How can I comprehend creationism as anything other than a lack of faith?

[Semper-Fi]

I believe that the Bible supports earth sitting
on pillars because that's what it says:

If I talked about The pillers of a society or the community,
would I be talking about actually rebar and concrete?

"All who are victorious will become pillars in the Temple of my
God, and they will never have to leave it..." Revelation 3:12

Will we become stone pillars in Gods temple holding it up?
Did Jesus us rebar and concrete to build the foundation and
pillars of his church, or is this to mean something else?

Christs church, built on the foundation of the apostles and
the prophets. And the cornerstone is Christ Jesus himself.

pillar
1: a firm upright support for a superstructure :or
2: a supporting, integral, or upstanding member or part.
-

Hebrews 1:3 says that Jesus Christ is “upholding the universe by his
word of power”. Upholding: a Greek word meaning to bear or carry.

God says in Psalm 75:3 that “When the earth totters, and all its
inhabitants, it is I who keep steady its pillars”

Colossians 1:16-17 “By him all things consist” or are held together.
God holds together and sustains the universe by His power.

For the pillars of the earth are the LORD's,
And he hath set the world upon them.

1 Samuel 2:8 Commentaries: "He raises the poor from the dust, He lifts the needy from the ash heap To make them sit with nobles, And inherit a seat of honor; For the pillars of the earth are the LORD'S, And He set the world on them.

-

point 2
Job 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place,
And hangeth the earth upon [nothing].

nothing H1099
בְּלִימָה
belı̂ymâh
bel-ee-mah'
From H1097 and H4100; (as indefinite) nothing whatever: - nothing.
Total KJV occurrences: 1

H1097
בְּלִי
belı̂y
bel-ee'
From H1086; properly failure, that is, nothing....

Job 26:7 commentaries

Job 26:7 Commentaries: "He stretches out the north over empty space And hangs the earth on nothing.

"—If these words mean what they seem to do—and it is hard to
see how they can mean anything else—then they furnish a very
remarkable instance of anticipation of the discoveries of science."

Here we find Job, more than three thousand years ago, describing
in language of scientific accuracy the condition of our globe,
and holding it forth as a proof of Divine power."

Scripture should not contradict scripture. Gods Word is Truth, did
God hang the earth upon [nothing], or set earth on physical pillars?

What does science say?

"The Earth is suspended in space due to gravity and angular velocity.
The gravitational pull of the Sun on the Earth keeps the Earth from
flying away. The fact that the Earth has angular momentum keeps
it is rotating around and not falling into the Sun.

Gravity of Earth - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

-

Can you have a horizon on a flat earth? The captains of Soloman's ships
never seen a horizon, or people on land see the ship slowly disappear?

The Hebrew bible is the sure {Word of God} in print.
Psalm 119:160 "Thy word is true from the beginning:
And every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.
Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. John 17:17

 

[Job 33:6]

If I talked about The pillers of a society or the community,
would I be talking about actually rebar and concrete?

"All who are victorious will become pillars in the Temple of my
God, and they will never have to leave it..." Revelation 3:12

Will we become stone pillars in Gods temple holding it up?
Did Jesus us rebar and concrete to build the foundation and
pillars of his church, or is this to mean something else?

Christs church, built on the foundation of the apostles and
the prophets. And the cornerstone is Christ Jesus himself.

pillar
1: a firm upright support for a superstructure :or
2: a supporting, integral, or upstanding member or part.
-

Hebrews 1:3 says that Jesus Christ is “upholding the universe by his
word of power”. Upholding: a Greek word meaning to bear or carry.

God says in Psalm 75:3 that “When the earth totters, and all its
inhabitants, it is I who keep steady its pillars”

Colossians 1:16-17 “By him all things consist” or are held together.
God holds together and sustains the universe by His power.

For the pillars of the earth are the LORD's,
And he hath set the world upon them.

1 Samuel 2:8 Commentaries: "He raises the poor from the dust, He lifts the needy from the ash heap To make them sit with nobles, And inherit a seat of honor; For the pillars of the earth are the LORD'S, And He set the world on them.

-

point 2
Job 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place,
And hangeth the earth upon [nothing].

nothing H1099
בְּלִימָה
belı̂ymâh
bel-ee-mah'
From H1097 and H4100; (as indefinite) nothing whatever: - nothing.
Total KJV occurrences: 1

H1097
בְּלִי
belı̂y
bel-ee'
From H1086; properly failure, that is, nothing....

Job 26:7 commentaries

Job 26:7 Commentaries: "He stretches out the north over empty space And hangs the earth on nothing.

"—If these words mean what they seem to do—and it is hard to
see how they can mean anything else—then they furnish a very
remarkable instance of anticipation of the discoveries of science."

Here we find Job, more than three thousand years ago, describing
in language of scientific accuracy the condition of our globe,
and holding it forth as a proof of Divine power."

Scripture should not contradict scripture. Gods Word is Truth, did
God hang the earth upon [nothing], or set earth on physical pillars?

What does science say?

"The Earth is suspended in space due to gravity and angular velocity.
The gravitational pull of the Sun on the Earth keeps the Earth from
flying away. The fact that the Earth has angular momentum keeps
it is rotating around and not falling into the Sun.

Gravity of Earth - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

-

Can you have a horizon on a flat earth? The captains of Soloman's ships
never seen a horizon, or people on land see the ship slowly disappear?

The Hebrew bible is the sure {Word of God} in print.
Psalm 119:160 "Thy word is true from the beginning:
And every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.
Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. John 17:17

The passage has nothing to do with "pillars of society". 1 Samuel 2:8 for example, is simply about the structure of the earth.

Also, the passage about earth hanging on "nothing" is simply a reference to tohu, or formlessness. The passage directly parallels beliymah and Tohu, so when interpreting the verse, that's a good place to start. And Tohu, though it is often translated as "emptiness" or "void" or "nothing", Tohu doesn't mean "space-time vacuum" in any nasal sense. Rather its tohu like the chaotic primordial earth. That's why the Bible says that earth was formless and empty. It doesn't mean that earth didn't exist, rather it was "nothing" in the sense that it was barren emptiness, or without meaning or purpose.

Job 26:7 NIV
[7] He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing.

Job 26:7 NRSV
[7] He stretches out Zaphon over the void, and hangs the earth upon nothing.

We know that earth was Tohu. But earth wasn't a space vacuum in Genesis 1:2. Rather the earth was more accurately understood as being present but without form. And beliymah parallels this same concept.

Same with the translation "void". Some people think that earth is void in Genesis 1:2 in the sense that it was empty space that wasn't there.

But really what the word means, is "void" in the sense that a desert or an ocean is "void". It's barren. There's nothing there. It's meaningless. It is "nothing".

