here to maintain a fellowship with all other Trinitarian Christians.

By telling them the Bible isn't trustworthy?

I'm not here to cut other Christians down; on the other hand, I'm also not here to be all that longsuffering with any accusation they decide to throw my way in high volumes. Low volumes of that kind of thing are acceptable, though.

No. I didn't say that. What I'm attempting to say, and apparently not yet doing a very fine job of, is that the Theory of Evolution is but one single issue on the table. It really isn't the only one or the main one. If there is a person out there who uses evolution alone as "THE REASON," I don't think they on the most reasonable footing for denying that the Christian faith has any veracity whatsoever. No, the Christian faith has veracity for various reasons, more than simply that it can be made out that God created our universe, world and humanity in whatever way He did so.

Yet that is how God is described to heathens time after time in the Bible.

So, yeah. Find me a "kid" who think evolution is that "one thing" that does it in.

What????????????????????????????????????????? No. Exactly the opposite. I'm saying that there is more than one way to skin a cat.

Which is?

Thank you for your last word and judgment. Your friendliness, Christian compassion and love has been duly noted.

Glad to be of service. Someone should have done as much for you when you were rejecting your parents faith ling ago.

Also, brother, please take NOTE that I don't do the same in return.

You don't seem to know how, since you have nothing to place your faith in.

So, Be blessed in Christ and I pray and hope your son (and my son) continue toward eternal life in Jesus Christ.

I hope you can find some little tidbit of truth to tell your son, but for the life of me, I can't tell where it's going to come from. My advice? Read the Bible to your son. It has the words of eternal life. Jesus Christ died and rise again, and he who believes in Him will never die.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

They may say that, but knowledge without God is foolishness. And fear is the beginning of knowledge.

You seem pretty dogmatic about that.

The bible calls them fools:
Psalm 14:1 KJV — The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.



Except that I just did.

Well...I do, anyway. I can't tell if you have such or not.


You have an understanding? Prove it. Tell me what it is.


There has to be ground/conception before there can be common ground or conception.


I'm sure you would.


If they are so vital to him at this juncture, I hope you can actually explain then to him better than you have to me.

Do you believe the book of Genesis at all?


Can you do that without acknowledging what God said about himself in Genesis?


Ooh. I'm starting to detect something.

Of course not. Since you have no truth source you can rely on.

Is it even a "view"?

Believe what? Not the bible, as you've been quite clear about.


Or some guy with nothing to say, and nothing to believe in, who likes to name-drop.

They don't deal as much in fixes as in stating the problem (which is good), one of which is that so many Christians don't actually believe the bible is true.


Not sources...concepts. verbalize!

Blah, blah, blah.


If I'm wrong, you should. If I'm not wrong? Where does that leave you?


By telling them the Bible isn't trustworthy?


Yet that is how God is described to heathens time after time in the Bible.


Which is?

Glad to be of service. Someone should have done as much for you when you were rejecting your parents faith ling ago.


You don't seem to know how, since you have nothing to place your faith in.


I hope you can find some little tidbit of truth to tell your son, but for the life of me, I can't tell where it's going to come from. My advice? Read the Bible to your son. It has the words of eternal life. Jesus Christ died and rise again, and he who believes in Him will never die.

So, I take it that you feel we're done now? You asked me questions earlier and I thought you simply wanted me to begin explaining my own position on things, which I began to do. But from what I see in the comments you made every thing I began to share, you set me up to simply strike me down.

I'm guessing you don't really want a conversation, Fred. Well, that's fine. You're already Christian, and since you're not in the process of losing your faith, you don't really need my help or encouragement. I can see that you've "got" this.

 

[Derf]

So, I take it that you feel we're done now? You asked me questions earlier and I thought you simply wanted me to begin explaining my own position on things, which I began to do. But from what I see in the comments you made every thing I began to share, you set me up to simply strike me down.

Yeah, I'm bad that way. Sorry.

I'm guessing you don't really want a conversation, Fred. Well, that's fine. You're already Christian, and since you're not in the process of losing your faith, you don't really need my help or encouragement. I can see that you've "got" this.

