I dont think the philosophies of the world were intended to be used to better understand Scripture. I believe that is the Holy Spirits job, not the worlds. I personally dont find politics helpful in hermeneutics, nor do I find economics to be helpful. Science is just science, it doesnt point me towards God because it doesnt talk of God.
Most anything can be helpful in understanding scripture, though in the final analysis it is the illumination of the Holy Spirit that leads to true wisdom. Karl Barth, who was one of the premier theologians of the 20th century said we should study scripture with the bible in one hand and today's newspaper in the other. Politics is very helpful to understanding scripture and vice versa. Much of the bible is very political. Jesus was very political. From a human perspective he was executed because he was perceived as a political threat to the rulers of first-century Judea.
Two short and easily accessible books I would recommend on this topic are
The Politics of Jesus by John Howard Yoder, as well as several other more recent books he has written along this line, and
The Powers that Be by Walter Wink. This is a summary of his "powers" trilogy--a comprehensive study of New Testament references to powers and authorities of every kind. Even better than this summary is the third volume of the trilogy, which is called
Engaging the Powers
Another I highly recommend is
Christians and Other Aliens in a Strange Land by the late William Stringfellow. In fact, I would recommend anything you can get hold of by him. This book is one of the best theological analyses of the book of Revelations I have ever read. Even though it is so dense with meaning that I had to read practically every sentence five times over to understand it. It was well worth the effort.
I think looking at culture is a way to understand people to better understand how to present the Gospel to them.
True. And many missionaries consider this a pre-evangelism work of the Holy Spirit who has spoken to all peoples long before Christian missionaries arrived. Have you ever read a book called
Eternity in their Hearts? Sorry I have forgotten the author's name. It is a heartwarming story of how missionaries were able to present the gospel to tribespeople of Indonesia and Papua New Guinea, using their own cultural traditions and beliefs. Another along the same line (and written by the same author) is called
Peace Child. This is based on his personal experience of bringing the gospel to a people who honoured duplicity and betrayal and on first hearing the gospel took Judas to be the hero of the story!
I find that rather prideful to say. That shuts out the fact that a creation scientist could ever teach you anything about science. I would bet that a PhD creationist would know more about science than those who arent PhD scientists.
True, but unless their PhD was in biology, they would not necessarily know more about evolution than I do. There are some creation scientists who do have PhDs in biology, but they are relatively few. And some of them are, frankly, dishonest. So are some creation scientists in other fields.
As I said, this is a two way street here. I have seen it said here that some tes post here because of the creationist movements such as AIG and ICR. So, if that is true, is it necessary to attack the yecs or to combat the problem of atheism instead?
It is necessary to do both, since creationism promotes atheism by agreeing with basic atheist assumptions. It is also necessary to combat the dishonesty of many creationist ministries, since such dishonesty besmirches the reputation of all Christians.
Instead of being humble and taking the fight where it ought to be atheists tes have instead focused on yecs here, where many of not all have no affiliation with those institutions but are attacked because of those institutions.
This is the Christians Only section, so naturally the focus is on what we see as the erroneous beliefs of other Christians relative to biblical interpretation and the science of evolution and other related topics. It also happens that very few non-Christian subscribers to the open forum are militant atheists who want to convert people to atheism. And most do not try to insert an atheist interpretation into the theory of evolution. So there is little need to engage them on this topic.
I, personally, never attempt to evangelise over an internet forum, as I believe successful evangelisation is best achieved through face-to-face personal life witness, supplemented where necessary by verbal witness. If non-Christians do not see Christians living the love they preach, no amount of verbal testimony is going to be very convincing.
While it is true that many creationists are not personally affiliated with ICR or AiG, they teach, by and large, what these institutions teach. The arguments they present are the same arguments used by these institutions (or by the Discovery Institute if they take a more ID approach). They may have been taught personally by their pastor or others in their congregation or family or circle of friends, without even knowing of the existence of these ministries. But at some point in the transmission of information, the trail usually leads back to one or both of these institutions or even worse to Kent Hovind's ministry, or other copy-cat groups. It is a good example of the transmission of memes. It is the meme that TEs are interested in attacking, no matter how you personally encountered it.
Philosophy can stand on its own. Science cannot stand without philosophy. Most things cannot stand without philosophy. Philosophy is the reasoning behind what is being said or asserted. Science makes interpretations, those interpretations are philosophical in the way that they rely on logic and reason to make their case.
As noted above, logic and reason are not personal philosophies and are used as tools by all philosophies.
Not all evolution is an observed fact.
But all evidence for evolution is, and much of it cannot be explained in any other way. I notice you did not reply directly to the evidence I cited.
I have not heard of anyone observing a transitional ape-like ancestor to man.
I expect you have heard it many times, but have not accepted the
evidence.
Philosophy is used to give an interpretation of the evidence. It is tested against other interpretations made by scientists. In all reality, it is quite possible that common descent is completely misunderstood by science.
Possible, but highly improbable.
What really strikes me as funny is that many tes do not even give consideration that animals and man were made in much of the same way and obviously would share similar DNA. Man and a rat share 92% similar DNA. Where is the rat on Darwins Tree?
What are you talking about? TEs take it for granted that humans were created by the same process (evolution) as other animals. It is creationists that insist on a separate creation for humanity.
Darwin's tree did not list any species at all. Rats are members of the order Rodentia as humans are members of the order of Primates. Both are mammalian orders which share a common mammalian ancestor that probably lived about 75 million years ago. Of all the mammalian orders, rodents are most closely related to Primates.
My argument was not that philosophy establishes a fact, but it does establish an interpretation, that if accepted by a good argument can become a fact.
A scientific fact requires more than a good argument. It requires evidence that supports the argument.
And Christ is the stumbling block to non-believers.
And what TEs are saying is "Let Christ be the only stumbling block to non-believers. Don't introduce non-essential stumbling blocks like creationism."
I have studied it and the Bible thoroughly. The best way to make both work together is to call Genesis 1-3 a myth and I believe this is not the intended meaning of Genesis that the author wanted the reader to understand.
IOW, your fundamental objection to evolution is not based on an inadequacy of scientific evidence, but on your understanding of scripture. I agree that if it is not acceptable to you to consider any part of the Genesis account a myth, or otherwise non-historical, you cannot reconcile the text with modern science.
That, however, does not make modern science untrue. It simply puts you in the same boat as a post-Copernican geo-centrist, holding on to a version of biblical "truth" that opposes scientific fact.
But that is your problem to wrestle with. It is not a problem with either science or the biblical text, but of how you personally understand them in relation to each other.
In all honestly, Christians should be reading the Bible looking for the authors intended meaning, not for a specific type of writing style. That is why so many have bad interpretations of the Bible.
I couldn't agree more! But writing style can be a clue to intended meaning. When an author uses well-known mythological elements in his writing, it would seem to be probable that he is intentionally writing mythology and intends his work to be interpreted as mythology.
I believe you have clearly laid out your approach to Scripture: because science says evolution and common descent that took billions of years, you are interpreting Genesis based on this.
You realize that is an accusation that I am lying to you. I am not. My basic hermeneutical approach to scripture was set decades before I seriously considered the relationship of scripture to science. It was much more influenced by the literary study of scripture. A key influence was the late Northrope Frye, a teacher of literature at the University of Toronto, a pioneer in the field of literary criticism and a specialist in the relationship of the biblical text to Western literature. He never discusses anything about evolution or science.
In the beginning of the word, God created them male and female. For all mankind came from one man.
These are paraphrases from the Bible, Jesus and Paul. They do require a historical Genesis 1-2.
I disagree.
]Cannot is a choice made. It is a silent refusal.
Nonsense. The difference between "cannot" and "will not" is genuine. You are in error to equate them.
I dont think there are naturalistic explanations for God creating this universe and this earth, just as there are no naturalistic explanations for Jesus turning water into wine, in a mere instant.
That is exactly what I have been saying. If you believe that God
must use supernatural means to create the universe, or the earth or life on earth or human physical life, then you will see the search for natural means by which these things happened as anti-God. But if you leave God free and sovereign to choose his own methods, this dilemma does not arise.
As I said, I have looked at the interpretations of the evidence that conclude common descent and I dont see it being compatible with an author hermeneutic. It can be made to be compatible when one does as you have done, impose your meaning onto the text.
Why would it be compatible with the author's intended meaning? The author had no conception of evolution. And I oppose making changes in the author's intended meaning in order to insert modern science into the biblical text---a fault I often see committed by creationists. And by TEs as well.
I would think the best way to get to know God is through the Bible and prayer, not science. Through the Bible one can learn how God works, His methods. Science again, says nothing of Gods methods, but rather dogmatically asserts naturalistic methods.
Indeed, one is far more likely to get to know God through the scriptures, and prayer, and listening to the testimony of the Holy Spirit. But scripture itself testifies, as do many who study science, that contemplation of nature is also conducive to knowing God. In your last sentence, you are back to denying that God may have chosen naturalistic methods.
Whether one wants to accept it or not, the beginning of all things was a supernatural event, not a naturalistic event.
That is your basic personal assumption. I don't consider it to have theological or biblical support. I can understand that since you take this position, you cannot be reconciled to the scientific quest for possible natural means of creation. For you, since creation must be super-natural, the scientific quest for a natural means of creation is necessarily blasphemous.
I do not share your basic assumption. I consider it theologically arrogant to prescribe what type of means God must have used.
Hence, the conclusion of my argument that without the steps and processes evolution would not be.
True, but that is not what you originally said.