Lost sheep or fatal disease?

lucaspa · Aug 18, 2003

I want to discuss how to approach creationists in general and YECers in particular.

Several of us here have reached the conclusion that Biblical literalism and the creationism it spawns are terrible doctrine, a positive danger to Christianity, and a danger to the individual. Biblical literalism is a suicidal jump off the theological cliff.

Yet no amount of reassurance seems to sway literalists from their literal interpretation. They reject anything that even questions creationism or literalism out of hand. Our experience at the Baptist board has been the ultimate in this, but on this board we have encountered several ceationists who will not reconsider that their literal interpretation.

Now, Christians are instructed to go after the lost sheep and bring them back into the fold. Ideally, that is what we would do for our siblings lost to Biblical literalism. But what if they absolutely refuse to open their ears and keep insisting the Biblical literalism is correct?

Or is Biblical literalism more like a fatal disease for which there is no cure? CAN these lost sheep be brought back from spiritual death or is Biblical literalism a fatal disease and all we can do is protect the rest of the flock? Do we have to give up hope for the Biblical literalist, mourn their death, and concentrate on those who still have a chance? Or is there a way to reach the Biblical literalist and convince him or her that losing literalism will only result in good things, while continuing on this path will inevitably lead to theological suicide?

wblastyn · Aug 18, 2003

lucaspa said:
Now, Christians are instructed to go after the lost sheep and bring them back into the fold. Ideally, that is what we would do for our siblings lost to Biblical literalism. But what if they absolutely refuse to open their ears and keep insisting the Biblical literalism is correct?

Well I think that's their problem, if they don't want to learn anything there's not much you can do.

Or is Biblical literalism more like a fatal disease for which there is no cure? CAN these lost sheep be brought back from spiritual death or is Biblical literalism a fatal disease and all we can do is protect the rest of the flock? Do we have to give up hope for the Biblical literalist, mourn their death, and concentrate on those who still have a chance...

I think it depends on the type of person, if they are proud, scientifically illiterate and unwilling to learn then their probably lost, but if they were simply misinformed but open minded then they could be helped like I was.

Maybe if you could figure out why they hold on to creationism so much you could help them. I know I liked creationism because it seemed magical, we were zapped into existance supernaturally, it made the world seem more interesting, and evolution seemed to take the magic away, although now I think evolution is much better than being zapped into existance.

lucaspa · Aug 18, 2003

From Vance

One thing to point out is that while God can and does "over-ride" his own natural laws when it fits His purpose (as with all the miracles described in the Bible), those natural laws are still there and discoverable by science. These laws, if understood correctly, can explain the past and predict the future in EVERY case except those in which God purposefully chose to over-ride them. The natural world was created by God and does not lie to us, but it can never disprove any event in which a supernatural force was involved since such action is just that: "super"-natural.

I agree. What I notice among creationists is that they are hooked on god-of-the-gaps theology. They don't consider any action to be by God UNLESS it is supernatural. Hydrogen and oxygen burning to form water is just as much God acting as parting the Red Sea. But I have seen literalists reject that and with a straight face tell us that evolution is "strictly natural" as tho that excludes God.

The study of science is just the effort to determine what happens when there *is* no supernatural intervention.

You see, here I disagree. I would say that science is studying the material mechanisms God uses. Those material mechanisms are just as much "supernatural" as any miraculous event.

If the conclusion is that evolution happens unless there is a supernatural intervention, then we should take that seriously and ask ourselves to what extent the Scripture states *without doubt* that a supernatural overriding of this natural process took place.

That is one way. You do realize that you are putting "supernatural" such that you are looking for a discontinuity in nature. If you do that, it seems to me that you are making God a member of the universe because you are relying on direct intervention to connect members of the universe.

That would mean God made an incomplete universe.

I think we need to distinguish between God intervening in human history and gaps in nature. I think the second is verboten if God really is Creator.

lucaspa · Aug 18, 2003

wblastyn said:
I think it depends on the type of person, if they are proud, scientifically illiterate and unwilling to learn then their probably lost, but if they were simply misinformed but open minded then they could be helped like I was.

So your answer is "yes". Biblical literalism in some cases is lost sheep but in others is a fatal, incurable disease.

Maybe if you could figure out why they hold on to creationism so much you could help them.

