Can anything change your mind?

[Vance]

Yes, I agree with both of your options, if by "understandable" you mean "convincing to someone willing to hear the evidence objectively". And, of course, assuming that the correction was, indeed, correct. As in my example, the creationist position has been explained to me many times, I just don't find it convincing. If we assume that we are talking about a correct position, then yes, I would think your two options are the only ones.

 

[Dannager]

Yes, I agree with both of your options, if by "understandable" you mean "convincing to someone willing to hear the evidence objectively". And, of course, assuming that the correction was, indeed, correct. As in my example, the creationist position has been explained to me many times, I just don't find it convincing. If we assume that we are talking about a correct position, then yes, I would think your two options are the only ones.

Yes, the underlying assumption is that the correction is true to begin with.

 

[busterdog]

Busterdog and Vossler,

I think you are both honest and committed and not at all like some of the creationist yahoo's we seeing doing serious damage to Christianity over in the Creation and Evolution forum. You are convinced that the way you read Scripture is the correct way to read it, and that way entirely contradicts what modern science is saying.

I don't know that I am doing a better job that AIG or people like that, with whom I sometimes disagree. In fact, I would presume not. However, I think some folks here have done a good job in being clear about the value of a literal word.

What I would suggest is that you consider that we are not talking about pitting God's Word up against Man's Science (a battle we would ALL agree that God's Word wins, hands down). No, the battle is between fallible Man's interpretation of God's Word up against fallible Man's interpretation of God's Nature. Either of these could be wrong, and that truth must be the starting point for any true analysis.

I appreciate what you are saying. However, I will disagree in part. Disagreeing with you, I will at the same time address my alter ego that lives inside of my head at times and tells me to compromise on a host of issues, like giving, day-to-day trust, etc.

If you look at modern religion, particularly with evangelicals, we talk incessantly about Jesus coming back. Well, that certainly begs a big question about what it is that we would do in his presence. Do we act like we want him back? Considering that we are already promised the presence of the Lord and the Holy Spirit, does it not seem that we are operating at what is perhaps an unnecessary deficit?

At some point it seems perfectly logical that the presence of the Christ is sufficient for where we are. We routinely miss this obvious point.

2Cr 12:9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

Jhn 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Now, I may not avail myself of the presence as I should. Clearly. But, when you question the sufficiency of a literal Word, it seems to me that you are questioning the sufficiency of the Lord's presence. What this Word means is that he meets us and is sufficient for us. I certainly see questioning whether we are doing with that, but I cannot question whether this Word is sufficient. I am sure I am making errors with the Word, but the literal, surface text is there for us, for our needs and deficits. He has come all the way. I dare not reject Him, even if my faith is only as the size of a mustard seed.

Yes, there is a place for hermeneutics and theologians. Often, however, it is to fix men's mistakes, not explain the literal Word. This is part of your confusion, that other function of theologian, dealing with human mistakes. It really only begs the question about whether the basics are just right there, clear as day, in the Word. That is what I see.

With geocentrism, it turned out that it was the fallible human interpretation of Scripture that was wrong, and the fallible view of Nature (science) which was correct. And, so we all just adjusted our view of how a number of Scriptures should be read and went on our merry way, with no damage to Christian thinking at all.

He also corrected Jerusalem with seige engines and tyrants. That didn't make the tyrants theologically accurate. I have seen the argument that science fixed theology. I buy that only in part. Not everyone was deceived. I am sure it happens. God restored national Israel into the hands of secular, nonbelieving Jews as well.

But, Busterdog, one thing you said was telling. You said that you think it is courageous to refuse to submit to consensus. There are a couple of things I would ask about this:

1. What is the consensus view in your church? Your denomination? Is it courageous to submit to that consensus?

2. Do you think it was courageous for the Christians to dig in their heels at the concept of heliocentrism? If so, at what point did that courage become prideful stubbornness?