So the earth hangs up on "nothing" is not about material or physical matter. Rather it's saying that the earth is stretched out over meaningless chaotic Sea.

And you can see this described elsewhere in the Bible too, such as here:

To him who spread out the earth above the waters, for his loyal love endures forever.
Psalms 136:6

And we further know that Job 26:7 isn't talking about "empty space" (in the sense that we think of it like a NASA based 21st century definition) because half the chapter references ancient near east cosmology. When it says "emptiness", its referring to empty in the sense of meaning and purpose, not with relation to matter.

The dead tremble
under the waters and their inhabitants.
6 Sheol is naked before God,[a]
and Abaddon has no covering.
7 He stretches out the north over the void
and hangs the earth on nothing.
8 He binds up the waters in his thick clouds,
and the cloud is not split open under them.
9 He covers the face of the full moon[b]
and spreads over it his cloud.
10 He has inscribed a circle on the face of the waters
at the boundary between light and darkness.
11 The pillars of heaven tremble
and are astounded at his rebuke.

That's why it references things like Sheol, the underworld, pillars of heaven, circle on the face of the waters etc.

Here is what the Bible means by the "Circle on the face of the waters". It's referring to the solid dome firmament resting atop a flat disk earth:

Then Athtar the Brilliant went up into the uttermost parts of Saphon; he sat on the throne of Valiant Baal. But his feet did not reach the footstool;
KTU I.6 (Cuneform text from Ancient Ugarit of the Ancient Near East).

Saphon, as noted in Ugaritic ancient near eastern texts, is the place of the Gods in an ancient cosmology. It's essentially atop Mt Saphon. And that's exactly what is referenced in Job 26:7 as well. "He stretches out the North" which for whatever reason you decided not to look at. But in Hebrew that's, Tsaphon, its the meeting place of the Gods in Ancient Isrealite Cosmology.

 

[Job 33:6]

Ezekiel the Priest, who was a prophet, that saw visions of God.
He was captive in the land of the Chaldeans by the river Chebar;
Gods spirit was with him. Ezekiel did not copy, or was influenced by
[pagan] ancient near east mythological traditions of creation myths.

Eze 1:4-18 He sees a whirlwind came out of the north.
Ezekiel starts to describe what was flying towards him.
Eze 1:19-21 the living creatures landed on the earth off and on.

Ezekiel’s Vision of some most impressive—living creatures lit up
like fire, and lightning coming out of the fire. Ezekiel was not talking
about the firmament/dome,sky/area above the earth in gen., but
the firmament/area on or radating from these living creatures.

Ezekiel 1:22 starts to discribes what the upper part looked like.

KJV Eze 1:22 And the likeness of the firmament upon the heads
of the living creature "was" as the colour of the [terrible] crystal,
stretched forth over their heads above.

terrible H3372
יָרֵא
yârê'
yaw-ray'
A primitive root; to fear; morally to revere; causatively to frighten:
- affright, be (make) afraid, dread (-ful), (put in) fear (-ful, -fully, -ing).
(be had in) reverence (-end), X see, terrible (act, -ness, thing).
Total KJV occurrences: 334

crystal H7140
קֹרַח קֶרַח
qerach qôrach
keh'-rakh, ko'-rakh
From H7139; ice (as if bald, that is, smooth); hence, hail;
by resemblance, rock crystal: - crystal, frost, ice.
Total KJV occurrences: 7

If this was discribing the color of the sky, why not just say blue?
This is Not the sky pictured here. The color blue in Hebrew is "KHHvl".

Ever see pictures of a Halo around Jesus or Mary, or other saints?
How about Radiating Halo: Less defined than the circular halo
and looks like an orb around the head of the holy figure.



"And there was a voice from the firmament that was over their heads,
when they stood and had let down their wings.

Where they Standing in Heaven? No standing on earth where Ezekiel was.
Stopped with their wings down, he starts describing God and his throne/chair.

Again this verse says the dome was over their heads, not over the earth.
Revelation 4:1-11 shows what The Throne [Room] in Heaven looks like.



Reread the verse again please.
The Throne that God was seated on appeared like sapphire stone.
The Throne/chair was made of sapphire stone, or looked like the color of.
The word pavement is not in verse, [sapphire stone] is singular form.

The color of the dome/firmament/area over/on the living creature's heads
was [terrible] to fear.; morally to revere; causatively to frighten:

Odd color to be describing the sky/heaven.

Age old question -Why does the Earth's atmosphere look blue?

Rayleigh scattering | Molecules, Light, Wavelength | Britannica

Rayleigh scattering, dispersion of electromagnetic radiation by particles that have a radius less than approximately 110 the wavelength of the radiation. The process has been named in honour of Lord Rayleigh, who in 1871 published a paper describing this phenomenon. The angle through which sunlight

www.britannica.com

The Earth's blue colored atmosphere/Firmament is water in one of many
properties. In outer space, above the first firmament, the second firmament
looks black even in sunlight. The universe has lots of water in it. God used
a blank 3d Black canvas and painted bright 3d objects for our viewing.



So pilers hold up the earth, that holds up the air, that holds up
the universe, that then holds up Gods Throne rooms dwelling place.
What holds up the Pillers under earth? How many pilers needed?

Hebrew word for pillars ydwmu is used for both the heavens and the earth.
Job 26:11 "The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at his reproof."

Pillars and foundations are two different things.
You need a foundation to put pillars on.
What foundation are the pillars sitting on?
What is the foundation sitting on?
The foundation of the earth the center of the universe?

Here again you confuse where the event takes place, and take-out of
contest the firmament/area and try to apply it to Genesis 1 firmament.
Where was God, in Heaven? No He was on Mount Sinai on earth.

12 Now the Lord said to Moses, “Come up to Me on the mountain
and remain there, and I will give you the stone tablets.
Exo 34:5 And the LORD descended in the cloud, and stood with him
there, and proclaimed the name of the LORD. Acts 7:38

"like the very heaven for [clearness] H2892
טֹהַר
ṭôhar
to'-har
From H2891; literally brightness; ceremonially purification:
- clearness, glory, purifying.
Total KJV occurrences: 4

So the air/firmament around earth is like the very heaven for clearness?
Mount Sinai was dirty, God used purified sapphire stones to stand on.
Moses covered his face with a veil when speaking to the people, to avoid
alarming them with its radiance after being in God's presence.

[Nothing] about ancient near east cosmo/mythological in verses above.
The firmament was upon the heads of the living creatures, not over earth.

The first chapter is talking about a vision of the glory of God! not creation

The passage in Ezekiel is describing a solid crystalline sky dome. Hence why basically every translation simply translates it as such. "Dome".

This dome is above the heads of the cherubim.