That's where I am feeling puzzled. I react to what they write and answer the stated objections (like loss of original sin), but they don't seem to be the real, underlying issues. I have been trying to address what I THOUGHT was the underlying issue: that if God didn't create by creationism then they were afraid God didn't exist.

But my experience with some of the creationists here and the knee jerk reaction of the Baptist board seems to indicate that the problem is a devotion to literalism. I have called literalism worship of a fase idol before, and perhaps I was more right than I knew.

Did you notice that, as soon as I questioned the legitimacy of literalism (via Luke 2:1), that the charges of heresy and apostasy came out? The hypothesis that makes the most sense is that literalists really do worship literalism itself. I challenged the existence of their god, and they reacted violently.

So, if my hypothesis is correct, how do we wean them away from their false god? Or is that fatal?

I know I liked creationism because it seemed magical,

Are you saying you weren't into Biblical literalism?

Vance · Aug 18, 2003

You are right, it is incorrect to imply that God only works in the supernatural. The natural is as much his creative work as anything else. While I understand the problems with the "God of the gaps" approach, this is not what I am saying. I do not think that every time we can not explain something naturally, it must have a supernatural cause. It is just as likely that we simply have not discovered the natural cause.

Where we differ is that I do not make the opposite mistake: that God must be doing everything solely by natural means. When the Bible clearly and without other possible interpretation describes an event which conflicts with the natural laws He created, He is taking super-natural action. The fact that miracles did happen shows that God's perfect plan *does* include stepping outside of His natural laws for one reason or another. If He did it a single time, it shows that he could have done it millions of times with no negative implications for the perfection of His plan.

My belief is that such supernatural interventions are not to *correct* an imperfect plan, but are simply *part* of His plan. He knew these would happen from the beginning and they happened exactly in the time and place He arranged for them to happen. It is not as if He was watching his Creation unfold and said "Ah, I see I need a slight adjustment *here*". Now, the exact when, where and why of all these supernatural interventions may never be known. But my belief that they occur is not based on a *need* for them due to a gap in the creation process that must be explained. It is simply that the Scripture indicates that God *does* work this way on occassion, so I can not dismiss it even during the creation. Believing that, when he says that he created X or Y, I will consider the possibility that this was just such a supernatural intervention unless it is shown that it is more likely in the specific instance that He created X or Y through His natural means.

lucaspa · Aug 18, 2003

Vance said:
Where we differ is that I do not make the opposite mistake: that God must be doing everything solely by natural means. When the Bible describes an event which conflicts with the natural laws He created, He is taking super-natural action. The fact that miracles did happen shows that God's perfect plan *does* include stepping outside of His natural laws for one reason or another. If He did it a single time, it shows that he could have done it millions of times with no negative implications for the perfection of His plan.

This is where I thought we needed to draw the distinction between God intervening in human history and God needing to fill gaps in nature. The miracles in the Bible have definite THEOLOGICAL purposes. IOW, they are part of a message to humans.

I never said, nor do I see a necessity to say, that God has a definite plan at all and certainly not that the plan is "perfect". It is only necessary that God have a GOAL and works toward it; not that He has a detailed plan to get there.

Ah, I see it now, you misunderstood what I was saying:

My belief is that such supernatural interventions are not to *correct* an imperfect plan, but are simply *part* of His plan.

I was not talking about a plan, but about God's relationship to creation. Let's see if I can explain it better: IF God has to directly fill a gap in the universe and DIRECTLY bridge two components of the universe, then that makes God a PART of the universe. It moves God from Creator to creature.

So, when God put the universe together there should be no gaps between members of the universe. That is, God does not have to intervene to bridge a gap between the immune system of fish and the immune system of humans. The members of the universe -- in this case evolution by natural selection -- will connect those two.

He knew these would happen from the beginning and they happened exactly in the time and place He arranged for them to happen. It is not as if He was watching his Creation unfold and said "Ah, I see I need a slight adjustment *here*".

But if God's creation were complete, there was no need for these events to happen. If God does this millions of times, then that really makes God a creature within the universe, not the Creator outside the universe.

Believing that, when he says that he created X or Y, I will consider the possibility that this was just such a supernatural intervention unless it is shown that it is more likely in the specific instance that He created X or Y through His natural means.