My Church is probably a split decision in favor of YEC. It will shortly leave the denomination over its nonbiblical view of sexual matters and the authority of the literal word. (See New Wineskins movement of Presby Church) Most cosmology issues don't take courage for the laity like me. Quitting a denomination (PCUSA) will. Other applications of the literal Word will.

Geocentrism is not a Biblical concept, nor is the flat earth. Probably this is not the place to get into that.

 

[Vance]

OK, I think I see where the heart of the issue lies for you, and that is with the concept that a literal reading should somehow be the "default" reading, and that if we stray from that, it is a trust issue, or a "moving away from what God said" issue. You see a "literal" Scripture as a "sufficient" Scripture.

But, this does beg the question of whether the literal reading IS the place God wants us to start. You see literal as "basic, plain and straightforward" and anything else as interpretive, nuanced and unsure.

What I am suggesting (and all of those Christians who accept evolution are suggesting) is that God would never intend for us to start with a literal reading as some type of default for every text. We should take each text on its own and determine, among all the various literary genres, which was the intended style. It gets very dangerous to assume literalness on texts written at a time when NO such texts were written using literal historical styles.

It is not a matter of whether the literal is sufficient, so we can just stick with that. I could say that we have the true message from Genesis 1 and 2 whether we read it in one genre or another, and THAT is sufficient, and we need not be dogmatic about the genre. And, with that in mind, knowing that the essential and "sufficient" truths are in place either way, those who are interested in the relatively unimportant aspects of exactly HOW and WHEN God did His creative work can gather up all the evidence from both science and Scripture and see which way it all points. But that is really a side issue, ultimately.

And, yes, I agree that geocentrism and a flat earth were not Biblical concepts. But, what is important is that every Christian who read Scripture at that time assumed that it was, based on their over-literal interpretation. And, we know they were wrong and we now read those texts less literally and realize that goecentrism and a flat earth are not strictly taught in Scripture. And, I think in 100 years, every Christian will look back on this current controversy and say the same thing: that a young earth and special creation were not strictly taught by Scripture.

 

[shernren]

But, when you question the sufficiency of a literal Word, it seems to me that you are questioning the sufficiency of the Lord's presence.

And why should a literal approach to the Bible be equated with the Lord's presence? Plenty of people who trust the Lord daily approach the Bible figuratively. Plenty of atheists approach the Bible literally and mock the many errors they perceive; are they, too, "trusting the Lord"?

Geocentrism is not a Biblical concept, nor is the flat earth. Probably this is not the place to get into that.

Let's leave the flat earth aside, I agree that this certainly was never a mainstream view within Christianity.

But you have to recognize that geocentrism, through its long intellectual history, was constantly supported by Biblical references (even among anti-Aristotelians), and was never dethronend by Biblical references alone. And yet you say that it is not a Biblical concept. I have shown you time and time again that the Bible alone does not contain sufficient resources to reject geocentrism.

Therefore, even should I admit that the Bible alone does not contain sufficient resources to reject YECism (which I don't), or that YECism is constantly supported by Biblical references (which I do), I have every right to declare YECism unbiblical, by the same rights that you have to declare geocentrism unbiblical under the exact same circumstances. And if I believe that YECism is not Biblical, and you are not able to convince me otherwise, you will not begrudge me the view that I should not hold it as a Christian, will you?

 

[Vance]

What is odd is hearing modern-day geocentrists talk about their fellow YEC creationists. They use exactly the same arguments against them that the YEC's use against the TE's. Trusting Man's science over God's Word, compromising with the atheistic world. Being taken in by mere scientific propositions that have not been proven, etc. It is very deja vu.

 

[busterdog]

What is odd is hearing modern-day geocentrists talk about their fellow YEC creationists. They use exactly the same arguments against them that the YEC's use against the TE's. Trusting Man's science over God's Word, compromising with the atheistic world. Being taken in by mere scientific propositions that have not been proven, etc. It is very deja vu.

Richard Dawkins thinks you are a fool. I think that is irrelevant.

