Interesting article on the 'deconversion' of a Young-Earth creationist

[crossnote]

Look harder.

The Genesis creation myth is listed under "Middle East".
OB

Ok, I see it, but that is someone's spin on it because when you go to the Wiki article it says 'Creation Narrative'...not myth.

 

[AV1611VET]

So you figure that each religion in their own universities should teach their creation myths as reality instead of something that scientific research confirms is true for everyone ?

Scientific research can be bought with a price.

Ever heard of Thalidomide? the Deepwater Horizon?

 

[crossnote]

That is nice. However we are talking about science and what universities should teach. So you figure that each religion in their own universities should teach their creation myths as reality instead of something that scientific research confirms is true for everyone ?

Only if you take a scientific theory over God's Word. I'm still dumb founded why you list yourself as a 'Catholic', taking God's Word as a myth.

 

[AV1611VET]

Only if you take a scientific theory over God's Word. I'm still dumb founded why you list yourself as a 'Catholic', taking God's Word as a myth.

We believe the Antichrist and False Prophet will come from Europe.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

Only if you take a scientific theory over God's Word.

That is kind of the thing universities are supposed to do. Why not leave science to universities and scientists and matters of faith to priests.

Scientific research can be bought with a price.

Science can be checked though so it is not quite that easy at least on long term. You would probably agree that monetary considerations have swayed some members of the faith as well.....

We believe the Antichrist and False Prophet will come from Europe.

Awwwww....these days you would think it was from Mexico but that wall will stop it.

 

[Strathos]

We believe the Antichrist and False Prophet will come from Europe.

So if he comes from somewhere else you'll never see him coming?

 

[AV1611VET]

So if he comes from somewhere else you'll never see him coming?

I won't be here.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

I won't be here.

Isaiah 2:12

 

[crossnote]

We believe the Antichrist and False Prophet will come from Europe.

Wot me worry? We wont be here. lol

 

[crossnote]

That is kind of the thing universities are supposed to do. Why not leave science to universities and scientists and matters of faith to priests.

That's because as born again christians we don't have a caste system of 'priests' and 'laymen'. We all have equal access to the Father through the blood of Jesus Christ and we actually study our Bibles.

For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. (1Ti 2:5)

Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.
(Act 17:11)

 

[Strathos]

I won't be here.

Are you absolutely sure about that?

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you absolutely sure about that?

I take it that's a reference to eschatology ... not soteriology ... correct?

 

[Strathos]

I take it that's a reference to eschatology ... not soteriology ... correct?

Yes. I am not convinced of a Pre-Tribulation Rapture.

 

[crossnote]

Yes. I am not convinced of a Pre-Tribulation Rapture.

I noticed this gem yesterday, maybe it will help...

While people are saying, “There is peace and security,” then sudden destruction will come upon them as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and they will not escape.
(1Th 5:3)

Notice it doesn't say 'us' or 'upon all' which indicates we are not present.

 

[hedrick]

I am bemused as to why YECs do not recognise that the evolution of the universe, first in a physical sense, then in a biological sense, and now - through humanity - in a cultural sense, is a much more glorious and awesome Act of Creation than a six day glitzy extravaganza.

There are actually pretty good reasons. The moment you say that the creation story isn't true, you attack conservative Protestantism, in two ways:

• It says that the Bible isn't accurate in the literal sense used by conservative Protestants. This means that you can't just read it as a textbook on theology and morals. That has implications for a number of hot-button ethical issues.
• If the creation story isn't historical, it is very unlikely that the story of the Fall is accurate. In particular, it's hard to see how there could ever have been just two humans. But if it isn't accurate it affects the whole concept that everyone was corrupted by the Fall. If we developed through evolution, neither we nor the rest of the world was ever perfect. Instead, we developed to learn from our mistakes. This attacks the whole Western concept of what redemption is, though not necessarily the Eastern one.

While the attack is most directly on conservative Protestantism, it has impacts on other traditions as well. Mainline Protestantism was, of course, developed specifically in an environment where evolution is accepted.

There are ways around these problems, basically hybrid interpretations that mix literal and non-literal interpretations. But they're a bit hard to swallow.

 

[Strathos]

I noticed this gem yesterday, maybe it will help...

While people are saying, “There is peace and security,” then sudden destruction will come upon them as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and they will not escape.
(1Th 5:3)

Notice it doesn't say 'us' or 'upon all' which indicates we are not present.

I think Paul was saying that 'them' refers to people who are not expecting such an event. However this would be better discussed in a different subforum.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes. I am not convinced of a Pre-Tribulation Rapture.

Zephaniah 1:15 That day is a day of wrath, a day of trouble and distress, a day of wasteness and desolation, a day of darkness and gloominess, a day of clouds and thick darkness,

If the Tribulation Period (day of wrath) is being referred to, then ...

1 Thessalonians 5:9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,

 

[Ophiolite]

The moment you say that the creation story isn't true, you attack conservative Protestantism,

I follow your argument, which was well structured and clear. I think my use of the phrase "I don't understand . . . " was a poor choice. I do understand, but it frustrates me greatly.

I've emboldened the word "true" in your comment. I find it ludicrous the people insist that "true" and "literal" are equivalent. I find it profoundly ignorant that people are unable to recognise that a myth can be profoundly true at a deep, spiritual level. I am bewildered that such people seem unaware that metaphor and simile and allusion have been an essential part of human communication for millennia.

 

[Strathos]

Zephaniah 1:15 That day is a day of wrath, a day of trouble and distress, a day of wasteness and desolation, a day of darkness and gloominess, a day of clouds and thick darkness,

If the Tribulation Period (day of wrath) is being referred to, then ...

1 Thessalonians 5:9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,

Matthew 24:21-31 suggests otherwise. But this is off the topic of the thread.

 

[JackRT]

Sciences classes? We were having the theory of evolution crammed down our throat in the third grade in the '50's. I'd call that brainwashing, not giving us an alternative view.

There is no alternative scientific view.

 

[hedrick]

I've emboldened the word "true" in your comment. I find it ludicrous the people insist that "true" and "literal" are equivalent.

I agree with you. However I think the most likely non-literal views would still have the consequences I mention.

First, a number of ethical and practical issues, particularly involving sex and gender, depend upon traditional understandings that are considered to be "literal." I guess you could adopt a non-literal reading of Genesis and continue "literal" readings of everything else, but it seems weird, because it would seem to be inconsistent with the concept of Scripture which underlies "literal" interpretation.

Second, Western ideas of the inherent corruption of humanity are normally justified by a literal reading of Gen 3. In principle you could justify them with a non-literal reading, but I think it would be a lot less convincing. Furthermore, if your non-literal reading of Genesis includes evolution, I believe the whole concept of humanity being created perfect and falling becomes nearly impossible to maintain. I think an understanding that humans are built to try things out and learn from their mistakes is inconsistent with most Western theology. To mention just one problem: if that's the nature of humans, it's the nature of Christ. That would be inconsistent with the traditional view that he is sinless, without some serious reconsideration of just what sin is.