22 Over the heads of the living creatures there was something like a dome, shining like crystal, spread out above their heads

26 And above the dome over their heads there was something like a throne, in appearance like sapphire; and seated above the likeness of a throne was something that seemed like a human form.

The Bible speaks for itself. It's describing a dome, and above the dome is Gods throne.

Regarding the pillars again, the pillars hold up the earth. The earth has a dome over it, that is, the firmament. The firmament restrains the waters above. That's ancient near east cosmology in a nutshell.

The firmament was not on the heads of the cherubim in Ezekiel's vision, rather the dome was above their heads.

 

[Job 33:6]

I love Psalm 19:1-7, The heavens do declare the glory of God

That face of the deep

The Deep. Waters? - The Waters which were under the firmament [He called Seas] There is the sea, great and broad, In which are swarms without number, Animals both small and great. Psalm 104:25 "There is [the sea], vast and spacious, teeming with [creatures beyond number]". The number of...

www.christianforums.com

"Understanding these stellar harmonies represents a revolution in astronomy.
By "listening" for stellar sound waves with telescopes, scientists can figure
out what stars are made of, how old they are, how big they are and how they
contribute to the evolution of our Milky Way galaxy as a whole.

Heavenly music! Do you know of any near east cosmology/myths like this?



tent H168
אֹהֶל
'ôhel
o'-hel
From H166; a tent (as clearly conspicuous from a distance):
- covering, (dwelling) (place), home, tabernacle, tent.
Total KJV occurrences: 345

a tent / dwelling/ place/ tabernacle. Where does the sun dwell?

The Sun rotates on its axis as it revolves around the galaxy.
It takes about 230 million years for the Sun to make one
complete trip/ or circuit around the Milky Way.

That is one big tent, or better a [dwelling place] or home for [the sun].

6 His(the sun) going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit
unto the ends of it: And there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.

"Its gravity holds the solar system together, keeping everything from
the biggest planets to the smallest bits of debris in orbit around it."

"Gravity is the most significant interaction between objects at the
macroscopic scale, and it determines the motion of planets, stars,
galaxies, and even light." [Gravity]Wikipedia [sun]

God made a dwelling place for the sun to reside in, the 2nd heaven.

Psalm 19 plainly states that the Lord has pitched a tent for the sun. Another plain and simple reference to ancient Isrealite cosmology which includes a dome containing celestial bodies.

All this other stuff you're imagining about general relativity and gravitational orbital patterns and the sun taking 230 million years to do XY and Z, none of what you're saying has anything to do with the Bible.

The Biblical authors didn't know about any of these topics that you're describing. They didn't know about 230 million year orbital patterns of the sun. Or Einstein's relativity or the evolution of the milky way galaxy, or anything of that nature.

That's all just in your imagination. It's not in the text.

 

[Job 33:6]

Most of the stuff you post on ancient near east cosmology/myths,
claiming it is what the bible describes is totally out of context.

KJV Job 22:14 Thick clouds are a covering to him, that he seeth not;...

Reading Job 22:1-13 about wicked men are mentioned in the context.
God Hides from people, like barring them from the garden. Or when
God hide himself from the House of Israel, or not hear some prayers.
God does not see/hear from wicked sinful mankind, but not from all men.


So "thick clouds" in the Atmosphere/1st heaven stops God from seeing?
The bible says that God sees everything, nothing can hide from him.
This does not describe how the heavens where/are made/ or cosmology.



KJV Job 22:14 ...."and he walketh in the circuit of heaven".

circuit H2329
חוּג
chûg
khoog
From H2328; a circle: - circle, circuit, compassive
Total KJV occurrences: 3

H2328
חוּג
chûg
khoog
A primitive root (compare H2287); to describe a circle: - compassive
Total KJV occurrences: 1

Heaven here is dual, the atmosphere/firmament above the earth,
and the vast universe- the water [above the firmament].
.
heaven H8064
שָׁמֶה שָׁמַיִם
shâmayim shâmeh
shaw-mah'-yim, shaw-meh'

The second form being dual of an unused singular; from an unused
root meaning to be lofty; the sky (as aloft; the dual perhaps alluding
to the visible arch in which the clouds move, as well as to the higher
ether where the celestial bodies revolve): - air, X astrologer, heaven (-s).
Total KJV occurrences: 421

Did you know the sun, the moon, the earth, and every
star, or plant, or moon, in the universe run/s on a circuit?

The heavens run on circuits.
Our Solar System is in the Milky Way galaxy that has several satellite
galaxies and part of the Local Group of galaxies, which form part of
the Virgo Supercluster, a component of the Laniakea Supercluster.
It is estimated that there are between 200 billion[7] (2×1011)
to 2 trillion[8] galaxies in the observable universe.

God made heaven and earth; he can walk wherever he wants.
The bible says God walks in the circuit of heaven! I believe Him.
Nothing about ancient near east cosmology/myths in verse.

The passage here is simply referencing God walking on the dome.

Thick clouds veil him, so that he does not see,
and he walks on the vault of heaven.’
ESV Job 26:7

The One who builds His upper chambers in the heavens And has founded His vaulted dome over the earth, He who calls for the waters of the sea And pours them out on the face of the earth, The LORD is His name.
Amos 9:6 NASB

and they saw the God of Israel; and under His feet there appeared to be a pavement of sapphire, as clear as the sky itself.
Exodus 24:10 NASB

The passage doesn't say anything about laniakea superclusters or the milky way galaxy. That's just your imagination. It's simply describing ancient near east cosmology.

The old testament was written some 3,000 years ago by Moses and other ancient isrealites. It wasn't written by Stephen Hawking and Carl sagan in 2020.

 

[Job 33:6]

That face of the deep

The Deep. Waters? - The Waters which were under the firmament [He called Seas] There is the sea, great and broad, In which are swarms without number, Animals both small and great. Psalm 104:25 "There is [the sea], vast and spacious, teeming with [creatures beyond number]". The number of...

www.christianforums.com

The circle on the face of the waters is just referring to the flat disk of the earth, upon the flat face of the waters.

Ancient people didn't know that earth was a sphere. But we do have evidence, such as this map from ancient Babylon, depicting a circular flat earth. That's just how people understood the shape of things back then. They did not have airplanes and satellites and rocketships. They didn't know that earth was a sphere. Hence why the Bible never describes a spherical earth.

 

[Job 33:6]

The mustard seed was used as a metaphor for a comparison. Also, I do not know whether or not the people whom Jesus Christ addressed there at that time knew whether or not that there was a seed smaller than a mustard seed. However, I do agree that to argue about the size of seeds is indeed missing the point of that sermon.

This, very much could be said about cosmology in the Bible too.

Yes, many passages in the Bible speak of a solid sky or solid expanse in the sky. Yes, many passages talk about windows and doors in the sky. Yes, there are many passages about an ocean above the sky, or waters above, and waters below the earth.

However, if we understand that the Bible was never intended to be a scientific textbook, then much like the mustard seed, it's really secondary to the theological message of the story.

And that's really what this all boils down to.

Obviously no one believes that earth in a scientific sense is actually resting on pillars. But we can still accept truth in the message of scripture, if we recognize that it's not teaching science.

Young earth creationism, much like flat earthism, goes in the opposite direction, where the Bible must reflect modern 21st century science, with high precision. Otherwise, the Bible becomes false, somehow.

We've seen someone else in this discussion talking about how the the book of Job describes laniakea (How can I comprehend creationism as anything other than a lack of faith?) and other modern astronomical concepts, as if the Bible was written by Stephen Hawking.

But the Bible isn't a science textbook.

 

[Vambram]

Obviously, I still disagree. There are far too many passages of Scriptures which teach YEC. Therefore, the interpretation of scientific evidence which disregards those easily understood passages of Scriptures in order to try to attempt to teach the earth is millions and billions of years old is an interpretation that myself as well as YEC SCIENTISTS will not agree with.

 

[Vambram]

I believe what the OEC Christians do when they point at verses that are very, very clearly using similes, metaphors, and other figures of speech while they attempt to poke holes into YEC beliefs are completely misinterpreting symbols and figures of speech.

 

[Job 33:6]

Obviously, I still disagree. There are far too many passages of Scriptures which teach YEC. Therefore, the interpretation of scientific evidence which disregards those easily understood passages of Scriptures in order to try to attempt to teach the earth is millions and billions of years old is an interpretation that myself as well as YEC SCIENTISTS will not agree with.

Far too many passages that teach YEC? Like what? The only one that comes to mind is Paul's reference to Adam and Eve "from the beginning" in the context of marriage.

 

[Vambram]

Far too many passages that teach YEC? Like what? The only one that comes to mind is Paul's reference to Adam and Eve "from the beginning" in the context of marriage.

Please look at my previous posts in this thread or other threads about this topic. Unfortunately, at this time, I don't have enough time to repeat myself.

 

[Yuwang]

Thank you for a long and reasonable post on this subject. However, I cannot and will not believe in theistic evolution simply because there is zero Scriptural passages in the Bible that teach macro-evolution.

"Macro-evolution" whatever that is. Genesis talks about Yahveh making the world in 7 heats (stages?) Whatever one starts with, it changes as the goal is pursued. Creations evolve or change as the creation is created. One thing leads to another. What is the bid deal?

Right now, most self professed Christians are wrapped up in a profound "evolution" that started in 125 B.C. When Ion Hurcanus conquered Edom and offered to let Edom live if they converted which was and is contrary to the Word, Logic and Commands of Yahweh. By the time of YahvehShua (Christ) those Edomites took over the Priesthood, Temple and Kingship.
These Edomites masquerading as the Tribe of Yehuda murdered the King of kings YahwehShua who is Yahveh Himself in Human form.
Since then, despite the destruction of Yerusalem 65 A.D. to 70 A.D. Edom eventually got control of the Church of Rome and still do, plus they control most of Christendom today called "protest ants". Rome invented the letter 'J' to fool the Christians and their con job is perhaps the greatest con job in history starting with Geesus, and Jews and Judah.

 

[The Barbarian]

Today, science seems to agree that a man can be a woman simply because he decides that it is so.

Genetically, science says a woman is an adult human lacking a Y chromosome.

Gender is a more difficult thing, because that's a social/psychological issue.

Courts have decided this is factual based on the silence or agreement of science.

Can you cite that decision. Courts do sometimes get science wrong. Law is also a social issue, and open to all sorts of finagaling.

People are being prosecuted because they refuse to lie and insist on using the biologically correct pronoun.

Can you cite such an arrest and prosecution?

What else are they waffling on?

Apparently the two stories you gave us are waffling. Can't find either of these after a cursory search. But maybe you'll have better luck. Show us they aren't waffles.

Show me in a medical journal how a man can have a baby.

Seems that it would require some surgical intervention, if possible at all.

Why the silence on this?

Because no one much cares to test the idea?

Science either agrees with it or is too cowardly to speak out against it.

We'll know that when you cite the things you asserted. What do you have?

We are in a land of confusion because people have decided that truth and reality are what we want it to be or they say it is, and the powers that be are too cowardly to step up and tell the children no.

I notice that Trump's approval is slipping, and I notice the press is beginning to call him out on some of his crazier stories, so I'm thinking you're mistaken.

And worse, those of us grounded in reality are at risk of prosecution and persecution because we refuse to bow down to this absurd religion of lies and the tyranny of the woke.

Someone got arrested for failure to woke? Got a checkable link?

And so those with the mentality of a toddler have taken over the civilization from elementary schools to courts.

And not surprisingly, the approval of the Supreme Court is in the gutter. People know, and they don't approve of it.

There is no longer a discussion of science versus faith.

I know of many places, including this site where that happens. You should probably know that science debunked the flat Earth nonsense over 2000 years ago. Not that I'm making fun of you for it. Some surprisingly intelligent people believe in a flat Earth. But it's not true.

 

[HarleyER]

I feel there's a deeper level to all of this back and forth about evolution, but it's something very challenging.

It's about our basic relationship with truth itself, and it starts from an observation. That observation is this - our comprehension of truth will always stand ready to be overthrown by some deeper revelation.

And not because truth contradicts itself - it never does - but because truth is infinitely more profound than any comprehension we might ever have of it. God the Father is ultimate truth, He is the eternal font of revelation that never runs dry. And this means there will always be profundities underneath the most profound possible things we know, discoveries that will atomise all we understand by revealing a deeper coherence.

The laws of God do not end with the laws of human behaviour set out in the Bible. There are other laws, the deep laws of reality itself, and their depth and profundity is as eternal as the God who created them. In this way, truth is perfect - God is perfect. He is the font of eternal, glorious revelation that never runs dry, an unending source of revelations of forever compounding potence and majesty.

Secular science is not the pursuit of truth. It looks like it is, but cannot be. It is instead the pursuit of facts, and facts are not the same as truth.

Facts are flat pieces of contained information that fit inside your current frame of reference. Revelation is the thing that obliterates your frame of reference. The revelation of truth is the thing that obliterates your current frame of reference and opens a wild horizon of untouched possibility and power. Facts are the attempt to reduce the world to flat and controllable certainties. Truth is a much deeper and bigger kind of thing than any collection of facts. Truth is always new, truth is eternal, truth is alive. Truth became a man and died on a cross to buy back a world fallen into the worship of lies. Truth cares. Truth loves. Truth fights. Truth saves.

The book of Ruth is one of the simplest books in the Bible. It's really only about one thing - "Wherever you go, I will follow." And to serve God is to follow God, to follow truth, wherever it leads, however wrenching it may be. No matter how it jeopardises whatever comprehension we have constructed. To follow God is to lose control of your heart to your love of truth, to lose control of your life to your love for that neverending glory. To be reconciled to God is to have the honour of following that horizon, of living that life, that wild adventure. That is what it means to walk with God, and seek Him. And He loves to be sought by humanity. I think perhaps it is what He wants the most.

But can't atheists follow truth?

Can't atheists let their passion for truth overcome their ability to control the direction of their own lives?

Can't atheists love that hard? Live that hard? Believe in truth that much?

The answer is no.

Why not?

Because the central truth of human life is that all human goodness is a lie. Our moral pride, our vanity as we admire our own goodness - this is the heart of sin. The knowledge of good and evil which is passed down generation to generation since the fall - it lets us glory in our own fraudulent goodness, and show ourselves how 'good' we are by how much we find to condemn other people. It is a charade of goodness constructed from pieces of hate. It is the broken cistern that we drink from. And so hate and lies flow out of our rotten hearts, and we are all slaves to the serpent that slithers and corrupts. Through our worship of ourselves, the devil twists us inside, twists us into becoming horrific behind the pretty masks we concoct. And in this vanity we become so horrifying we cannot bear to see the real truth of ourselves.

An atheist must always hide from this. They cannot admit that their own moral glory is a lie, that as Jesus said - God alone is good. And so they have to control their pursuit of truth, limit their comprehension of truth, stop themselves from seeing truth too deeply, because they must keep this appalling secret from themselves so they can live their lives. And that's the secular world. A world of lost people - lost in its own moral arrogance.

And so no atheist can never love truth uncontrollably. They can never let go, and truly surrender to a life devoted to seeking it, no matter where it leads. Because it leads to something they cannot bear to see.

The fact that we Christians can bear to see it is not because we are better than atheists. It is because we have been pulled like burning sticks from the fire. God did something. Something happened to make the most terrible possible news - the truth of who we are - into the most amazing possible news - the truth of how much we have been forgiven. For as Jesus said: those who have been forgiven much love much. And all who are in the blood of Christ have been forgiven much indeed.

And so you have these two quite distinct relationships with truth.

One, a relationship of control. Where you only interact with set, contained, specific facts that fit inside your current understanding. Where you never look deeper in case you see something that upends your identity, your own idea of you. You keep it safe by building a fortress of cynicism around it, by being ungenerous and mean-spirited toward any idea that undermines it. You zero in on the faults and failings of anything that threatens it, and never appraise those things at their strongest and best.

This is, I would say, a pretty complete description of how atheists appraise Christianity.

But there is another relationship you can have with truth, relationship two. A relationship of uncontrollable love. This is where you allow your love of truth, of the power of truth, the glory of truth, the possibility and fire of truth, to overwhelm everything you are. You love so much you cannot help but follow it - like Ruth - wherever it leads.

And when this is your approach, the way you appraise the things set against you entirely inverted. You consider challenges to your position with deep generosity. You consider those things only at their strongest and best, judge them only by the standards they set, overlooking all their flaws and failings.

Because if there is something true in them that actually can blow apart your current understanding - that's amazing. Exhilarating. Intoxicating. What could it be? What might you see? What deeper truth is there to find?

If your heart is for your own self, your own identity, then you'd push away anything that might disrupt it. But if your heart is for truth, you would delight in that disruption. You would hunt for it, seek it, pray for it, beg for it - show me the truth that blows apart all I know from a depth I never knew existed. Let me see you that deeply, my Lord and God.

And if you appraise something with extreme generosity and total forgiveness, that's the only way you can be sure you won't miss any deep truth it might contain.

But if it's not true, then a lie is just as much a lie at its strongest point than it is at its weakest.

And if we give something the best possible hearing - and it still fails utterly at its strongest point - then our counterattacks no longer snap at its heels. We can do something different. We can drive a stake through its beating, black heart.

An ungenerous appraisal of an enemy means that if there is deeper truth in what they say, you will never see it. And if it is a lie, all you will ever do is whine about side-issues that miss the central point. Your cowardice and lack of faith severs you from truth, and renders you useless at combating falsehood.

And so I believe that the hallmark of someone who has truly given their heart to the pursuit of truth - the pursuit of God - is that they will always consider any enemy in the most generous possible light. Only those reconciled to God through Christ can do it. But all truly reconciled to God through Christ will leap to do it.

Because it is not becoming for followers of Christ to fight as the atheists fight - to be ungenerous or mean-spirited. Not because it's morally wrong. But because it is weak.

And weakness is not of enormous use to those who are called upon to fight a war, and win it.

I believe in evolution because I follow truth wherever it leads. And I follow truth because I can't do anything else. I literally could not be a creationist, because I let my heart fall in love with truth to such a degree that I gave up my own capacity to control my own life direction. I cannot hold myself at a set level of comprehension, hold my identity in a fixed and static position. I might try, but it doesn't work. I just get overwhelmed by the glory and wild potential of truth itself, of God Himself - and I consider the very best of ideas at their best. Not because I'm so good, but because this alone is the way to find truth and to find falsehood. It seems insane to me to do anything else.

This is not a boast, because I have done nothing to earn this love or deserve it. God won my heart through His grace and His sacrifice, because it was Christ's blood that cleared the way, allowing me to seek truth even when the truth of me is so appalling and wretched.

No atheist could think like this, could love like this, could live like this.

But when we hold tight to a flat, literal comprehension of Genesis, how can we say it is God we seek? How is it God we're protecting? It seems to me we're instead protecting ourselves. We are not following truth where it leads - somewhere unknown, and scary, with wide open possibility, the possibility to do and discover even deeper things that glorify God in even deeper ways. It seems that instead we are burying our talents. We are staying at the safe level of comprehension we control so our identities do not get disrupted. We are prizing our identities over the deep discoveries of truth. We prize ourselves over God. I cannot see anything else that it can be.

This is a very challenging thing to say, and I do not say it lightly. Nor do I claim to be a better Christian or have a deeper faith. We are all hemmed in by the limits of our courage. It is always scary to consider something extremely challenging in a super-generous way. This is only compounded by the shrieking arrogance of militant atheists who deluge the world with their facile comprehension of truth and biology. It is entirely understandable why a Christian would flinch away in fear, and throw up a wall of cynicism to protect our identity.

But it is not identity that saves. It is Christ.

When we are generous with an extreme challenge, we have to put that identity in danger. Generosity in appraisal is not just an act that jeopardises the comprehension we have of the world, it also endangers the 'me' that arises from that set, static comprehension.

And so we need faith. Faith that there is something there to find. Faith that God is real, and He won't go away if we move beyond the static understanding we have right now. Faith that there will be no contradiction in whatever truth we end up finding. We have to believe that there will be something to find, something amazing. And perhaps more than all of this, that God will have a place for us. That He will give us something new to be at that deeper level, something more wonderful than we could even imagine from a shallower depth.

New clothes, if you want to put it like that.

When I look at creationists and those who deny evolution, I cannot but be struck at how ungenerous they are with evolutionary theory. How much they zero in on faults and failings. How much they seek to criticise and subject it to standards other than its own. How they leap to speak of the gaps it doesn't explain, rather than face the power of the things it does. It is as if they need to belittle it and comprehend only a smaller, weaker version of it, because if they truly considered it with generosity, courage, and faith, and gave it the best possible hearing, they would lose who they are.

But because they focus on the weak points of it, their attacks against it are themselves laughably weak.

This is indistinguishable to me to the way atheists interact with Christianity, and their reasons. Atheists do not give Christianity a generous hearing, but instead focus like lasers on abuse, corruption, and any kind of gaps, failings or flaws they can find.

What does that say about an atheist's faith in atheism? That they only dare consider the weakest possible forms of Christianity? What does it say about how strong they believe their own ideas to be?

But then by that token, what does it say about how strong a creationist's faith in God is, if they do not dare consider the strongest and best of evolution?

How can this be understood except as a lack of faith? And that's my question. How can I comprehend creationism as anything other than a lack of faith?

Now while this might (might!) upset people to hear, I would just point this out.

That whatever you have to say in response to it, I've kind of backed myself into a corner. I cannot criticise you. I cannot snipe. I cannot zero in on the weak points of any creationist riposte, because I've just pinned my colours to the generosity mast.

So take heart. If I start looking for the worst and weakest in your answers, I destroy the credibility of my own position. And so you can be assured that if you do disagree, I will hear your disagreement in the most generous possible spirit I can muster, give it the benefit of every possible doubt, overlooking every flaw and failing, and considering only the strongest of it.

Not because I'm so good. But because if what you say is true, I want that truth more than anything, and if I consider your words in the strongest possible light, I will not miss any truth they may contain.

And if what you say is false, I have no interest - and no need - to snipe at weak points. A lie is just as much a lie at its strongest point as it is at its weakest. Generosity allows me to knock out the best of what you say, and not just the worst. So that's my approach.

But I also hope that the faith that unites us will allow us to have this crucial discussion in frankness and fullness, with nothing held back on either side - but in mutual love and respect. Passions run high here because we care about God. And that unites us as brothers and sisters in Christ. I am not above anyone, and my life of faith is as much limited by my own halting bravery as anyone else's is.

And so if we are to disagree over issues we all passionately hold, I hope we can do that a little better than the secular world around us.

What say you?

Do you believe that God is capable and able of creating the entire universe in six days?

If your answer is yes, then the next logical question is why don't you believe that He did so.

If your answer is no, then the next logical question is why would you disagree with what He has recorded?

 

[Job 33:6]

Do you believe that God is capable and able of creating the entire universe in six days?

If your answer is yes, then the next logical question is why don't you believe that He did so.

If your answer is no, then the next logical question is why would you disagree with what He has recorded?

Genesis describes an ex materia 6 day creation, not an ex nihilo 6 day creation. In case that is still disputed:

 

[HarleyER]

Genesis describes an ex materia 6 day creation, not an ex nihilo 6 day creation. In case that is still disputed:

I had a hard time agreeing with this particular video. Dr. Heiser pointedly stated that he does not subscribe to the traditional view of the church that God created everything out of nothing. This, of course, means that he would reject the Nicene Creed (Nicene Creed: "We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible"). The problem with rejecting ex nihilo, is that the matter must have been created from SOMETHING or by SOMEONE. Matter can't appear out of nothing. Nor does random atoms bumping into other random atoms account for creation. This has always been difficult for secular society to explain.

Also, Dr. Heiser based his interpretation on the Jewish Publication Society which is hardly a Christian organization. They most likely would not give a traditional Christian perspective. Jews do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah and their interpretation is colored accordingly. I have read some things by the Jewish Publication Society and they can be helpful in some ways. However, I would not base any theological insights on them.

Finally, Dr. Heiser stopped short Genesis 1:5 talking about all this being created in one day. If he does not believe in ex nihilo, then I would imagine the he doesn't believe God could create everything in 6 days.

 

[Job 33:6]

I had a hard time agreeing with this particular video. Dr. Heiser pointedly stated that he does not subscribe to the traditional view of the church that God created everything out of nothing. This, of course, means that he would reject the Nicene Creed (Nicene Creed: "We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible"). The problem with rejecting ex nihilo, is that the matter must have been created from SOMETHING or by SOMEONE. Matter can't appear out of nothing. Nor does random atoms bumping into other random atoms account for creation. This has always been difficult for secular society to explain.

There are some nuances here. Acknowledging ex nihilo creation more broadly, does not contradict recognition of ex materia creation in Genesis. Many well credentialed scholars today hold this position where both are true.

Also, Dr. Heiser based his interpretation on the Jewish Publication Society which is hardly a Christian organization. They most likely would not give a traditional Christian perspective. Jews do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah and their interpretation is colored accordingly. I have read some things by the Jewish Publication Society and they can be helpful in some ways. However, I would not base any theological insights on them.

Many Christian translations and Christian scholars acknowledge ex materia creation in Genesis. Consider the CEB and NRSV and NRSVue translations as an example. Or you could consider scholars such as Dr. John Walton, Dr. Tremper Longman III, Dr. Eckart Frahm, Dr. Richard Averbeck, or Dr. John Soden (Aside from Dr. Micheal Heiser), among others.

Finally, Dr. Heiser stopped short Genesis 1:5 talking about all this being created in one day. If he does not believe in ex nihilo, then I would imagine the he doesn't believe God could create everything in 6 days.

It's more nuanced because ex materia creation can still occur in 6 days. For example, heaven is created on day 2 and earth on day 3. The creation unfolds by molding and forming matter in, or within, during, the 6 days. Rather than in verse 1:1.

 

[stevevw]

I feel there's a deeper level to all of this back and forth about evolution, but it's something very challenging.

It's about our basic relationship with truth itself, and it starts from an observation. That observation is this - our comprehension of truth will always stand ready to be overthrown by some deeper revelation.

And not because truth contradicts itself - it never does - but because truth is infinitely more profound than any comprehension we might ever have of it. God the Father is ultimate truth, He is the eternal font of revelation that never runs dry. And this means there will always be profundities underneath the most profound possible things we know, discoveries that will atomise all we understand by revealing a deeper coherence.