This is still god-of-the-gaps. You put God into a gap between two members of the universe. Between no humans and humans. God zaps humans into existence in their present form. However, what happens to God when the gap is filled?

What is worse, you are making a value judgement on "more likely". That's not how science works. Science falsifies. So what you get is the supernatural intervention falsified. But then the issue comes up why your default position is supernatural intervention.

The answer to that is "when he says". This indicates that you think God directly wrote Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 and 3. But if that is the case, then you run into the difficulty of the contradictions between these 2 creation stories. Why should one entity contradict itself on the same event? God has to be lying in one of the creation stories AND lying in Creation, since Creation doesn't fit either story.

While saying that a literal interpretation is faulty, you are using the language that Biblical literalists use.

It sounds like you still want God to have zapped some entities or parts of entities into existence in their present form. Irreducibly complex structures, perhaps? Complex specified information, perhaps?

Vance · Aug 18, 2003

Lucaspa said:

"But if God's creation were complete, there was no need for these events to happen."

This is to presume we know God's motives. To my thinking, His choice to intervene at points does not mean in the least that His plan was incomplete. It was complete from the beginning *with* His planned interventions involved. I have no problem whatsoever with God's involvement in His own creation. I think He intervenes all the time with us and has throughout our history. He created His Creation so that He *could* interact with it.

I do not say that it is *necessary* for God to step in as a "gap-filler" between any two events. I am saying that He could easily have chosen to do it that way, and I would have no possible idea why He would do this in certain situations. He is God and His ways are beyond our comprehension. Which is an important point in this whole discussion.

And, yes, I do think that God inspired every word of the Bible and that it is all true and inerrant in its message to us. True, that does not mean that it should be read literally in every detail, there are many non-literal passages, obviously. But God went into the detail He did in Genesis for a reason (and didn't go into any *greater* detail for a reason!). So, His two descriptions of the creation are there for a reason, and with a non-literal reading, I do not see them in conflict at all.

And, God's supernatural involvement is not a default for every unexplained event. It is the default when it seems from the text that God took a specific action. Since I believe that God *did* take specific actions when and where it fit in His plan to do so, I will always consider it possible that a certain event is such an intervention (without concluding it is *necessarily* so) until I am sufficiently persuaded that God created it by natural means.

And, yes, I think every plan God has is perfect.

wblastyn · Aug 19, 2003

lucaspa said:
So your answer is "yes". Biblical literalism in some cases is lost sheep but in others is a fatal, incurable disease.

Er, yes.

That's where I am feeling puzzled. I react to what they write and answer the stated objections (like loss of original sin), but they don't seem to be the real, underlying issues. I have been trying to address what I THOUGHT was the underlying issue: that if God didn't create by creationism then they were afraid God didn't exist.

Well I think that probably is the real issue, but they have to realise for themselves that evolution does not deny God, I don't think there's much you can do.

I've been trying to get back into that creationist mind set I used to be in to try and understand them better, but I can't do it.

It could also be because creationism gives them faith in God, they look around and see everything as a "perfect" design (although we know it's not perfect) and that gives them faith in God because everythig could not have formed perfectly by "accident", so it's their "proof" that God exists. Evolution takes that security blanket away because it says humans (or life, the universe) could have got here without God (hence they reject the Big Bang and abiogenesis as well) because we don't really know if God is the force behind evolution, maybe it could run on it's own. So without creationism they may not have any faith to believe in God.

But my experience with some of the creationists here and the knee jerk reaction of the Baptist board seems to indicate that the problem is a devotion to literalism. I have called literalism worship of a fase idol before, and perhaps I was more right than I knew.

It might be a fear of evolution. I think some creationists are lead to believe evoluton is evil, so anytime they hear about evolution there's a knee jerk reaction to reject it because it's "evil" without really learning what it is (kinda like how some people react to Harry Potter, witchcraft=evil, HP=witchcraft threfore HP is evil without really learning what HP is about).

Did you notice that, as soon as I questioned the legitimacy of literalism (via Luke 2:1), that the charges of heresy and apostasy came out? The hypothesis that makes the most sense is that literalists really do worship literalism itself. I challenged the existence of their god, and they reacted violently.