It's up to you, if you want to continue. It just seems you keep going further down the path of "you can trust science, but you can't trust the Bible."

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yeah, I'm bad that way. Sorry.

It's up to you, if you want to continue. It just seems you keep going further down the path of "you can trust science, but you can't trust the Bible."

Oh, golly gee, no. I would never say "You can trust science, but you can't trust the Bible."

I don't think Pascal or Francis Collins would either.

 

[Larniavc]

Would you like to present any data to discuss?

It’s encumber in you to provide evidence that supports the initial positive claim that you assert as correct.

What is the evidence that humanity originated in the Middle East?

 

[Derf]

It’s encumber in you to provide evidence that supports the initial positive claim that you assert as correct.

What is the evidence that humanity originated in the Middle East?

2 Peter 3:6 KJV — Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

1 Peter 3:20 KJV — Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

Genesis 10:32 KJV — These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood.

Genesis 11:2 KJV — And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.

8 people survived the flood that destroyed the whole earth, and all the nations of the earth came from the 3 sons of Noah. They journeyed from the east to Shinar, which is in the ancient region of Babylon.

Flood myths are common in many indigenous people groups around the world, often with great amount of similarity to Noah's flood, where God or gods were angry and destroyed the earth except for a small number of people saved by a boat or on a mountain top (like Ararat).

Some recent genetics studies appear to show that all people today descend from 3 families. (See Nathaneal Jeanson's work, I don't have a good source, because I dont have his book, "Traced", but I'm hoping to read it soon.)

There's more, but perhaps this works as a start, in addition to the articles I linked to early in the thread.

 

[Derf]

Oh, golly gee, no. I would never say "You can trust science, but you can't trust the Bible."

I don't think Pascal or Francis Collins would either.

Francis Collins shamed himself, Christianity, and science in how he pushed a "vaccine" that wasn't fully vetted and appears to be killing people.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Francis Collins shamed himself, Christianity, and science in how he pushed a "vaccine" that wasn't fully vetted and appears to be killing people.

Perhaps. But no one is perfect. Besides, not all other scientists have agreed with him on that topic, and what's more, they don't have to agree with him, even if they too are either Scientists and/or Christians. Just like you don't have to agree with me on all things in order to be a true Christian, and ... vice versa.

 

[Derf]

Perhaps. But no one is perfect. Besides, not all other scientists have agreed with him on that topic, and what's more, they don't have to agree with him, even if they too are either Scientists and/or Christians. Just like you don't have to agree with me on all things in order to be a true Christian, and ... vice versa.

But don't you think a true Christian would be ashamed to be the cause of death for large numbers of people?

Since "Christian" means "little Christ", and Jesus called in His follows to emulate Him and take up their crosses (whatever that might be for individual believers), do you think Jesus believed what Genesis tells us is to be taken literally? Or did He think it was merely a myth (in the non-factual way)?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

But don't you think a true Christian would be ashamed to be the cause of death for large numbers of people?

Possibly. BUT, whether a particular Christian would feel ashamed depends upon a host of various factors involved in one's epistemological choices.

Even in the case that Francis Collins actually was responsible for any imputations of such death, it's not certaint he would perceive he indeed had been responsible for any deaths, But, as in other philosophical and scientific endeavors, proving anything is subject various inductive and abductive measures. there may be a few deductions in there as well, depending on other philosophical considerations.

However, that's all I'll say on this subjective subject. (Mainly because I don't see my Christian Faith as an instrument for political Machiavellianism. Or for Marxism for that matter).

Since "Christian" means "little Christ", and Jesus called in His follows to emulate Him and take up their crosses (whatever that might be for individual believers), do you think Jesus believed what Genesis tells us is to be taken literally? Or did He think it was merely a myth (in the non-factual way)?

Answering this question will depend upon the many nuances of evaluations which need to take place via the applications of Historiography, the Philosophy of History, Hermeneutics, and Higher Criticism of the bible, among other things. ... I mean, we don't want to just pick up a bible and treat it like we would as if it was "just another monthly issue" of Pravda.