The laws of God do not end with the laws of human behaviour set out in the Bible. There are other laws, the deep laws of reality itself, and their depth and profundity is as eternal as the God who created them. In this way, truth is perfect - God is perfect. He is the font of eternal, glorious revelation that never runs dry, an unending source of revelations of forever compounding potence and majesty.

Secular science is not the pursuit of truth. It looks like it is, but cannot be. It is instead the pursuit of facts, and facts are not the same as truth.

Facts are flat pieces of contained information that fit inside your current frame of reference. Revelation is the thing that obliterates your frame of reference. The revelation of truth is the thing that obliterates your current frame of reference and opens a wild horizon of untouched possibility and power. Facts are the attempt to reduce the world to flat and controllable certainties. Truth is a much deeper and bigger kind of thing than any collection of facts. Truth is always new, truth is eternal, truth is alive. Truth became a man and died on a cross to buy back a world fallen into the worship of lies. Truth cares. Truth loves. Truth fights. Truth saves.

The book of Ruth is one of the simplest books in the Bible. It's really only about one thing - "Wherever you go, I will follow." And to serve God is to follow God, to follow truth, wherever it leads, however wrenching it may be. No matter how it jeopardises whatever comprehension we have constructed. To follow God is to lose control of your heart to your love of truth, to lose control of your life to your love for that neverending glory. To be reconciled to God is to have the honour of following that horizon, of living that life, that wild adventure. That is what it means to walk with God, and seek Him. And He loves to be sought by humanity. I think perhaps it is what He wants the most.

But can't atheists follow truth?

Can't atheists let their passion for truth overcome their ability to control the direction of their own lives?

Can't atheists love that hard? Live that hard? Believe in truth that much?

The answer is no.

Why not?

Because the central truth of human life is that all human goodness is a lie. Our moral pride, our vanity as we admire our own goodness - this is the heart of sin. The knowledge of good and evil which is passed down generation to generation since the fall - it lets us glory in our own fraudulent goodness, and show ourselves how 'good' we are by how much we find to condemn other people. It is a charade of goodness constructed from pieces of hate. It is the broken cistern that we drink from. And so hate and lies flow out of our rotten hearts, and we are all slaves to the serpent that slithers and corrupts. Through our worship of ourselves, the devil twists us inside, twists us into becoming horrific behind the pretty masks we concoct. And in this vanity we become so horrifying we cannot bear to see the real truth of ourselves.

An atheist must always hide from this. They cannot admit that their own moral glory is a lie, that as Jesus said - God alone is good. And so they have to control their pursuit of truth, limit their comprehension of truth, stop themselves from seeing truth too deeply, because they must keep this appalling secret from themselves so they can live their lives. And that's the secular world. A world of lost people - lost in its own moral arrogance.

And so no atheist can never love truth uncontrollably. They can never let go, and truly surrender to a life devoted to seeking it, no matter where it leads. Because it leads to something they cannot bear to see.

The fact that we Christians can bear to see it is not because we are better than atheists. It is because we have been pulled like burning sticks from the fire. God did something. Something happened to make the most terrible possible news - the truth of who we are - into the most amazing possible news - the truth of how much we have been forgiven. For as Jesus said: those who have been forgiven much love much. And all who are in the blood of Christ have been forgiven much indeed.

And so you have these two quite distinct relationships with truth.

One, a relationship of control. Where you only interact with set, contained, specific facts that fit inside your current understanding. Where you never look deeper in case you see something that upends your identity, your own idea of you. You keep it safe by building a fortress of cynicism around it, by being ungenerous and mean-spirited toward any idea that undermines it. You zero in on the faults and failings of anything that threatens it, and never appraise those things at their strongest and best.

This is, I would say, a pretty complete description of how atheists appraise Christianity.

But there is another relationship you can have with truth, relationship two. A relationship of uncontrollable love. This is where you allow your love of truth, of the power of truth, the glory of truth, the possibility and fire of truth, to overwhelm everything you are. You love so much you cannot help but follow it - like Ruth - wherever it leads.

And when this is your approach, the way you appraise the things set against you entirely inverted. You consider challenges to your position with deep generosity. You consider those things only at their strongest and best, judge them only by the standards they set, overlooking all their flaws and failings.

Because if there is something true in them that actually can blow apart your current understanding - that's amazing. Exhilarating. Intoxicating. What could it be? What might you see? What deeper truth is there to find?

If your heart is for your own self, your own identity, then you'd push away anything that might disrupt it. But if your heart is for truth, you would delight in that disruption. You would hunt for it, seek it, pray for it, beg for it - show me the truth that blows apart all I know from a depth I never knew existed. Let me see you that deeply, my Lord and God.

And if you appraise something with extreme generosity and total forgiveness, that's the only way you can be sure you won't miss any deep truth it might contain.

But if it's not true, then a lie is just as much a lie at its strongest point than it is at its weakest.

And if we give something the best possible hearing - and it still fails utterly at its strongest point - then our counterattacks no longer snap at its heels. We can do something different. We can drive a stake through its beating, black heart.

An ungenerous appraisal of an enemy means that if there is deeper truth in what they say, you will never see it. And if it is a lie, all you will ever do is whine about side-issues that miss the central point. Your cowardice and lack of faith severs you from truth, and renders you useless at combating falsehood.

And so I believe that the hallmark of someone who has truly given their heart to the pursuit of truth - the pursuit of God - is that they will always consider any enemy in the most generous possible light. Only those reconciled to God through Christ can do it. But all truly reconciled to God through Christ will leap to do it.

Because it is not becoming for followers of Christ to fight as the atheists fight - to be ungenerous or mean-spirited. Not because it's morally wrong. But because it is weak.

And weakness is not of enormous use to those who are called upon to fight a war, and win it.

I believe in evolution because I follow truth wherever it leads. And I follow truth because I can't do anything else. I literally could not be a creationist, because I let my heart fall in love with truth to such a degree that I gave up my own capacity to control my own life direction. I cannot hold myself at a set level of comprehension, hold my identity in a fixed and static position. I might try, but it doesn't work. I just get overwhelmed by the glory and wild potential of truth itself, of God Himself - and I consider the very best of ideas at their best. Not because I'm so good, but because this alone is the way to find truth and to find falsehood. It seems insane to me to do anything else.

This is not a boast, because I have done nothing to earn this love or deserve it. God won my heart through His grace and His sacrifice, because it was Christ's blood that cleared the way, allowing me to seek truth even when the truth of me is so appalling and wretched.

No atheist could think like this, could love like this, could live like this.