They probably think non-literal=false, so they were accusing you of saying the Bible is false.

So, if my hypothesis is correct, how do we wean them away from their false god? Or is that fatal?

I've no idea heh.

Are you saying you weren't into Biblical literalism?

Well I took Genesis literally because I had been told you had to in order to be a Christian, and I had never been told otherwise. I also thought evolution=evil and I had a knee jerk reaction against it and it made the world more interesting. I think creationism was my "proof" God existed, although it wasn't my only evidence as I have my personal experiences for that, which is why I could give it up so easily.

pudmuddle · Aug 20, 2003

lucaspa said:
I want to discuss how to approach creationists in general and YECers in particular.

Several of us here have reached the conclusion that Biblical literalism and the creationism it spawns are terrible doctrine, a positive danger to Christianity, and a danger to the individual. Biblical literalism is a suicidal jump off the theological cliff.?

A lot of us have reached the conclusion that blind belief in the claims of science and the evolution theory is a terrible breach of doctrine, a positive danger to Christianity, and a danger to the individual that embraces it.

lucaspa said:
Yet no amount of reassurance seems to sway literalists from their literal interpretation. They reject anything that even questions creationism or literalism out of hand. Our experience at the Baptist board has been the ultimate in this, but on this board we have encountered several ceationists who will not reconsider that their literal interpretation..?

Yet no amount of pointing out the simple truths of God's Word, seems to sway those who believe in a literal and complete evolutionary process, where the hand of God is, at best, only a footnote.

lucaspa said:
Now, Christians are instructed to go after the lost sheep and bring them back into the fold. Ideally, that is what we would do for our siblings lost to Biblical literalism. But what if they absolutely refuse to open their ears and keep insisting the Biblical literalism is correct??

We are instucted to go after the lost sheep and bring them back into the fold. Ideally, this it what we should do for those who have fallen into relivatism, and no longer believe "as a chid", but slant the Word to fit their own purposes. But what if they absolutiely refuse to see the error of their ways and keep insisting that it was men, not God, who breathed out the Living Word?

lucaspa said:
Or is Biblical literalism more like a fatal disease for which there is no cure? CAN these lost sheep be brought back from spiritual death or is Biblical literalism a fatal disease and all we can do is protect the rest of the flock? Do we have to give up hope for the Biblical literalist, mourn their death, and concentrate on those who still have a chance? Or is there a way to reach the Biblical literalist and convince him or her that losing literalism will only result in good things, while continuing on this path will inevitably lead to theological suicide?

Or is relivitism more like a fatal disease which will continue to weaken the church until they no longer hold anything to be sacred? IS there still time to take back some of the ground we have lost? Do we have to give up hope for our brethern who have slipped down this slope, until they will argue that any virtue is only true if they approve it? Do we concentrate only on the new believers, and encourage them not to fall into the trap as many have, seduced with the "proofs" offered by a world that grows increasingly hostile to those who hold to Absolute Truth? Can we hope to convince some of those who have fallen for the lies to return, rather then continue on a path that will inevitalble lead to theological suicide? We can only try, and with God's help, with snatch some back from the brink.

notto · Aug 20, 2003

pudmuddle said:
Can we hope to convince some of those who have fallen for the lies to return, rather then continue on a path that will inevitalble lead to theological suicide? We can only try, and with God's help, with snatch some back from the brink.

Young Earth Creationism is theological suicide because as more and more of the claims of this doctrine are found to be either extra-biblical (no death before the fall, hyper-speciation after the flood, water canopy around the earth, t-rexes as plant eaters) or unsupportable with rational and repeatable evidence (historical cultures older than the YEC claims, no viable mechanism to explain the geology of the planet and a geologicl record that clearly falsifies the global flood, distant starlight, constant radioactive properties) it builds up a system where God can be falsified if the claims of YEC continue to be falsified.

nephilimiyr · Aug 21, 2003

lucaspa said:
So, if my hypothesis is correct, how do we wean them away from their false god? Or is that fatal?

My personal belief is that the more you argue and fight the further away you become. Both sides have to realize that no matter how much they believe something is true they still don't know it all. There are vast stores of information we will never learn or realize in this life. I believe Gods glory is so great there is no man who can come close to explaining it. So we argue and debate about it but to no avail. I believe once everyone comes to the belief that they must use humility in a debate about their beliefs only then will people learn. Read my signature!

In other words lucaspa, your not going to wean those people from any false god untill you both humble yourselves. To endeavour in this pursuit without this could be fatal!

Also, please take note of this, Romans 14:22, Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.

wblastyn · Aug 21, 2003

pudmuddle said:
Yet no amount of pointing out the simple truths of God's Word, seems to sway those who believe in a literal and complete evolutionary process, where the hand of God is, at best, only a footnote.

When has the "truths of God's Word" ever been simple? If it were simple there would be no arguement over interpretations.

How is God "only a footnote"? Is God "only a footnote" when gravity attracts something towards it? If God is the creative force behind everything then wouldn't he be necessary in everything to make the universe run? So if God created by magic or evolution He is still involved.

Why do creationists ignore creation? Why do you put your interpretation of Genesis above what God has told us in creation?

If God exists and He created everything, but He used evolution to do it, isn't it obvious that God never intended Genesis to be literal?

pudmuddle · Aug 21, 2003

wblastyn said:
When has the "truths of God's Word" ever been simple? If it were simple there would be no arguement over interpretations.

How is God "only a footnote"? Is God "only a footnote" when gravity attracts something towards it? If God is the creative force behind everything then wouldn't he be necessary in everything to make the universe run? So if God created by magic or evolution He is still involved.

Why do creationists ignore creation? Why do you put your interpretation of Genesis above what God has told us in creation?

If God exists and He created everything, but He used evolution to do it, isn't it obvious that God never intended Genesis to be literal?

God is a footnote, in the evolutionary theory, because He is absent for 99% of it. But oh, yes, at least He started it....

I don't ignore creation. I don't interpret Genesis. I read it and believe it as written. You should try doing that sometime. It's quite refreshing. What God has told me in creation is that He is all powerful, a much better designer than me, and He even has a sense of humor-there's more, but I'm tired...

Serapha · Aug 22, 2003

It is impossible to have a conversation on this topic without being harassed, so why should a YEC stand up here?

I don't consider taking the literal interpretation of the Bible as "theological suicide", but rather, everthing just falls into place... and I don't have any questions.

Those that don't follow a literal interpretation... have a multitude of questions that are unanswered in their minds.

God said it... and that makes it so.

~malaka~

wblastyn · Aug 22, 2003

pudmuddle said:
God is a footnote, in the evolutionary theory, because He is absent for 99% of it. But oh, yes, at least He started it....

How do you know he is absent? How do you know he is not required for it to run? Do you reject the theory of gravity because it doesn't have God pulling the planets around in an orbit? How do you know God isn't required for gravity to work?

I don't ignore creation. I don't interpret Genesis. I read it and believe it as written. You should try doing that sometime. It's quite refreshing. What God has told me in creation is that He is all powerful, a much better designer than me, and He even has a sense of humor-there's more, but I'm tired...

Any time you read something you interpret it, if you read it at face value then you interpret it literally, if you look at extrabiblical evidence and then read Genesis it is clear that it was not suposed to have been taken literally.

There are verses supporting geocentricism and a flat earth, but I suspect you don't take those verses literally based on extrabiblical evidence, so why do you cling to Genesis in the face of extrabiblical evidence that says it cannot possibly be literal?

wblastyn · Aug 22, 2003

Malaka said:
It is impossible to have a conversation on this topic without being harassed, so why should a YEC stand up here?

How is anyone being harassed?

I don't consider taking the literal interpretation of the Bible as "theological suicide", but rather, everthing just falls into place... and I don't have any questions.

Well just because something is easier to understand doesn't mean it's true.

Those that don't follow a literal interpretation... have a multitude of questions that are unanswered in their minds.

Un answered questions are the best ones! We get to find the answers for them, which is fun. At least we are not arrogant enough to say we know everything about the beginning of the universe, life and the species.

God said it... and that makes it so.

But God did not actually say Genesis did He?

Lost sheep or fatal disease?

Legend

Jedi Master

Legend

Legend

Contributor

Legend

Contributor

Jedi Master

Active Member

Legend

I've Been Keepin My Eyes Wide Open

Jedi Master

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Jedi Master

Jedi Master

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency