Common ground Creationists and Atheists "can" agree with - without too much effort

[childeye 2]

That first statement is Bob's, trying to compare faith in God with what he calls "faith" in a natural process.

The second is a clarification from another poster that acceptance of the existence of a natural process is based on empirical evidence and is not the same as faith in God.

Yes I know. But in the qualifying of one 'faith', that faith, is not needed to accept evolution only evidence, which implies faith is necessary to accept God without evidence, which qualifies 'faith' as superstition believing God exists without evidence, which is different than the biblical faith that counts God as trustworthy in Character of Person, particularly when Christ is evidence of God's Trustworthiness. Hence faith according to scripture comes by hearing the Gospel.

 

[Larniavc]

Respectfully I'm just taking issue with your application of the term 'faith'. Faith is not 'superstition'.

It can be. Faith in touching wood to ward off bad luck is certainly superstition.

Any excessive belief in the supernatural is a superstition.

 

[Larniavc]

which is different than the biblical faith that counts God as trustworthy in Character of Person, particularly when Christ is evidence of God's Trustworthiness. Hence faith according to scripture comes by hearing the Gospel.

I think it is more accurate to that Biblical faith is faith in what the Bible claims to be and represent.

 

[childeye 2]

It can be. Faith in touching wood to ward off bad luck is certainly superstition.

Any excessive belief in the supernatural is a superstition.

'Fear' of bad luck is superstition to begin with, having nothing to do with Faith. Faith must directly or indirectly be pointed at Thee God as a positive because God is the ultimate positive that all that is negative usurps from. Which is why propaganda is all about changing negatives to positives and positives to negatives.

 

[Larniavc]

'Fear' of bad luck is superstition to begin with, having nothing to do with Faith. Faith must directly or indirectly be pointed at Thee God as a positive because God is the ultimate positive that the negative usurps from. Which is why propaganda is all about changing negatives to positives and positives to negatives.

Faith is not restricted to God. People have complete trust or confidence in a great many things.

How is fear of bad luck and then activating a stereotypical behaviour any different from fear of hell then activating a stereotypical behaviour such as praying or going to church?

 

[driewerf]

'If' evolution is meant to imply that there's no God it's unfaith.

The equivocation of the ToE with attacks on god is made very often on this board. This is baseless. The ToE (or any science for that matter) is mute about the existence of god(s). Since it pops up on a regular basis, I found a few very recent posts where this was said quite explicitely:
Why do people believe in evolution?
Why do people believe in evolution?
What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

 

[childeye 2]

I think it is more accurate to that Biblical faith is faith in what the Bible claims to be and represent.

When we recognize that scripture identifies God as empathy/Love in a spiritual introspect of that which powers goodness in mankind, then we can't say scripture invented empathy.

 

[Larniavc]

When we recognize that scripture identifies God as empathy/Love in a spiritual introspect of that which powers goodness in mankind, then we can't say scripture invented empathy.

Scriptures claims that yes. But it has not substantiated that claim.

 

[childeye 2]

The equivocation of the ToE with attacks on god is made very often on this board. This is baseless. The ToE (or any science for that matter) is mute about the existence of god(s). Since it pops up on a regular basis, I found a few very recent posts where this was said quite explicitely:
Why do people believe in evolution?
Why do people believe in evolution?
What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

If I understand you correctly as pertains to the equivocation, that's a fair point. But the term faith in scripture is not an equivocation.

 

[childeye 2]

Scriptures claims that yes. But it has not substantiated that claim.

It's self evident that worship of self is where empathy/Love becomes vain and corruptible in the creature.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Respectfully I'm just taking issue with your application of the term 'faith'. Faith is not 'superstition'.

Where did I imply that faith was superstition? My problem with faith is that it is not a pathway to the truth. All religions have essentially the same faith. They have beliefs that they cannot support with evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If I understand you correctly as pertains to the equivocation, that's a fair point. But the term faith in scripture is not an equivocation.

At best the term faith in scripture is mistranslated. The meaning that Christians use today is no different than that of other faiths. All religions are faith based. Perhaps you might want to look at the verse that use "faith" and see if there is a better term.

 

[childeye 2]

Faith is not restricted to God. People have complete trust or confidence in a great many things.

In scripture faith is pointed at God and God is empathy/Love.

