Is this a plausible Christian view?

[ViaCrucis]

Honestly it seems he just has a jumble of beliefs. Cause yeah, he's not exactly a deist but he holds these theories that are more appropriate for deism than the Christian God specifically. He said he believes creation is imperfect if "God had to intervene", yet clearly we have records in the Bible of God intervening on earth, naturally or through prophets. He doesn't believe in the flood but the Bible explicitly states the flood as an actual event. But then again, he doesn't even hold the Bible as being all true, which in my opinion if you're going to do that how can you be a Christian? So that's why I said Christian Deist, it's just a weird mishmash of beliefs and I'm not quite sure why he has them.

One doesn't need to believe that the flood story historically, literally happened to believe the text in Genesis is true.

The Genesis flood story is rooted within the general context of ancient near eastern flood stories which may have an historical precedent in the form of a catastrophic local flood. But the point of the story isn't just to say, "A lot of water came down and there was a floating zoo", it's instead addressing more complex theological questions.

The purpose for the flood is given that God regrets having created man who having fallen and turned away from God is an out of control mess. So God chooses to flood the earth and start over. Noah and his family are presented as the sole righteous people in the world, and so God preserves them through this judgment of water upon the world.

And yet notice that, fundamentally, nothing has really changed. Noah builds an altar, and shortly thereafter drinks himself silly and passes out drunk and naked in his tent. Noah's son Ham sees this and the sense of the text is that Ham shames his father, and then Noah curses his own grandson, Ham's son Canaan. I mean really, what's changed? Noah's still ashamed of his nakedness just as Adam was after the fall, his own son shames him, Noah in anger curses his own grandson. What did the flood really accomplish? The reader of the story should be immediately struck by the fact that the flood ultimately accomplishes nothing.

And that's the lesson to be learned: Even if God destroys the world, destroys wickedness and just sticks with the best of the best, it doesn't actually fix the brokenness of the world. And so the text then goes on to show how God will. Abraham, the son of a man named Terah from the region of Ur is promised a son, Isaac. Isaac will have a son named Jacob whose name will be called Israel, whose descendents will fill the land of promise as a people of covenant.

And as a Christian one will see in this also the expectations and promises ultimately fulfilled in and by Jesus the Christ. Who will be God's engagement with a world filled with wickedness not to destroy it, but to save it.

The story of the flood can be true without being a literalistic history. That is generally the point of myth-telling, addressing the complex issues of the world around us in the form of story and narrative. It's how mankind has generally spoken about the world through most of its history.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[bhsmte]

Do you have any statistics on this? Everything I find states the exact opposite.

This stuff has been cited on this board numerous times.

Public’s Views on Human Evolution | Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project

 

[Paradoxum]

Honestly it seems he just has a jumble of beliefs.

Maybe, or maybe you just don't understand why he believes what he believes. I used to believe similar things, but I had reasons for believing them.

Cause yeah, he's not exactly a deist but he holds these theories that are more appropriate for deism than the Christian God specifically.

Nothing I've read seems more deist than Christian. Wonder if you don't know what deism or Christianity are.

You said he believed Jesus was God? That makes him a Christian, and definitely not a deist.

He said he believes creation is imperfect if "God had to intervene", yet clearly we have records in the Bible of God intervening on earth, naturally or through prophets.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. I'm guessing he meant God having to intervene in the creation of life? That is a different thing from intervening like how you mean.

He doesn't believe in the flood but the Bible explicitly states the flood as an actual event.

Perhaps he doesn't think it's meant to be taken literally... or maybe he doesn't think the Bible is infallible.

But then again, he doesn't even hold the Bible as being all true, which in my opinion if you're going to do that how can you be a Christian?

Very easily. You don't have to think the Bible is infallible to be a Christian.

So that's why I said Christian Deist, it's just a weird mishmash of beliefs and I'm not quite sure why he has them.

Well he isn't a deist from what you've said.

Just because you don't understand, that doesn't mean he doesn't have his reasons. In fact, his beliefs could make more sense than yours. If you don't understand, that's probably an issue with you, not him.

 

[Hakan101]

One doesn't need to believe that the flood story historically, literally happened to believe the text in Genesis is true.

The Genesis flood story is rooted within the general context of ancient near eastern flood stories which may have an historical precedent in the form of a catastrophic local flood. But the point of the story isn't just to say, "A lot of water came down and there was a floating zoo", it's instead addressing more complex theological questions.