But when we hold tight to a flat, literal comprehension of Genesis, how can we say it is God we seek? How is it God we're protecting? It seems to me we're instead protecting ourselves. We are not following truth where it leads - somewhere unknown, and scary, with wide open possibility, the possibility to do and discover even deeper things that glorify God in even deeper ways. It seems that instead we are burying our talents. We are staying at the safe level of comprehension we control so our identities do not get disrupted. We are prizing our identities over the deep discoveries of truth. We prize ourselves over God. I cannot see anything else that it can be.

This is a very challenging thing to say, and I do not say it lightly. Nor do I claim to be a better Christian or have a deeper faith. We are all hemmed in by the limits of our courage. It is always scary to consider something extremely challenging in a super-generous way. This is only compounded by the shrieking arrogance of militant atheists who deluge the world with their facile comprehension of truth and biology. It is entirely understandable why a Christian would flinch away in fear, and throw up a wall of cynicism to protect our identity.

But it is not identity that saves. It is Christ.

When we are generous with an extreme challenge, we have to put that identity in danger. Generosity in appraisal is not just an act that jeopardises the comprehension we have of the world, it also endangers the 'me' that arises from that set, static comprehension.

And so we need faith. Faith that there is something there to find. Faith that God is real, and He won't go away if we move beyond the static understanding we have right now. Faith that there will be no contradiction in whatever truth we end up finding. We have to believe that there will be something to find, something amazing. And perhaps more than all of this, that God will have a place for us. That He will give us something new to be at that deeper level, something more wonderful than we could even imagine from a shallower depth.

New clothes, if you want to put it like that.

When I look at creationists and those who deny evolution, I cannot but be struck at how ungenerous they are with evolutionary theory. How much they zero in on faults and failings. How much they seek to criticise and subject it to standards other than its own. How they leap to speak of the gaps it doesn't explain, rather than face the power of the things it does. It is as if they need to belittle it and comprehend only a smaller, weaker version of it, because if they truly considered it with generosity, courage, and faith, and gave it the best possible hearing, they would lose who they are.

But because they focus on the weak points of it, their attacks against it are themselves laughably weak.

This is indistinguishable to me to the way atheists interact with Christianity, and their reasons. Atheists do not give Christianity a generous hearing, but instead focus like lasers on abuse, corruption, and any kind of gaps, failings or flaws they can find.

What does that say about an atheist's faith in atheism? That they only dare consider the weakest possible forms of Christianity? What does it say about how strong they believe their own ideas to be?

But then by that token, what does it say about how strong a creationist's faith in God is, if they do not dare consider the strongest and best of evolution?

How can this be understood except as a lack of faith? And that's my question. How can I comprehend creationism as anything other than a lack of faith?

Now while this might (might!) upset people to hear, I would just point this out.

That whatever you have to say in response to it, I've kind of backed myself into a corner. I cannot criticise you. I cannot snipe. I cannot zero in on the weak points of any creationist riposte, because I've just pinned my colours to the generosity mast.

So take heart. If I start looking for the worst and weakest in your answers, I destroy the credibility of my own position. And so you can be assured that if you do disagree, I will hear your disagreement in the most generous possible spirit I can muster, give it the benefit of every possible doubt, overlooking every flaw and failing, and considering only the strongest of it.

Not because I'm so good. But because if what you say is true, I want that truth more than anything, and if I consider your words in the strongest possible light, I will not miss any truth they may contain.

And if what you say is false, I have no interest - and no need - to snipe at weak points. A lie is just as much a lie at its strongest point as it is at its weakest. Generosity allows me to knock out the best of what you say, and not just the worst. So that's my approach.

But I also hope that the faith that unites us will allow us to have this crucial discussion in frankness and fullness, with nothing held back on either side - but in mutual love and respect. Passions run high here because we care about God. And that unites us as brothers and sisters in Christ. I am not above anyone, and my life of faith is as much limited by my own halting bravery as anyone else's is.

And so if we are to disagree over issues we all passionately hold, I hope we can do that a little better than the secular world around us.

What say you?

I think what it comes down to and what your getting at is that basically theres more than one way to see the world and we have known that for 1,000's of years. Well the alternative view came with Enlightenment and the church itself as many were scientists who wanted to understand Gods creation better.

But from Enlightened thinking came the naturalistic explanations. But they were never meant to overthrow belief in God. That came gradually as science became more dogmatic and a metaphysical belief. As science was so good at explaining things in naturalistic terms and proved itself medicine and tech belief in it grew.

Now a scientific explanation is taken as an explanation for reality itself. But this has also coincided with a gradual disbelief in God. So in some ways its a substitute belief. Belief in creation itself.

If you take all the personal beliefs and metaphysics out and just looked at this for what it is you can see how science is only describing behaviour and not saying anything about what reality or truth is. Just how it behaves. But when you do that we have to come to the conclusion that what is being described is not something that nature itself can create.

So in some ways science has become a tool for rationalising God away when it should just be a particular method of measuring a particular part of reality. There are other ways to know reality like through experiences. The experience of colors, pain and love. They cannot be measured in scientific quantified terms.

Its about epistemics, how we should know reality. Science says we should know reality through methodological naturalism. But thats a metaphysical belief and not science. Others philosophers, Sharman, spiritualists, Christians and Bhuddists tell us theres other ways. Our conscious experience tells us a more direct way as though we are part of something bigger than what we see.

Of course science tells us thats imagination and an illusion created by evolution. But the strange thing is the belief persists. Its not just an illusion but it infiltrates our psyches. Its as much a part of us as our hearts and lungs. Studies have shown we are natural born believers in divine ideas like a creator and teleology.

Thats why I think fundementally its a spiritual battle. One between there being a God and one where there is none and reality is created by naturalistic forces that just happen to have the appearence of being created by the mind of God. Materialism, humanism, and human pride has become the new religion and god. Gods own creation turning on itself.

The strange thing is though that as the world has become more reliant on science to dispute God, as the science gets better its actually revealing God in more detail and materialists are continually trying to prop up theories that don't fit observations and if they are verified would undermine the materialist and determinists position.

 

[Diamond72]

In this way, truth is perfect - God is perfect.

Math is perfect. We could not build what we build if it were not for a LOT of math. My son is making Silicone Nano resisters and it takes a degree in Engineering to understand the math. Even he was working on climate control that has a direct impact on quality control. Usually they deal with high and low temperature but really we are dealing with high and low air pressure. This is what the Bible means when it says: The Windows of Heaven. They talk about high and low pressure zones on the weather all the time.

 

[AveChristusRex]

What say you?

I believe Dr. Hugh Owen has a fantastic article on this subject, the difference the traditional doctrine of creation has on the spiritual life of a Christian rather than that of Theistic Evolution, Gap Theory, etcetera: The Difference it Makes: The Importance of the Traditional Doctrine of Creation – Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation