If YECism is faith, where is its works?

[Willtor]

LOL, do you mean do I agree that you can be a "real" Christian without believing in a literal six day creation, of course I do. I just believe you're wrong. Also, I have noticed a tendency, at least in the people I've talked to (TEs) to not believe in other impossible things in the bibile like feeding of thousands, walking on water, etc.

I think Jesus fed thousands, walked on water, raised people from the dead, cast out demons, calmed storms, etc. Shernren cites historical and psychological evidences in response to these things. I actually don't think you'll find any TE's on these forums who disagree (though, you might, but I'll let them post their views).

 

[charityagape]

I think Jesus fed thousands, walked on water, raised people from the dead, cast out demons, calmed storms, etc. Shernren cites historical and psychological evidences in response to these things. I actually don't think you'll find any TE's on these forums who disagree (though, you might, but I'll let them post their views).

That's great. Although I have seen plenty of TE posts that view what would you call it, supernatural?, events as not factual.

 

[Willtor]

That's great. Although I have seen plenty of TE posts that view what would you call it, supernatural?, events as not factual.

I'd call it whatever you want to call it. At any rate, would you cite some of these posts? I haven't seen them in the Origins Theology forum.

 

[charityagape]

I've seen many in the last two years I've been posting. But I'm not going to research that far and I'm not going to name any names from memory, we could do a poll I guess.

 

[shernren]

There's also a lot of empirical evidence against the possibility of a dead body being alive after being in a tomb for three days.

Any body in general, yes. But if you wanted to show that the body of Jesus in particular could not have been alive after being a tomb for three days, show me that body and I'll be the first to recant.

I'll take a step back and use logic to try and explain what I'm saying. What you seem to hold as our position of belief is:

You say God did X.
Science says X is impossible.
Therefore I say God did not do X.

If we really held to this, you're right - we'd have little to no reason to believe in the resurrection. But firstly, this is a part of all belief systems. I've cited the example of the YEC objection that "a local flood could not have towered over the mountains for several days without flowing away" - X is scientifically impossible, therefore God did not do X.

Our model of disbelief is more like:

You say God did X.
Not only does science say X is impossible, in addition
given the operation of science in the time between X and now
if X happened we should see Y today.
However, I don't see Y today. In fact I see the opposite of Y.
Therefore I say God did not do X.

In terms of the resurrection, what would Y be? The easiest Y is to show the dead body of Jesus. For two thousand years all any anti-Christian despot had to do was to roll out a verifiable Jewish body and poof! the largest religion in the world would collapse. Nobody has done it. As far as I know nobody has even tried.

But in terms of creationism - specifically YEC's scientific claims - we have a good idea of what Y is. We should expect to see young radionuclides, a global sedimentary layer, etc. ...

I hope you see my point.

LOL, do you mean do I agree that you can be a "real" Christian without believing in a literal six day creation, of course I do. I just believe you're wrong. Also, I have noticed a tendency, at least in the people I've talked to (TEs) to not believe in other impossible things in the bibile like feeding of thousands, walking on water, etc.

I was asking mark that in specific response to what he said. But I'm not so much concerned with whether you "can be a real Christian" without YECism. I'm concerned about works.

For example, if one believes that human dignity begins at conception, one will oppose abortion as murder. This would lead to anti-abortion rallies, etc. ...

In the same vein - what difference would YECism make?

 

[charityagape]

Any body in general, yes. But if you wanted to show that the body of Jesus in particular could not have been alive after being a tomb for three days, show me that body and I'll be the first to recant.

The physical body of Jesus was no different from any other physical body, scientifically the body of Jesus should decay no differently from any other body. However, there are two bodies in the gospels dead for three days that got up and lived. ]

Lazarus a very much average man dead and decaying is medically impossible to have gotten up and lived.

I'll take a step back and use logic to try and explain what I'm saying. What you seem to hold as our position of belief is:

You say God did X.
Science says X is impossible.
Therefore I say God did not do X.

If we really held to this, you're right - we'd have little to no reason to believe in the resurrection. But firstly, this is a part of all belief systems. I've cited the example of the YEC objection that "a local flood could not have towered over the mountains for several days without flowing away" - X is scientifically impossible, therefore God did not do X.

Our model of disbelief is more like:

You say God did X.
Not only does science say X is impossible, in addition
given the operation of science in the time between X and now
if X happened we should see Y today.
However, I don't see Y today. In fact I see the opposite of Y.
Therefore I say God did not do X.

In terms of the resurrection, what would Y be? The easiest Y is to show the dead body of Jesus. For two thousand years all any anti-Christian despot had to do was to roll out a verifiable Jewish body and poof! the largest religion in the world would collapse. Nobody has done it. As far as I know nobody has even tried.

But in terms of creationism - specifically YEC's scientific claims - we have a good idea of what Y is. We should expect to see young radionuclides, a global sedimentary layer, etc. ...

I hope you see my point.

I do see you're point and its a very logical and good one, but I don't agree with your point, for no logical reason at all, just faith that what God gave us to read is true.

I was asking mark that in specific response to what he said. But I'm not so much concerned with whether you "can be a real Christian" without YECism. I'm concerned about works.

For example, if one believes that human dignity begins at conception, one will oppose abortion as murder. This would lead to anti-abortion rallies, etc. ...

In the same vein - what difference would YECism make?

Hmmmmmmmmmm. I'll have to think on that one, do you have any examples?

 

[shernren]

The physical body of Jesus was no different from any other physical body, scientifically the body of Jesus should decay no differently from any other body. However, there are two bodies in the gospels dead for three days that got up and lived.

Lazarus a very much average man dead and decaying is medically impossible to have gotten up and lived.

Science only makes blanket statements about what normally happens. Science says that "people can't walk on water". What if we say "But Jesus walked on water!" then science would say, "I can't say anything about that - you're invoking something which is outside my explanatory reach".

We believe that miracles happen which are indeed outside the explanatory reach of science. However, we don't doubt YECism because the act itself is impossible. We doubt it because given that it happened we should see things today, when in fact we see the exact opposite.

I do see you're point and its a very logical and good one, but I don't agree with your point, for no logical reason at all, just faith that what God gave us to read is true.

I'm not sure why you'd see a point as logical and yet not accept it. I think that where you and I disagree is in the last point - I think that you believe that there is scientific evidence for YECism. Well, I won't argue with you about that on this thread.

Hmmmmmmmmmm. I'll have to think on that one, do you have any examples?

I don't have any, and that's my whole question. In another thread mark was connecting wisdom to YECism and folly to TEism. But from the way I see things, in the Bible wisdom and folly aren't just used to describe positions of logic, they are used to describe behavioural patterns. Behaviour which does not follow God is said to be "folly" and behaviour which does follow God is said to be "wise".

So what is YEC's "wisdom" in behaviour?

Take your time.

 

[charityagape]

I don't have any, and that's my whole question. In another thread mark was connecting wisdom to YECism and folly to TEism. But from the way I see things, in the Bible wisdom and folly aren't just used to describe positions of logic, they are used to describe behavioural patterns. Behaviour which does not follow God is said to be "folly" and behaviour which does follow God is said to be "wise".

So what is YEC's "wisdom" in behaviour?

Take your time.

Ah. I see. I don't know that I'd ever connect TEism to folly, more like worldly wisdom.

And YEC is not so much about wisdom as faith.

Also, and this is only my opinion made from years of forum talking with TE's that many tend to have a more philosophical view of Christianity and less of a "faith" view (Faith view not really the best terminology but the best I can explain it) where as C's have a very faith view. (as always there are exceptions).

TE's (i've spoken with) tend not to believe in miracles (or miracles with no natural explanation) in the bible or miracles in their everyday life. Or if they do say those miracles are possible but they don't really matter to them if they happened or not their belief doesn't take miracles into account one way or another, a more philisophical view IMHO.

C's (I've spoken with and myself included) are more likely to believe in things like praying for your cousin to be healed of Cancer and expecting it to happen (and it happening).


..................................

Science only makes blanket statements about what normally happens. Science says that "people can't walk on water". What if we say "But Jesus walked on water!" then science would say, "I can't say anything about that - you're invoking something which is outside my explanatory reach".

We believe that miracles happen which are indeed outside the explanatory reach of science. However, we don't doubt YECism because the act itself is impossible. We doubt it because given that it happened we should see things today, when in fact we see the exact opposite.

I think I see. Science can regard a miracle like walking on water as an abberation that has no effect on anthing else and since it can't be studied they can't say it didn't happen that only in general it doesn't happen? Although, I do think science and medicine would have a more definite opinion on death and ressurection, but it could also be seen as an abberation that can't be studied unless I guess God was willing to let scientist's study such miracles at will (which I can't see happening) no determination can be made?

But your saying with creation its a very large scale "miracle" that can be studied and its effects today can be studied, etc. It's a very large event that has effects and connections to everything and a six day creation could in no way be considered an abberation?