The purpose for the flood is given that God regrets having created man who having fallen and turned away from God is an out of control mess. So God chooses to flood the earth and start over. Noah and his family are presented as the sole righteous people in the world, and so God preserves them through this judgment of water upon the world.

And yet notice that, fundamentally, nothing has really changed. Noah builds an altar, and shortly thereafter drinks himself silly and passes out drunk and naked in his tent. Noah's son Ham sees this and the sense of the text is that Ham shames his father, and then Noah curses his own grandson, Ham's son Canaan. I mean really, what's changed? Noah's still ashamed of his nakedness just as Adam was after the fall, his own son shames him, Noah in anger curses his own grandson. What did the flood really accomplish? The reader of the story should be immediately struck by the fact that the flood ultimately accomplishes nothing.

And that's the lesson to be learned: Even if God destroys the world, destroys wickedness and just sticks with the best of the best, it doesn't actually fix the brokenness of the world. And so the text then goes on to show how God will. Abraham, the son of a man named Terah from the region of Ur is promised a son, Isaac. Isaac will have a son named Jacob whose name will be called Israel, whose descendents will fill the land of promise as a people of covenant.

And as a Christian one will see in this also the expectations and promises ultimately fulfilled in and by Jesus the Christ. Who will be God's engagement with a world filled with wickedness not to destroy it, but to save it.

The story of the flood can be true without being a literalistic history. That is generally the point of myth-telling, addressing the complex issues of the world around us in the form of story and narrative. It's how mankind has generally spoken about the world through most of its history.

-CryptoLutheran

See this doesn't make sense because the Bible in all its references to Noah speaks of him as a man who really existed, and the flood as something that happened. There are references to the flood in the new testament as well, and speaks of it as literal. I mean, of course there are moral themes to be learned, but how is this not supposed to be taken literally? The Bible says giants were on the earth in the days before the flood and after, are Christians now saying this wasn't literal either? When did we stop believing in the miracles God could do? If we all believe Jesus *fully rose from the dead*, why is a global flood so hard to believe?

 

[Hakan101]

This stuff has been cited on this board numerous times.

Public’s Views on Human Evolution | Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project

This link is about belief in evolution, not whether Christians take the bible as absolute truth. There is plenty of people who believe evolution doesn't contradict the Bible.

 

[bhsmte]

This link is about belief in evolution, not whether Christians take the bible as absolute truth. There is plenty of people who believe evolution doesn't contradict the Bible.

And there are plenty of Christians who claim evolution does contradict the bible.

 

[Hakan101]

And there are plenty of Christians who claim evolution does contradict the bible.

Um...no shyza. I was asking you for a source that shows me "Very few Christians hold the bible as being completely true. Only fundamentalists, would hold to this belief and they are the minority of Christians." You instead showed me a source that showed some Christians believe in evolution.

 

[bhsmte]

Um...no shyza. I was asking you for a source that shows me "Very few Christians hold the bible as being completely true. Only fundamentalists, would hold to this belief and they are the minority of Christians." You instead showed me a source that showed some Christians believe in evolution.

I showed you a pew poll that showed the majority of Christians agree with evolution, not some. If they agree with evolution, they clearly do not take the bible as completely true or literal.

https://www.barna.org/barna-update/...at-satan-or-the-holy-spirit-exis#.U82tZjYo7IU

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

One doesn't need to believe that the flood story historically, literally happened to believe the text in Genesis is true.

The Genesis flood story is rooted within the general context of ancient near eastern flood stories which may have an historical precedent in the form of a catastrophic local flood. But the point of the story isn't just to say, "A lot of water came down and there was a floating zoo", it's instead addressing more complex theological questions.

The purpose for the flood is given that God regrets having created man who having fallen and turned away from God is an out of control mess. So God chooses to flood the earth and start over. Noah and his family are presented as the sole righteous people in the world, and so God preserves them through this judgment of water upon the world.

And yet notice that, fundamentally, nothing has really changed. Noah builds an altar, and shortly thereafter drinks himself silly and passes out drunk and naked in his tent. Noah's son Ham sees this and the sense of the text is that Ham shames his father, and then Noah curses his own grandson, Ham's son Canaan. I mean really, what's changed? Noah's still ashamed of his nakedness just as Adam was after the fall, his own son shames him, Noah in anger curses his own grandson. What did the flood really accomplish? The reader of the story should be immediately struck by the fact that the flood ultimately accomplishes nothing.

