As Christians....

[Jase]

Can't a person say that because Scripture (as a whole) aligns with ones interpretation and other interpretations have little to no support from within Scripture, that those interpretations are false? If not, then we are, as I've said, our own gods.

No, because you don't know that your interpretation is accurate within scripture. You're reading a translated piece of a text. How can you be so sure yours is right, and everyone elses is wrong?

 

[vossler]

No, because you don't know that your interpretation is accurate within scripture. You're reading a translated piece of a text. How can you be so sure yours is right, and everyone elses is wrong?

I can feel that way when the other interpretation has no basis within Scripture. If not, then like I said we're all our own gods.

 

[RightWingGirl]

Or, another thought, as long as YECists say they can't accept Christ without a literal Genesis, He has no intention of driving Christians who aren't ready away from Himself.

Do you mean that God might have put Genesis 1-7 there for YECists?

 

[seebs]

Do you mean that God might have put Genesis 1-7 there for YECists?

No.

Just that, if you can't find a reason to believe without the text being literal, there's no reason to drive you away by trying to prove that it can't be literal.

For people who have found another view of the text, it's not particularly harmful, but every year, a fair number of people abandon the faith entirely because they put literalism above God; they couldn't accept God without literalism.

 

[Pats]

Took the words right outta my mouth, Seebs.

Do you mean that God might have put Genesis 1-7 there for YECists?

um... no.

I am saying, as Seebs explained, that perhaps Origins, while important, is not a top priority of the Holy Spirit.

The original comment was in answer to the question of why the Holy Spirit doesn't make clearer if the TE view of the Creationist view is more accurate.

I don't think the Holy Spirit endevours to endow us with God like knowledge. His main purpose is to draw us to Christ, and reveal to us the reality of God.

I am also trying to make a point that I would rather see some one be YEC than non Christian. Like wise, I felt the same way about TEs when I was YEC.

 

[RightWingGirl]

every year, a fair number of people abandon the faith entirely because they put literalism above God; they couldn't accept God without literalism.

In other words, they are literalist Christians, so they believe in YEC, but being convinced that ToE is true they leave Christianity?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

In other words, they are literalist Christians, so they believe in YEC, but being convinced that ToE is true they leave Christianity?


There are a number of deconversion stories on the net.
see:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm#pers

there are a number of outspoken people with stories at:
http://winace.andkon.com/links.htm

the skeptical review has a list at:
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/tsr/list.html

infidels maintains a list at:
http://www.infidels.org/electronic/email/ex-tian/stories.html

and of course there is Ed B who has made this his life's work:
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/skepticism/converts.html

fundamentalism is brittle with respect to knowledge, knowledge of church history, knowledge of science, YECism is part of this worldview, but it is not the only piece that becomes the wedge that people deconvert over.

The most common thread appears to be the age of the earth for those with science studies, the problem of evil, of theodicy naturally is very high on the list of problems that push people out of the church.

 

[The Lady Kate]

In other words, they are literalist Christians, so they believe in YEC, but being convinced that ToE is true they leave Christianity?


There are a number of deconversion stories on the net.
see:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm#pers

there are a number of outspoken people with stories at:
http://winace.andkon.com/links.htm

the skeptical review has a list at:
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/tsr/list.html

infidels maintains a list at:
http://www.infidels.org/electronic/email/ex-tian/stories.html

and of course there is Ed B who has made this his life's work:
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/skepticism/converts.html

fundamentalism is brittle with respect to knowledge, knowledge of church history, knowledge of science, YECism is part of this worldview, but it is not the only piece that becomes the wedge that people deconvert over.

The most common thread appears to be the age of the earth for those with science studies, the problem of evil, of theodicy naturally is very high on the list of problems that push people out of the church.

Furthermore... how many people have we met on this board who said they world reject the Bible (and by extention, the Faith) if they thought evolution was true?

 

[RightWingGirl]

The most common thread appears to be the age of the earth for those with science studies, the problem of evil, of theodicy naturally is very high on the list of problems that push people out of the church.

Furthermore... how many people have we met on this board who said they world reject the Bible (and by extention, the Faith) if they thought evolution was true?

I have seen this myself. People become evolutionists, and soon after, atheists.

 

[RightWingGirl]

Off topic-----Jace, I noticed your picture of the film Phantom of the Opera. Would you mind answering a really weird question? I have a friend who is a seamstress, and she makes reproduction dresses from movies and history. She just made the "Think Of Me" dress.

She was asking me what dress I liked best from Phantom of the Opera--I think she's trying to find out the most popular dress because it'll sell best--and she wanted me to ask any fans of that film I knew. So...... which of Christine's dresses was your favorite?
----Back on topic

 

[The Lady Kate]

I have seen this myself. People become evolutionists, and soon after, atheists.

Sadly, that's to be expected when they base their faith on YEC "science" and the people who promote it... learning the facts can be too much of a shock to the system.

 

[gluadys]

I have seen this myself. People become evolutionists, and soon after, atheists.

And in most cases they were originally YEC. Since TEs already accept evolution, they have no motivation to gravitate to atheism over evolution.


Some may become atheists for other reasons, as some YECs may also become atheists for other reasons unrelated to science.

It seems that the more accepting a Christian is of science, the less likely they are to become atheist over questions of the age of the earth, the possibility of abiogenesis and the relationship of humanity to other apes.

 

[RightWingGirl]

When a person becomes YEC, I have never heard of them then becoming an atheist while still YEC.

When a person becomes an evolutionist, they often then become an atheist.

So the change that makes them become atheists is a change from YEC to ToE, (not Toe to YEC) It appears that ToE is more damaging to the Christian faith than I thought, if it can cause so many people to fall away as you say.



In my opinion this is because Atheism is the logical conclusion of ToE, and Christianity is the logical conclusion to YEC.

 

[RightWingGirl]

If you came upon a truck with a crumpled bumper, crunched tightly against a cement barrier, you could easily deduce that the crumpled bumper was the result of the truck hitting into the barrier at high speeds. Even if you were not familiar with automobiles or cement barriers, you could assess your “hypothesis” by controlled tests, and you would find that if a truck were driven at high speed into a cement barrier a crunched bumper, (at the very least), would result. Without having ever observed the actual accident, you could reasonably find the cause of the crunched bumper, and you can further show your theory to be highly probable and logical through tests.


Let us say a hypothetical person found the same truck in a parking lot, with the same large crunch, of no recognizable size or shape, in the bumper. Suppose that all of the trucks in the area were inoperative, and there were no cement barriers nearby so that tests could not be performed. This person formulated a theory that the crunch in the bumper of the truck was the result of smashing into a "Hynod". A Hynod might, or might not be a physical object, but at any rate had never actually been seen. The truck itself could be examined, and tested, but examining the theoretical Hynod was impossible. Would the theory that a Hynod caused the crunched bumper be a scientific theory? The thought of the theory being called scientific is ridiculous. The event could not be replicated, having no running automobiles. The theory could not be tested in any way. The result has been removed from the cause, and the cause is unseen. On what could a person base their conclusion that the truck ran into a Hynod, other than conjecture? Because of a lack of information and a surplus of surmise, the theory could not be scientific. One might argue that the crunch was evidence of the Hynod, but the crunch could have come about in any number of ways.

The "Hynodic theory" would be unscientific because we could not examine, test, or observe it in any way--is this true?

 

[Marshall Janzen]

When a person becomes YEC, I have never heard of them then becoming an atheist while still YEC.

Similarly, when a person becomes a TE, I have never heard of them then becoming an atheist while still TE. This is because both YEC and TE viewpoints include a belief in God who is the Creator, so they are incompatible with atheism.

 

[gluadys]

If you came upon a truck with a crumpled bumper, crunched tightly against a cement barrier, you could easily deduce that the crumpled bumper was the result of the truck hitting into the barrier at high speeds. Even if you were not familiar with automobiles or cement barriers, you could assess your “hypothesis” by controlled tests, and you would find that if a truck were driven at high speed into a cement barrier a crunched bumper, (at the very least), would result. Without having ever observed the actual accident, you could reasonably find the cause of the crunched bumper, and you can further show your theory to be highly probable and logical through tests.


Let us say a hypothetical person found the same truck in a parking lot, with the same large crunch, of no recognizable size or shape, in the bumper. Suppose that all of the trucks in the area were inoperative, and there were no cement barriers nearby so that tests could not be performed. This person formulated a theory that the crunch in the bumper of the truck was the result of smashing into a "Hynod". A Hynod might, or might not be a physical object, but at any rate had never actually been seen. The truck itself could be examined, and tested, but examining the theoretical Hynod was impossible. Would the theory that a Hynod caused the crunched bumper be a scientific theory? The thought of the theory being called scientific is ridiculous. The event could not be replicated, having no running automobiles. The theory could not be tested in any way. The result has been removed from the cause, and the cause is unseen. On what could a person base their conclusion that the truck ran into a Hynod, other than conjecture? Because of a lack of information and a surplus of surmise, the theory could not be scientific. One might argue that the crunch was evidence of the Hynod, but the crunch could have come about in any number of ways.

The "Hynodic theory" would be unscientific because we could not examine, test, or observe it in any way--is this true?

If you are trying to say that the Hynod theory is analogous to the Theory of Evolution, you are incorrect. The first example you gave is much more like the Theory of Evolution, since we are able to test the mechanisms of evolution and all of them have been observed to operate as theorized.

 

[Assyrian]

Think of a group of Christians living down by a pair of long metal tracks. Now some of the Christians are called Createdtracks who believe the tracks were made by God on the third day of Creation. The others are called Theistic Engineers who think the tracks were made by people, though they agree God made the people.

The TEs also believe on other things like freight trains, which the Createdtracks reject because they are not in the bible. The Createdtracks think it is very dangerous to believe in freight trains because their friends who were killed on the lines all came to believe in freight trains before they died...

 

[RightWingGirl]

The first example you gave is much more like the Theory of Evolution, since we are able to test the mechanisms of evolution and all of them have been observed to operate as theorized.

For example?

 

[RightWingGirl]

Think of a group of Christians living down by a pair of long metal tracks. Now some of the Christians are called Createdtracks who believe the tracks were made by God on the third day of Creation. The others are called Theistic Engineers who think the tracks were made by people, though they agree God made the people.

The TEs also believe on other things like freight trains, which the Createdtracks reject because they are not in the bible. The Createdtracks think it is very dangerous to believe in freight trains because their friends who were killed on the lines all came to believe in freight trains before they died...

I can see freight trains, and railroad tacks being made. Where can I see an ape evolve into a human? Or a dino into a chicken?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I can see freight trains, and railroad tacks being made. Where can I see an ape evolve into a human? Or a dino into a chicken?

nope, and to do so would falsify TofE.
populations evolve not individuals.
parents and offspring are always the same species. (some plants excepted)
so you will never see an ape evolve into a human.
in fact, you will never see any individual organism evolve.
you will never see an ape give birth to a human.
these are all YECist strawmen arising from a misunderstanding of what evolution really is.