 

[shernren]

TE's (i've spoken with) tend not to believe in miracles (or miracles with no natural explanation) in the bible or miracles in their everyday life. Or if they do say those miracles are possible but they don't really matter to them if they happened or not their belief doesn't take miracles into account one way or another, a more philisophical view IMHO.

C's (I've spoken with and myself included) are more likely to believe in things like praying for your cousin to be healed of Cancer and expecting it to happen (and it happening).

To be honest, I don't know if the TEs here on the forum are how you describe them. I can't speak for them.

For me, however, I have no objection with "miracles" happening. The reason I use the quote marks is because in the first place they may have been caused by previously unknown natural principles. For example, take those cases where people are "miraculously" healed of cancer. What is their basis? More often than not "some doctor told us that his chance of survival was only 0.04%". Well, for all you know, the doctor could have been plain wrong, and wholly natural yet unknown-to-science processes could have cleared up the sickness. I am not saying that all miracles can be explained away in such a manner. But I suspect that some can.

Having said that, I think it flows quite naturally from the many injunctions in Scripture that we should pray for sicknesses to be healed. God could answer through guiding a doctor's knife and making a perfectly natural surgery a success, through allowing natural processes not known by science to work, producing a "miracle" which will not seem like a miracle to people who elucidate the process, really reverse the laws of nature ... or let the person die if his or her time is up in His opinion.

For me I think you've partly represented me accurately in your views. I don't think miracles on the whole should play a large part in theology. Mind you, I believe wholeheartedly in the miracles of virgin conception and resurrection and I believe that those particular miracles are indeed pivotal to Christian thinking. But as a whole, the general idea of "God breaks laws to do things in history" just doesn't work out, for me at least. At isolated places, in the process demonstrating theological truths through analogy, yes miracles do make theological sense. But a fundamentally miracle-based theology has to deal with the fact that 99% of history on a macro scale isn't really determined by anything miraculous at all. We have natural processes dominating life: so it is far more convenient to believe that God works through natural processes as much as through supernatural processes.

Having said that, I have no qualms with praying for people's sickness. So for me at least that isn't really a big difference between YECism and TEism. Besides, whether or not God heals cancer doesn't really have much connection to whether or not He created in six days 6,000 years ago, to me at least.

 

[charityagape]

Fair enough. I've really enjoyed this thread, thanks.

 

[Mark2010]

Charity,

Do you believe there are events --- either historical or current --- in which no rational, logical explanation can be made? Any examples?

 

[charityagape]

Well depends on what you mean by event.

But a few come to mind in the bible. Walking on water, floating axe head, talking donkey, Jericho walls falling, etc. Is that what you mean?

 

[Mark2010]

Yeah, those are good examples? Do you think there could be explanations that are not readily apparent that would make sense?

Do most Christians believe that those eents actually happened? How do you determine at is literal and what is not?

 

[shernren]

Let's look very carefully at how words are being used. I don't mean this as an insult ("Are you saying I'm being careless with words?" - I'm not implying that at all) but as an instructive example.

You asked: Charity,

Do you believe there are events --- either historical or current --- in which no rational, logical explanation can be made? Any examples?

I hope I have not misinterpreted your question but let me just state my position.

No, I don't think anything happens without a rational, logical explanation. The resurrection has a very rational and logical explanation - God became a Man and died to save His people from their sins. That's a rational and logical explanation for the cross and resurrection.

I believe that what you may have been asking is, whether anything happens without any scientific explanation?

Notice how "rational, logical" has become a synonym for "scientific". Something true must be scientifically true. If it isn't scientifically studyable then there must be something intrinsically non-rational and non-logical about it.

I don't believe that is the case. Whenever miracles happen in the Biblical context we see that Jesus always attached some sort of theological significance to it - praising someone's faith, condemning the blindness of the Pharisees, questioning their interpretation of the Sabbath, etc. He didn't just do those miracles to show off - "ooh, look how I can bend the forces of nature!" - but intended for them to be signs to complement His teaching, which was what many people marveled at as well. Did His miracles have scientific explanations? Not necessarily. Does that mean they don't have a rational and logical explanation? Not at all. The way the miracles were chosen for retelling says a lot about the priorities of the Gospel writers in putting their unique perspectives on the ministry of Jesus.

I think I see. Science can regard a miracle like walking on water as an abberation that has no effect on anthing else and since it can't be studied they can't say it didn't happen that only in general it doesn't happen? Although, I do think science and medicine would have a more definite opinion on death and ressurection, but it could also be seen as an abberation that can't be studied unless I guess God was willing to let scientist's study such miracles at will (which I can't see happening) no determination can be made?

But your saying with creation its a very large scale "miracle" that can be studied and its effects today can be studied, etc. It's a very large event that has effects and connections to everything and a six day creation could in no way be considered an abberation?

My friend, the way YECs put it the six day creation can quite literally be called the miracle of everything. Everything which exists today was created in that. It is inconceivable that such a gargantuan event could have left no physical trace whatsoever, unless of course one invokes miracles as some sort of supernatural "hey, let's make everything look really old" cosmic Blanko.

In any case, I'm glad that you've enjoyed this thread.

 

[charityagape]

Yeah, those are good examples? Do you think there could be explanations that are not readily apparent that would make sense?

Do most Christians believe that those eents actually happened? How do you determine at is literal and what is not?

Do you think there could be explanations that are not readily apparent that would make sense?

Well, if taken literally, and I do, what could explain (in a way that "makes sense") a talking donkey (outside of shrek)?

What could explain a nation of people marching around a city for a week and the walls just falling down?

What could explain a floating axe head?

A man, actually two men walking on water?

What could explain in a way that "makes sense" (and I assume you mean scientifically explainable) God (that one word, God, makes this unscientifically explainable) humbling himself to become a man, born of a virgin, dying on a cross of the sins of the world and resurecting?

So no, for those examples (and so many more) I don't think there are explanations, more "natural" explanations, that are not readily apparent.

Do most Christians believe that those eents actually happened?

I can't speak for most Christians, but I'm a Christian and I believe those events literally happened as written.

How do you determine at is literal and what is not?

If the bible says it happened, I take it as literal. There is one qualifier I suppose because TE's often mention this. If the bible mentions it with specifics like names, years, places, etc, I take it as literal. Of course the parables are vague on "facts" and I don't take those literally. Although the could be, stories of something that happened that illustrates a point.

 

[charityagape]

No, I don't think anything happens without a rational, logical explanation. The resurrection has a very rational and logical explanation - God became a Man and died to save His people from their sins. That's a rational and logical explanation for the cross and resurrection.

I believe that what you may have been asking is, whether anything happens without any scientific explanation?

Notice how "rational, logical" has become a synonym for "scientific". Something true must be scientifically true. If it isn't scientifically studyable then there must be something intrinsically non-rational and non-logical about it.

I don't believe that is the case. Whenever miracles happen in the Biblical context we see that Jesus always attached some sort of theological significance to it - praising someone's faith, condemning the blindness of the Pharisees, questioning their interpretation of the Sabbath, etc. He didn't just do those miracles to show off - "ooh, look how I can bend the forces of nature!" - but intended for them to be signs to complement His teaching, which was what many people marveled at as well. Did His miracles have scientific explanations? Not necessarily. Does that mean they don't have a rational and logical explanation? Not at all. The way the miracles were chosen for retelling says a lot about the priorities of the Gospel writers in putting their unique perspectives on the ministry of Jesus.

That is an awesome statement, no matter what camp YEC or TE, this is just simply great.

My friend, the way YECs put it the six day creation can quite literally be called the miracle of everything. Everything which exists today was created in that. It is inconceivable that such a gargantuan event could have left no physical trace whatsoever, unless of course one invokes miracles as some sort of supernatural "hey, let's make everything look really old" cosmic Blanko.

In any case, I'm glad that you've enjoyed this thread.

Yes, it is inconceivable. But then, I don't have a problem with the inconceivable.

"hey, let's make everything look really old" cosmic Blanko.

Now this is where I think AIG ect go wrong, I have no explanation for why things look old and no reason to try and make the way things look fit into what I believe to be true, I can even recognize that they do look old, however, (just notice this is a run-on sentence, but oh well) how things look matter nothing to me compared to what God gave us in the bible.

So, looking at the world and saying this looks like this so God's word must not be literal since it doesn't look literal is the wrong way to view it, because our view is not as clear as God's view.

I believe the correct view is to see what God's word says and to know that no matter what it looks like, what God said is what it is, and we need to trust in that.

 

[Mark2010]

Thnaks for the explanation. How does this belief tend to favour creationism over some other form of origin? Do you believe in a six literl day time span? Do you have any specific beliefs as to what creation came from or the process involved?

Just trying to understand where you are coming from.

 

[charityagape]

Thnaks for the explanation. How does this belief tend to favour creationism over some other form of origin?

Not sure I understand this question.

Do you believe in a six literl day time span?

Yes.

Do you have any specific beliefs as to what creation came from or the process involved?

Do you mean any scientific beliefs? No. I believe creation came from God and the process involved is that He spoke it into being. When He said let there be light, light was.

Just trying to understand where you are coming from.

That's great.