And that's the lesson to be learned: Even if God destroys the world, destroys wickedness and just sticks with the best of the best, it doesn't actually fix the brokenness of the world. And so the text then goes on to show how God will. Abraham, the son of a man named Terah from the region of Ur is promised a son, Isaac. Isaac will have a son named Jacob whose name will be called Israel, whose descendents will fill the land of promise as a people of covenant.

And as a Christian one will see in this also the expectations and promises ultimately fulfilled in and by Jesus the Christ. Who will be God's engagement with a world filled with wickedness not to destroy it, but to save it.

The story of the flood can be true without being a literalistic history. That is generally the point of myth-telling, addressing the complex issues of the world around us in the form of story and narrative. It's how mankind has generally spoken about the world through most of its history.

-CryptoLutheran

I <3 this.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

It&#8217;s helpful to remind ourselves that the word &#8220;evolution&#8221; is an accordion-word that can be expanded or contracted to suit the occasion. The evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala points out that the word &#8220;evolution&#8221; can be used to mean at least three different things:

1. The process of change and diversification of living things over time. It is in this sense that biologists say that evolution is a fact. But obviously this fact, so stated, is innocuous and would not be disputed even by the most fundamentalist Young Earth Creationist.

2. Reconstruction of evolutionary history, showing how various lineages branched off from one another on the universal tree of life.

3. The mechanisms which account for evolutionary change. Darwin appealed to natural selection operating on random variations in living things in order to explain the adaptedness of organisms to their environment. With the development of modern genetics, genetic mutations came to supplement the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection by supplying an explanation for the variations on which natural selection works. Accordingly, we can call this hypothesis &#8220;neo-Darwinism.&#8221;

Now evolution in the senses of (2) and (3) is not an established fact, despite what is said and believed in popular culture. According to Ayala, &#8220;The second and third issues&#8212;seeking to ascertain evolutionary history as well as to explain how and why evolution takes place&#8212;are matters of active scientific investigation. Some conclusions are well-established. Many matters are less certain, others are conjectural, and still others. . . remain largely unknown&#8221; (Darwin and Intelligent Design). With respect to (2) Ayala emphasizes, &#8220;Unfortunately, there is a lot, lot, lot to be discovered still. To reconstruct evolutionary history, we have to know how the mechanisms operate in detail, and we have only the vaguest idea of how they operate at the genetic level, how genetic change relates to development and to function. . . . I am implying that what would be discovered would be not only details, but some major principles&#8221; (Where Darwin Meets the Bible). As for (3), he cautions, &#8220;The mechanisms accounting for these changes are still undergoing investigation. . . . The evolution of organisms is universally accepted by biological scientists, while the mechanisms of evolution are still actively investigated and are the subject of debate among scientists&#8221;(&#8220;The Evolution of Life: An Overview&#8221.

Once you realize that the word &#8220;evolution&#8221; can be used to refer to any of these three aspects, you begin to understand how misleading it can be when it is asserted that evolution is an established, universally recognized fact.

Indeed, there are very good grounds for scepticism about the neo-Darwinian mechanisms behind evolutionary change. The adequacy of these mechanisms is today being sharply challenged by some of the top evolutionary biologists. In fact, I was intrigued recently to learn that Ayala has apparently since given up on the adequacy of the neo-Darwinian mechanisms. Lyn Margulis, one of the so-called Altenburg 16, a group of evolutionary biologists who met in 2008 at a conference in Altenburg, Austria, to explore the mechanisms behind evolutionary change, reported, &#8220;At that meeting [Francisco] Ayala agreed with me when I stated that this doctrinaire neo-Darwinism is dead. He was a practitioner of neo-Darwinism, but advances in molecular genetics, evolution, ecology, biochemistry, and other news had led him to agree that neo-Darwinism&#8217;s now dead&#8221; (Suzan Mazur, The Altenberg 16 [Berkeley: North Atlantic, 2010], p. 285).



Read more: Why Is Evolution So Widely Believed? | Reasonable Faith

 

[bhsmte]

It’s helpful to remind ourselves that the word “evolution” is an accordion-word that can be expanded or contracted to suit the occasion. The evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala points out that the word “evolution” can be used to mean at least three different things:

1. The process of change and diversification of living things over time. It is in this sense that biologists say that evolution is a fact. But obviously this fact, so stated, is innocuous and would not be disputed even by the most fundamentalist Young Earth Creationist.

2. Reconstruction of evolutionary history, showing how various lineages branched off from one another on the universal tree of life.