 

[busterdog]

And why should a literal approach to the Bible be equated with the Lord's presence? Plenty of people who trust the Lord daily approach the Bible figuratively. Plenty of atheists approach the Bible literally and mock the many errors they perceive; are they, too, "trusting the Lord"?

That is entirely another study. It seems clear enough that everyone could use "more" of the presence. Probably quite a lot.

Let's leave the flat earth aside, I agree that this certainly was never a mainstream view within Christianity.

Wow. Good.

But you have to recognize that geocentrism, through its long intellectual history, was constantly supported by Biblical references (even among anti-Aristotelians), and was never dethronend by Biblical references alone. And yet you say that it is not a Biblical concept. I have shown you time and time again that the Bible alone does not contain sufficient resources to reject geocentrism.

I think I agree with that.

Therefore, even should I admit that the Bible alone does not contain sufficient resources to reject YECism (which I don't), or that YECism is constantly supported by Biblical references (which I do), I have every right to declare YECism unbiblical, by the same rights that you have to declare geocentrism unbiblical under the exact same circumstances. And if I believe that YECism is not Biblical, and you are not able to convince me otherwise, you will not begrudge me the view that I should not hold it as a Christian, will you?

I think my job is to do as the Lord does and meet you with grace. Would I begrudge it? I guess. But, its not as if I am asking that you be kicked out of CF as a nonChristian. We're all just talking here, right? I have more pleasure in your salvation than disappointment that you reject the literal word.

 

[Vance]

And that is a healthy attitude. And, we are here, as Christians together, to discuss and even debate the various potential positions we can take as Christians and how that impacts the Christian Faith, if at all. I, personally, do think there are significant dangers involved. Not in taking one position over another individually, since it is not a salvation issue. But, I think that the danger comes when the position is presented to the world at large, as I describe in my post here:

http://christianforums.com/t6905876-the-danger-of-creationism-why-i-post.html

 

[Ben12]

God's Word is progressive; Overcomers change, traditionalist cannot change; their god is their tradition.

The word repent means to change your mind; that does not mean only one time.

 

[vossler]

You are convinced that the way you read Scripture is the correct way to read it, and that way entirely contradicts what modern science is saying.

I think some of the modern approachs to science (speculation and conjecture) contradict Scripture and should therefore not be legitimately considered. Real science never contradicts Scripture.

What I would suggest is that you consider that we are not talking about pitting God's Word up against Man's Science (a battle we would ALL agree that God's Word wins, hands down).

I'm glad to hear that, but I don't believe this is nearly as universal as you imply.

No, the battle is between fallible Man's interpretation of God's Word up against fallible Man's interpretation of God's Nature. Either of these could be wrong, and that truth must be the starting point for any true analysis.

See, I have a serious problem with this premise. Why should God's Word be held up against anything other than God's Word? I believe the only time God's Word can only be reinterpreted is when the Word itself allows it. In other words, there has to be sufficient evidence within Scripture itself to allow for an extra-biblical interpretation.

With geocentrism, it turned out that it was the fallible human interpretation of Scripture that was wrong, and the fallible view of Nature (science) which was correct. And, so we all just adjusted our view of how a number of Scriptures should be read and went on our merry way, with no damage to Christian thinking at all.

True, but this meant nothing to most people. My life isn't any different knowing we live in a heliocentric system.

Everything would be different if we lived in a world that was governed by evolution.

 

[gluadys]

I think some of the modern approachs to science (speculation and conjecture) contradict Scripture and should therefore not be legitimately considered.

All science involves speculation, but also tests speculation against evidence. Do you remember that you were unable to identify illegitimate speculation in reference to transitional fossils when we discussed this earlier?

Everything would be different if we lived in a world that was governed by evolution.

Actually, if evolution is true, nothing would be different than it is.

 

[vossler]

All science involves speculation, but also tests speculation against evidence. Do you remember that you were unable to identify illegitimate speculation in reference to transitional fossils when we discussed this earlier?

These may have been illegitimate speculation to you, but for me it is very legitimate.

Actually, if evolution is true, nothing would be different than it is.

