Framework for an "Intro to TE" thread

[shernren]

I'm interested to get an "Introduction to TEism" thread going in Origins. But I'm hoping for some feedback from you all...

1. Any snazzy titles for it? Profound, comedic, short-and-sweet, whatever. I was thinking "TE for dummies" but that is completely cliched. (Plus, isn't it psychologically damaging for a reader to have to identify with a "dummy" before reading something? )

2. My framework is going to go something like this:

- Revelation and the role of scripture and science in revealing God
- The nature of science (against God of the gaps)
- The atheist hijacking
- Answering creationists

each point is going to have multiple posts. Anything to add? In particular it seems queer to me how in discussing theistic evolution, so little thought needs to go to evolution itself!

 

[chaoschristian]

I'm interested to get an "Introduction to TEism" thread going in Origins. But I'm hoping for some feedback from you all...

1. Any snazzy titles for it? Profound, comedic, short-and-sweet, whatever. I was thinking "TE for dummies" but that is completely cliched. (Plus, isn't it psychologically damaging for a reader to have to identify with a "dummy" before reading something? )

How about "From Atoms to Adam: A Philosophical Journey through the Landscape of Christian Theistic Evolutionary Theology"

2. My framework is going to go something like this:

- Revelation and the role of scripture and science in revealing God
- The nature of science (against God of the gaps)
- The atheist hijacking
- Answering creationists

each point is going to have multiple posts. Anything to add? In particular it seems queer to me how in discussing theistic evolution, so little thought needs to go to evolution itself!

I think you have the right things in the right order.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

- Revelation and the role of scripture and science in revealing God

I wrote an essay on that here. Feel free to use any points from it that seem applicable!

 

[Willtor]

Yeah, it looks like a good outline. I don't think most creationists really need the theory, itself, to be presented to them. I think the main hurdle is the theological underpinnings of contra-scientific ideas about nature. I think this outline looks pretty solid.

The problem I foresee is that it is not a simple matter, but if the content of the thread becomes too complex (in any way) it's going to go right over peoples' heads. My suggestion is, like all great communicators, make analogies and tell a story with it. Will's 2 cents.

 

[shernren]

Yes, my problem has always been to think in terms of abstractions, simply because that is how I perceive the whole issue. Hmm. I'll get down to starting it up (hehe) within the next few days.

 

[Willtor]

Yes, my problem has always been to think in terms of abstractions, simply because that is how I perceive the whole issue. Hmm. I'll get down to starting it up (hehe) within the next few days.

I do the same thing, and even though people tell me I write fairly lucidly, I'm still a technical writer. That's good in certain contexts, but it's bad in others.

 

[jereth]

How about: Top 10 things they don't tell you about TEism

1. TEists believe God created everything
2. TEists believe that God was totally active in creating everything
3. TEists believe God teaches the infallible, authoritative truth in Genesis
4. TEists believe that creation was "very good" at the beginning and corrupted by the sin of man
5. TEists believe that life was designed by God
6. 95+ % of TEists believe in the resurrection of Jesus (based on poll)
7. TEists love Jesus, read the Bible, pray for unbelievers and labour for the kingdom of God
8. TEists believe that scientific theories are fallible and can be improved by new findings
9. TEists oppose atheism, naturalism, secularism, humanism, racism, and the scientists who promote these things
10. hmmm, couldn't think of the 10th, but I'm sure someone else can

 

[shernren]

That's brilliant, and I'm sure I'll have to put it in somewhere with full credit to you. But I don't want to get stuck in a reactive / reflexive mode of presentation, where all I am doing is defending TEism against creationist protests. I don't want to do that at all, although I will certainly need a few prophylactic expositions i.e. explanations shaped in such a way as to anticipate and defuse a creationist counter-argument.

Writing in a "whack-the-creationists" mode is only going to lead to more hostility and to creationist sniping. If the whole point is to prove creationists wrong then creationists will react with countless rebuttals, and they would be perfectly justified to. But I want to present TEism from the bottom-up, laying a foundation, building frameworks, and then showing how evolution fits in. Maybe this is the way that TEism can be shared so that creationists can identify with it, even if they can't accept it.

 

[BelovedWord]

I'm interested to get an "Introduction to TEism" thread going in Origins. But I'm hoping for some feedback from you all...