 

[Derf]

Possibly. BUT, whether a particular Christian would feel ashamed depends upon a host of various factors involved in one's epistemological choices.

Even in the case that Francis Collins actually was responsible for any imputations of such death, it's not certaint he would perceive he indeed had been responsible for any deaths, But, as in other philosophical and scientific endeavors, proving anything is subject various inductive and abductive measures. there may be a few deductions in there as well, depending on other philosophical considerations.

However, that's all I'll say on this subjective subject. (Mainly because I don't see my Christian Faith as an instrument for political Machiavellianism. Or for Marxism for that matter).


Answering this question will depend upon the many nuances of evaluations which need to take place via the applications of Historiography, the Philosophy of History, Hermeneutics, and Higher Criticism of the bible, among other things. ... I mean, we don't want to just pick up a bible and treat it like we would if it was "just another monthly issue" of Pravda.

Why not?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Why not?

For one, the Bible isn't "1st century religious propaganda." (Despite what some of the current hyper-skeptics will say.) Secondly, it's also ancient, foreign, diverse in literary genres and language, and plural in its authorship. It's a sort of collected anthology of works from distinct periods of history, reflecting reports of God's interactions with His people. Of course, you already know all of this.

So yeah. We're not going to handle it like it's just a cheap newspaper we could all to easily read and digest and then roll up to swat flies.

No, I'm afraid the Bible has to be handled with distinct hermeneutical and historical attention, despite what some of its detractors may say ... and i know that these days, they like to say a lot.

 

[Derf]

For one, the Bible isn't "1st century religious propaganda." (Despite what some of the current hyper-skeptics will say.) Secondly, it's also ancient, foreign, diverse in literary genres and language, and plural in its authorship. It's a sort of collected anthology of works from distinct periods of history, reflecting reports of God's interactions with His people. Of course, you already know all of this.

So yeah. We're not going to handle it like it's just a cheap newspaper we could all to easily read and digest and then roll up to swat flies.

No, I'm afraid the Bible has to be handled with distinct hermeneutical and historical attention, despite what some of its detractors may say ... and i know that these days, they like to say a lot.

Is it true? All of it?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Is it true? All of it?

Yes, but the real question is "What kind of truth(s) does the Bible represent"? It's not enough to simply ask if the Bible is true because that question is too simple.

In other words, to merely affirm that the whole Bible is "true" is to oversimplify the nature and the qualities of its diverse writings and the minds of the authors who wrote each respective book or letter within its collection. There's a lot involved our how we evaluate and ten come to value the Bible.

 

[Derf]

Yes, but the real question is "What kind of truth(s) does the Bible represent"? It's not enough to simply ask if the Bible is true because that question is too simple.

In other words, to merely affirm that the whole Bible is "true" is to oversimplify the nature and the qualities of its diverse writings and the minds of the authors who wrote each respective book or letter within its collection. There's a lot involved our how we evaluate and ten come to value the Bible.

So, back to my question.

Do you think Jesus believed what Genesis tells us is to be taken literally? Or did He think it was merely a myth (in the non-factual way)?

Feel free to answer with examples in Jesus' teaching.

 

[Larniavc]

2 Peter 3:6 KJV — Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

1 Peter 3:20 KJV — Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

Genesis 10:32 KJV — These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood.

Genesis 11:2 KJV — And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.

8 people survived the flood that destroyed the whole earth, and all the nations of the earth came from the 3 sons of Noah. They journeyed from the east to Shinar, which is in the ancient region of Babylon.

Flood myths are common in many indigenous people groups around the world, often with great amount of similarity to Noah's flood, where God or gods were angry and destroyed the earth except for a small number of people saved by a boat or on a mountain top (like Ararat).

Some recent genetics studies appear to show that all people today descend from 3 families. (See Nathaneal Jeanson's work, I don't have a good source, because I dont have his book, "Traced", but I'm hoping to read it soon.)

There's more, but perhaps this works as a start, in addition to the articles I linked to early in the thread.

They are claims. Claims are not evidence. Any more than an anecdote is evidence.