Nothing is different than it is because evolution isn't true. The world hasn't changed one iota since the theory of evolution came out. The only thing that changed were many peoples view of the world.

 

[gluadys]

These may have been illegitimate speculation to you, but for me it is very legitimate.

It was you who disputed what you called "speculation", but when I showed you actual examples, you could not identify them as speculation, or at least not as untestable and untested speculation.

Nothing is different than it is because evolution isn't true. The world hasn't changed one iota since the theory of evolution came out.
The only thing that changed were many peoples view of the world.

The world hasn't changed on iota since the theory of heliocentrism came out either. That is because heliocentrism was always true, long before it was theorized. Heliocentricty changed our view, but the theory did not change the reality.

Same with evolution. It takes the theory to change our view. But if evolution is true, it was always true, so it doesn't change the world one iota.

 

[vossler]

It was you who disputed what you called "speculation", but when I showed you actual examples, you could not identify them as speculation, or at least not as untestable and untested speculation.

I don't recall a single example that in any way passed the smell test (in other words can be proven empirically) for me.

The world hasn't changed on iota since the theory of heliocentrism came out either. That is because heliocentrism was always true, long before it was theorized. Heliocentricty changed our view, but the theory did not change the reality.

Same with evolution. It takes the theory to change our view. But if evolution is true, it was always true, so it doesn't change the world one iota.

You're right about one thing, heliocentricism didn't change our world one iota. The thing to remember in the whole geo vs. helio debate, it never really mattered which one was right. Neither contradicts any doctrines or teachings of the Bible. The same can't be said for evolution.

 

[gluadys]

I don't recall a single example that in any way passed the smell test (in other words can be proven empirically) for me.

It was a while ago and I did not save the thread, but you agreed that many things were empirical such as fossils, the measurements taken of fossils, the intermediate characteristics of fossils, etc.

The same can't be said for evolution.

This is where we disagree. I do say that evolution does not contradict any doctrines or teachings of the Bible.

 

[vossler]

It was a while ago and I did not save the thread, but you agreed that many things were empirical such as fossils, the measurements taken of fossils, the intermediate characteristics of fossils, etc.

If I remember correctly, I didn't have a problem with the fossils or measurements, just the conjecture and speculation used to formulate or support evolution.

This is where we disagree. I do say that evolution does not contradict any doctrines or teachings of the Bible.

I know.

 

[gluadys]

If I remember correctly, I didn't have a problem with the fossils or measurements, just the conjecture and speculation used to formulate or support evolution.

And that is still a meaningless statement unless you can point to what is conjecture and speculation.

"comjecture and speculation" is just a mantra until you show which scientific hypotheses have been accepted without observation and testing.

 

[vossler]

"comjecture and speculation" is just a mantra until you show which scientific hypotheses have been accepted without observation and testing.

It is my mantra for anything that calls itself 'science' and bases it's findings on conjecture and speculation. I will not have God's Word called into question using the modern definition of science that allows far too many things to be brought under its umbrella. Pure empirical science is built on self evident truths that can be repeatedly tested. The results of which are not ever called into question. This is in many ways similar to mathmatics.

Evolution isn't even remotely repeatable, practical or even definitive, hence my mantra of it being based on conjecture and speculation. On top of all that, it doesn't even come close to passes the smell test.

 

[Dannager]

Evolution isn't even remotely repeatable

"Repeatability" - in the sense you talk about it - is not a requirement of science!

Science requires that you be able to make predictions and make findings that test these predictions. It does not require you to physically repeat the "event", whatever you might decide that to be. You simply must be able to test the predictions made by the theory. In evolution, that is done by making new discoveries (either in genetics or the fossil record, usually) that the predictions can be tested against. This happens all the time.

No, we can't repeat the entire, monstrously long and mammoth in scope process of evolutionary history. That would be a ridiculous undertaking. We can continue to make findings to test against the theory, however. That is what science requires.

Beyond this misconception of yours, evolution is also both practical and definitive. I will wait until you point to exactly how you feel it is not practical or definitive before refuting it.