How is fear of bad luck and then activating a stereotypical behaviour any different from fear of hell then activating a stereotypical behaviour such as praying or going to church?

I don't imagine Satan is unlucky.

 

[childeye 2]

Where did I imply that faith was superstition? My problem with faith is that it is not a pathway to the truth.

In my view, you ask the question, and then you answer it. When I learn something true, I have faith in that there is a Truth to learn. The same cannot be said about superstition. When you mean superstition you should use the term superstition and not faith.

All religions have essentially the same faith. They have beliefs that they cannot support with evidence.

It serves only to obfuscate when we conflate God with religion and faith with superstition.

 

[childeye 2]

At best the term faith in scripture is mistranslated.

Respectfully, this is not a reasonable assertion.

The meaning that Christians use today is no different than that of other faiths. All religions are faith based. Perhaps you might want to look at the verse that use "faith" and see if there is a better term.

I agree that many/most Christians misinterpret the term faith when not drawing any distinction from superstition and/or unfaith. The term faith when understood properly is perfect in that it denotes the Power that brought forth all things as trustworthy.

 

[BobRyan]

Where did I imply that faith was superstition? My problem with faith is that it is not a pathway to the truth.

The person that knows nothing about aerodynamics and "Gets on the plane anyway" is on the right path to truth.

 

[BobRyan]

Sure, but the term faith is not the sentiment of superstition and shouldn't be presented as such.

true.

The person that knows nothing about aerodynamics and "Gets on the plane anyway" is on the right path to truth.

 

[BobRyan]

I don't believe anyone is doing it intentionally. I simply notice:
"Some will say that one group has faith in the ability of the infinite Being...And Creationist will say that there are others who have faith in the talented rock.

Either way - it is faith".

Now I notice a contradiction: "Faith is not needed to accept evolution. Only evidence".

The term faith changes meaning when referring to being placed in a Person as opposed to a thing, and also when referring to existence as opposed to trustworthiness of Character. You can't have biblical faith in a Person if you don't believe they exist. In the qualification that faith is not needed to accept evolution only evidence, then it implies faith is necessary to accept God without evidence, which qualifies faith as believing God exists without evidence, which is different than the faith that counts God as trustworthy in Character of Person, particularly when Christ is evidence of God's Trustworthiness.

ok understood.

But notice this in Heb 11

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen"

Evolutionists often are found to "hope" that evolution is true in that it will be able to plug in all the holes in its proposal.

For example take this post

Because we see bacteria turn into horses all the time?

As Dawkins admitted - evolution is observable -- it just never happens while we are observing.

So we "observe" that it never happens while we are observing.

================================
As Dawkins pointed out "Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening."

‘Battle over evolution’ Bill Moyers interviews Richard Dawkins, Now, 3 December 2004, PBS network

==========================

How does that differ from:


Child: “It has been observed that the Tooth fairy gave me this dollar.”
Adult: Really can we hide and watch him bring you the next dollar?
Child: “no you can never see it happen it does not happen while you are observing – but I say it has been observed anyway. ”

Suppose the day ever did come when Dawkins could finally say "we were observing last Tuesday and whoops! right there in front of us - evolution was observed to happen! what a great day that was".

But for now - even he had to admit "It’s just that it (evolution) hasn’t been observed while it’s (while evolution is) happening."

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

As Dawkins admitted - evolution is observable -- it just never happens while we are observing.

Interesting. What do you think the new Covid19 strain is that let’s it spread more easily if not evolution ?

Which we have now observed.

 

[klutedavid]

Some will say that one group has faith in the ability of the infinite Being...

And Creationist will say that there are others who have faith in the talented rock.

Either way - it is faith. -- but they both have the same "barren Earth" start point and the same "present day" -- end point.

================= BTW --

Finding out that legal code is not something that the Bible presents as fable or fiction is left as an exercise for the reader. A lot of serious Bible students found that out a long time ago.

Even atheists figured it out - as world class professors of Hebrew and OT studies point out for the genesis account. (much less trying to inject fiction as a form of Bible "legal code")


Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:


‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:

(a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience

(b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story

(c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.

Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’
=================================== end quote

Was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, a real tree or an allegorical tree?

If you answer that the tree of good and evil was a real tree with real edible fruit. Then you hold to a literal interpretation. If you see that tree as Christ Himself, then you support an allegorical interpretation. The choice is yours.