1. Any snazzy titles for it? Profound, comedic, short-and-sweet, whatever. I was thinking "TE for dummies" but that is completely cliched. (Plus, isn't it psychologically damaging for a reader to have to identify with a "dummy" before reading something? )

2. My framework is going to go something like this:

- Revelation and the role of scripture and science in revealing God
- The nature of science (against God of the gaps)
- The atheist hijacking
- Answering creationists

each point is going to have multiple posts. Anything to add? In particular it seems queer to me how in discussing theistic evolution, so little thought needs to go to evolution itself!

Shernren,

I think this is a wonderful idea to start a thread about TEism. I am new to learning about it and I guess I do need a good explanation of the aspects of TEism. I cannot find a whole text around the web anywhere on this subject and all it's contents. I look forward to reading it.

God Bless,
Brian

 

[BelovedWord]

I wrote an essay on that here. Feel free to use any points from it that seem applicable!

Mercury,

I am glad you posted that link. I enjoyed reading it. Very informative from both standpoints.

God Bless,
Brian

 

[shernren]

http://www.christianforums.com/t309...cripture-and-science.html&page=2#post24895398

(I need to rant. Excuse me.)

This is really heartbreaking. There's no way Poke could have spent 2 hours writing three lines of response, ergo there's no way he could have missed what I said about the purpose of this thread. I don't know why I'm getting quite annoyed about this, but I suppose I can't help myself. If I could I would swear, but knowing the context of this forum,

Why on earth don't Christians listen?

Are they afraid that if they pull their heads out of the sand and listen to what a few sinners have to say, the spotless purity of their minds will be forever corrupted just by trying to understand? Is it somehow wrong to hear other people out, even if they are mistaken? Did Jesus command us to ignore our enemies, close our ears to those who curse us, and cover our eyes against those who persecute us?

I don't think America isn't Christian enough; I think America is so used to being Christian that it has both forgotten what Christianity means and forgotten that non-Christians actually exist (and aren't cannibals or child sacrificers dancing around a pot in the middle of the jungle). Coming from a multicultural background I know what it means to interact with non-Christians, to have to hear their point of view, to see how they live their lives and why they live it that way. Many of these people have been brutally hurt by insensitive Christians who never bothered to listen. For example, during the uproar over the Muhammad cartoons, most people spoke from a Christian background where there is no problem with artistic depiction of Jesus and criticised the Muslims for apparently impeding free speech - without listening and realizing that an artistic depiction of the Prophet Muhammad is directly contradicted in Islamic religion.

What do you think that tells them about Christianity? What right do we have to make them listen to us if we will not first listen to them? It's still alright if a Christian brother refuses to listen over something like TEism, where we can still find each other as brothers and sisters in the faith no matter how vehemently we disagree about the theology of biology. But what happens when a Christian tells a Buddhist that "God is love"? (Hint: the Buddha said that desire brings suffering.) Or when a certain someone describes the war on terror as a "crusade"? I keep thinking of how Paul was so sensitive to what his listeners were used to - how he could throw Tanakh left right and center in a synagogue, but could cite Greek poets on Mars Hill. How Paul knew he had to listen, translate the Gospel into vernacular, and then only trust God to make the message stick in his listener's hearts.

In the end, loving our enemies, praying for those who persecute us, and blessing those who curse us means that first and foremost we must listen to them. And what I see here saddens me deeply because it shows that Christianity is forgetting how to listen, in a world which is crying out all around it.

 

[Willtor]

There is a tendency to treat religion like a baseball team. I'm from Boston so I make fun of the Yankees all the time. I grew up a Red Sox, and I will die a Red Sox. Likewise for many people and religion. Christianity (and, in this case, a particular doctrine) is right on the authority of its proponent. There's no need to approach another position with reason because it's wrong, a priori.

The difference is that with religion, there are implications. People are encouraged to realize that others are, in fact, not correct. The problem is not I can talk to my Muslim friends and have some understanding that we are not all correct in our basic approaches to apprehending God. The problem is when the two mentalities collide - the absurd team-based mentality that was harmless in baseball and the reasonable reality-based mentality that we are not all right. There is the arrogant certainty, and the complete lack of effort to understand those who think differently, all in the name of Christ.

As for the thread, I think the worst thing we can do is to respond (at all). The topic of the thread is the topic of the thread. If a hostile question is asked, don't respond at all. But it only works if everybody ignores the offending post.