3. The mechanisms which account for evolutionary change. Darwin appealed to natural selection operating on random variations in living things in order to explain the adaptedness of organisms to their environment. With the development of modern genetics, genetic mutations came to supplement the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection by supplying an explanation for the variations on which natural selection works. Accordingly, we can call this hypothesis “neo-Darwinism.”

Now evolution in the senses of (2) and (3) is not an established fact, despite what is said and believed in popular culture. According to Ayala, “The second and third issues—seeking to ascertain evolutionary history as well as to explain how and why evolution takes place—are matters of active scientific investigation. Some conclusions are well-established. Many matters are less certain, others are conjectural, and still others. . . remain largely unknown” (Darwin and Intelligent Design). With respect to (2) Ayala emphasizes, “Unfortunately, there is a lot, lot, lot to be discovered still. To reconstruct evolutionary history, we have to know how the mechanisms operate in detail, and we have only the vaguest idea of how they operate at the genetic level, how genetic change relates to development and to function. . . . I am implying that what would be discovered would be not only details, but some major principles” (Where Darwin Meets the Bible). As for (3), he cautions, “The mechanisms accounting for these changes are still undergoing investigation. . . . The evolution of organisms is universally accepted by biological scientists, while the mechanisms of evolution are still actively investigated and are the subject of debate among scientists”(“The Evolution of Life: An Overview”).

Once you realize that the word “evolution” can be used to refer to any of these three aspects, you begin to understand how misleading it can be when it is asserted that evolution is an established, universally recognized fact.

Indeed, there are very good grounds for scepticism about the neo-Darwinian mechanisms behind evolutionary change. The adequacy of these mechanisms is today being sharply challenged by some of the top evolutionary biologists. In fact, I was intrigued recently to learn that Ayala has apparently since given up on the adequacy of the neo-Darwinian mechanisms. Lyn Margulis, one of the so-called Altenburg 16, a group of evolutionary biologists who met in 2008 at a conference in Altenburg, Austria, to explore the mechanisms behind evolutionary change, reported, “At that meeting [Francisco] Ayala agreed with me when I stated that this doctrinaire neo-Darwinism is dead. He was a practitioner of neo-Darwinism, but advances in molecular genetics, evolution, ecology, biochemistry, and other news had led him to agree that neo-Darwinism’s now dead” (Suzan Mazur, The Altenberg 16 [Berkeley: North Atlantic, 2010], p. 285).



Read more: Why Is Evolution So Widely Believed? | Reasonable Faith

I would love to see Craig debate a biologist on evolution. I don't believe he has ever gone down that road, has he?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

I would love to see Craig debate a biologist on evolution. I don't believe he has ever gone down that road, has he?

He has.....

Several things to note:

1. He is not a biologist. Craig tends to debate other philosophers, but not exclusively philosophers.

2. He has extended the invitation to Dawkins to debate several times as far as I am aware and Dawkins refuses.

3. Craig has debated evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala at Indian University in November of 2009 on the topic "Is Intelligent Design Viable?"

Is Intelligent Design Viable? Craig-Ayala Debate | Reasonable Faith

The above link is a debate transcript. Check it out.

 

[bhsmte]

He has.....

Several things to note:

1. He is not a biologist. Craig tends to debate other philosophers, but not exclusively philosophers.

2. He has extended the invitation to Dawkins to debate several times as far as I am aware and Dawkins refuses.

3. Craig has debated evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala at Indian University in November of 2009 on the topic "Is Intelligent Design Viable?"

Is Intelligent Design Viable? Craig-Ayala Debate | Reasonable Faith

The above link is a debate transcript. Check it out.

Much more interesting if they would have debated on the merits of evolution. I would guarantee you though, Craig wouldn't have gone near that one.

 

[bhsmte]

He has.....

Several things to note:

1. He is not a biologist. Craig tends to debate other philosophers, but not exclusively philosophers.

2. He has extended the invitation to Dawkins to debate several times as far as I am aware and Dawkins refuses.

3. Craig has debated evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala at Indian University in November of 2009 on the topic "Is Intelligent Design Viable?"

Is Intelligent Design Viable? Craig-Ayala Debate | Reasonable Faith

The above link is a debate transcript. Check it out.

I watched 10 minutes and couldn't take anymore.

I am sure Ayala is a smart dude and knows his stuff, but he is a horrible speaker and difficult to understand. Craig picked the right dude to debate on this topic, even though the matter of the viability of ID, has been thoroughly blown out of the water by the ID proponents themselves.

I think, Craig should have debated Francis Collins (assuming Collin's would waste his time) on the viability of ID, but again, Craig wouldn't have gotten near that one.

 

[ViaCrucis]

If they agree with evolution, they clearly do not take the bible as completely true or literal.

"True" and "literal" are not mutually synonymous. Plenty of Christians embrace the truth of the Bible without insisting that everywhere it is true it must also be everywhere literal.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Much more interesting if they would have debated on the merits of evolution. I would guarantee you though, Craig wouldn't have gone near that one.

As a naturalistic theory for the existence of life in its present form, I can wholeheartedly agree that it is the best theory.

For the naturalist, they really have no other options. So whatever they observe, they have to explain it by natural means however outlandish the explanation may be.

Craig would agree. So there is really nothing to debate about regarding that.

The debate is always going to be centered around the issue of whether or not naturalism is true.

But Craig has already debated Alex Rosenberg about this and shown how absurd naturalism is.

Check out the debate.

 

[ViaCrucis]

See this doesn't make sense because the Bible in all its references to Noah speaks of him as a man who really existed, and the flood as something that happened. There are references to the flood in the new testament as well, and speaks of it as literal. I mean, of course there are moral themes to be learned, but how is this not supposed to be taken literally?

If I refer to Hercules as a referent to something else, am I by necessity saying Hercules actually existed?

Jesus can refer to the flood story in the Olivet Discourse to make a point without it saying one way or the other whether the flood story literally took place. It is a literary reference, a story reference that anyone listening to Jesus would readily know because these are the stories embedded in the culture.

The Bible says giants were on the earth in the days before the flood and after, are Christians now saying this wasn't literal either?

Define "giant". The LXX translates the Hebrew nephilim as gigantes, but before thinking magic bean stalks, consider that Goliath was considered one of these "giants", and the oldest texts and references place Goliath at around just under 7 feet tall (the DSS, LXX, and Josephus agree on a "short" Goliath). Making Goliath shorter than some of today's NBA players.

But in truth the "nephilim" of Genesis 6 need not refer to "giants" of any sort. The more monstrous sense of the nephilim is a product of later apocryphal literature such as Enoch.

When did we stop believing in the miracles God could do? If we all believe Jesus *fully rose from the dead*, why is a global flood so hard to believe?

It's not about believing in the miraculous or not. It's about:

1) How to read ancient near eastern bronze age literature in a way that would be meaningful for the original audience.

2) Understanding that not all literature is the same, the Bible is a literary collection of all different sorts of literature: histories, poems, songs, letters, apocalypses, and yes mythology.

3) Geological evidence has for the last ~300 years consistently come up dry for anything resembling a global flood. Sure, perhaps God flooded the earth and then erased every trace of the event, but then we start going the deceptive God route just as though who argue there is only an "appearance" of age for the world/universe instead of actual age. And that's a theologically problematic place to be arguing.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Hakan101]

I showed you a pew poll that showed the majority of Christians agree with evolution, not some. If they agree with evolution, they clearly do not take the bible as completely true or literal.

https://www.barna.org/barna-update/...at-satan-or-the-holy-spirit-exis#.U82tZjYo7IU

Wrong. It shows they don't take the bible in an entirely literal sense. It does NOT show they believe the bible is not completely true. So again, show me the source where most Christians believe the Bible is not absolutely true.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

"True" and "literal" are not mutually synonymous. Plenty of Christians embrace the truth of the Bible without insisting that everywhere it is true it must also be everywhere literal.

-CryptoLutheran

Way to hit on the misconception.

For example, I think it is true that God created light. But if I were to interpret the text literally, I would be committed to believing God has a real mouth and lungs and a tongue with which He "spoke" light into existence. But obviously a spirit does not have lungs, a tongue, or a mouth.

So I can believe God really spoke the universe into existence without interpreting the text that says He did so literally.

I understand that when God is said to do something, the language is anthropomorphic in nature and not meant to be understood literally, but figuratively.

People forget this.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Wrong. It shows they don't take the bible in an entirely literal sense. It does NOT show they believe the bible is not completely true. So again, show me the source where most Christians believe the Bible is not absolutely true.

Good point.

There are a good many passages in the bible that I do not take literally. Why? Because I recognize the bible consists of many books, of many different genres and styles. The Song of Solomon for example. If you were to try and interpret that literally, you would not make it far.

The Book of Revelation, with its apocalyptic imagery.

Jesus telling people to pluck their eyes out etc.

None of this stuff is to be read literally. But that does not mean that Christians think these things are false.

Seems that to make that comparison is to make a category mistake.