"Simply" myth

[Didaskomenos]

PotLuck, you posted a statement in passing about why you dismiss the possibility of Genesis containing mythology. You said that you refuse to regard Genesis "simply as a myth". Problem is, no one ever said that it was "simply" a myth, especially if you're using "myth" as slang for "popularly believed falsehood; nonsense". I get so sick of hearing literalists say things like "just a myth." If it were "just a myth," I'd be willing to throw it out as rubbish. It's not just "myth", it's myth! C.S. Lewis (or is he too liberal?) obviously regarded myth as something invaluable. This is from God in the Dock.



"Human intellect is incurable abstract...Yet the only realities we experience are concrete - this pain, this pleasure, this dog, this man. While we are loving the man, bearing the pain, enjoying the pleasure, we are not intellectually apprehending Pleasure, Pain or Personality. When we begin to do so, on the other hand, the concrete realities sink to the level of mere instances or examples: we are no longer dealing with them, but with that which they exemplify. This is our dilemma - to taste and not to know or to know and not to taste -or, more strictly, to lack one kind of knowledge because we are outside it. As thinkers we are cut off from what we think about; as tasting, touching, willing, living, hating, we do not clearly understand. The more lucidly we think, the more we are cut off: the more deeply we enter into reality, the less we can think. You cannot study Pleasure in the moment of the nuptial embrace, nor repentance while repenting, not analyse the nature of humour while roaring with laughter. But when else can you really know these things? 'If only my toothache would stop, I could write another chapter about Pain.' But once it stops, what do I know about pain?



"Of this tragic dilemma myth is the partial solution. In the enjoyment of a great myth we come nearest to experiencing as a concrete what can otherwise be understood only as an abstraction. At this moment, for example, I am trying to understand something very abstract indeed - the fading, vanishing of tasted reality as we try to grasp it with the discursive reason. Probably I have made heavy weather of it. But if I remind you, instead, of Orpheus and Eurydice, how he was suffered to lead her by the hand but, when he turned round to look at her, she disappeared, what was merely a principle becomes imaginable. You may reply that you never till this moment attached that 'meaning' to that myth. Of course not. You are not looking for an abstract 'meaning' at all. If that was what you were doing the myth would be for you not true myth but a mere allegory. You were not knowing, but tasting; but what you’re tasting turns out to be a universal principle. The moment we state this principle, we are admittedly back in the world of abstraction. It is only while receiving the myth as a story that you experience the principle concretely.

"When we translate we get abstraction - or rather, dozens of abstractions. What flows into you from the myth is not truth but reality (truth is always about something, but reality is that about which truth is), and, therefore, every myth becomes the father of innumerable truths on the abstract level. Myth is the mountain whence all the different streams arise which become truths down here in the valley; in hac valle abstractionis ('In this valley of separation'). Or, if you prefer, myth is the isthmus which connects the peninsular world of thought with that vast continent we really belong to. It is not, like truth, abstract; nor is it, like direct experience, bound to the particular."

 

[PotLuck]

Well heck. If the word "simply" or "just" is all I've said that anyone disagrees with then I consider myself fortunate.

There's a lot of people that will not agree with a lot of people no matter what it is. That's the way it is I guess. The knack is to not allow it to bug ya. If society was made up of only one set of opinions, ideas and beliefs then it would be a rather boring world to live in I would think.

 

[Vance]

Oh, I agree. The problem is when one side preaches a doctrine in a manner that does direct damage to the propogation of the message of Christ. That means losing souls for God, and that I take seriously. I have personally seen the destructive effects of the YEC arguments on Christian Faith, so it is not just a matter of "why can't we all just get along". This works great when talking about the vast majority of doctrinal differences among various Christian groups, but not when a movement is causing people to either lose their Faith or never be willing to consider Christianity, I think we must take action. St. Augustine said it first (see my "Wise Words" post) and Hugh Ross and others I have quoted have pointed out this danger as well.

 

[PotLuck]

I see nothing wrong with teaching my grandchildren that God created all in 6 days and on the seventh day He rested. I too have seen the destructive effects of evolution being mixed with scripture in that faith may be shifted from God to modern science.
However, and more importantly than the disagreement itself...
Knowing the love of Christ to be the supreme focus let's just say both should have free will to teach or preach their particular belief in theistic evolution or creationism then allow the freedom of thought, the choice, of others to nurture what they believe to be the message of Genesis.

 

[Bushido216]

Somehow, PotLuck, I can't imagine that the realization that God created a balanced, self-correcting, perfect Universe w/o Him having to directly intervene in every little detail is bad.

 

[Didaskomenos]

What you've probably seen are people who have been told that it's literalism or atheism come to the knowledge that the Bible isn't scientifically accurate and think that the only option is faithlessness. That's the biggest danger of creationism: by equating faith in their interpretation of the Bible with faith in God, they intertwine the fates of their belief in the God of the Bible with a literal reading of the Bible and the faulty science needed to support it. Our faith is in the One behind both science and the Bible, not in either independently.

 

[PotLuck]

I do not accept evolution as fact. Believing God created the universe is 6 days as we understand a day is dangerous only to those who have bought into the unproven principles of evolution. If the motivation of this thread is an attempt to silence my rejection of evolution as fact then there's really no point in carrying this any further. In the meantime I will continue to teach a literal 6 day creation as written in Genesis.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Whether you accept evolution as a fact or not is beside the point; reality doesn't give a fig what you think.

The evidence remains compelling. I've presented it until I'm blue in the face but it's been ignored every time. Frankly, I don't think most creationists are interested in it. They know what they want to believe, and they're going to carry on regardless.

There's no "buying in" involved. Retroviral insertions are real, and they say what they say. Go on, if it's just "unproven principles", you tell me why retroviral insertions show exactly the same pattern as phylogenic and other DNA analyses do with regard to evolutionary relationships between man and other primates.

You explain to me why human chromosome 2 is so clearly two ape chromosomes cobbled together.

You explain to me why fossil hominids graduate through time from almost the same as a modern chimp to the same as modern humans.

You explain to me why God saw fit to give all the anthropoid apes (including us) the same broken vitamin C synthesis gene

You explain to me why all these different lines of evidence point the same way. In other words, you explain why God has planted so much compelling evidence of an evolutionary history that never happened? Why do you want to paint God as a fraudster? I don't get it.

I'm fed up with the pretence here. We do not have two competing scientific models here in YEC and evolution. We have ONE valid scientific model, and a category error ridden, misrepresentation and dishonesty supported, fringe religious belief masquerading as a valid scientific model. It isn't. There's isn't one working biologist in a thousand who'd give it the time of day, and for good reason.

Worse still, it makes a laughing stock of Christianity. "Believe three impossible things before breakfast, and you can be a Christian too".

Yes, I'm fed up.

 

[PotLuck]

Why are you getting so emotional so early in your struggle? Most of the world population has never heard of evolution or Darwin for that matter so for someone advocating evolution there's still a very long battle ahead to spread those principles throughout the world. The majority of the people on earth are either oppressed or without liberty for freedom in education much less studying about evolution.
Relax, it probably won't happen in your lifetime.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Alternatively, you could have saved the polemic and answered my questions.

 

[PotLuck]

I sorry but I'm not a microbiologist or a genetics major so all I can say is you have some research to do. I understand what God says in Genesis though and as long as I have the Word of God I'm happy as a tick in a dog's ear.
By the way, there's no guarantees that once all the people on earth are educated, find out who Darwin is and study evolution that they'll see things as you would have them to.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Translation - "I don't know and I don't want to know".

It's depressing, it really is.

 

[PotLuck]

I know what you mean. I struggle against the same thing every day. Evangelizing isn't for the weak of heart. But then, it's not about our strength but His. And praise the Lord for that!!!

 

[Vance]

Potluck, you said:

"Believing God created the universe is 6 days as we understand a day is dangerous only to those who have bought into the unproven principles of evolution."

And this is the key. Almost the entire educated world DOES accept evolution and an old earth. And most of our children, even if raised to believe in YEC'ist principles, will head off to college will be confronted with evolution and an old earth and many, many will come to see that they are true. The first group will not seriously accept a Christianity presented to them which claims that evolution is directly contrary to Scripture (making reaching them with the Gospel message extremely difficult). The latter may come to believe that if they truly believe that the earth is old and that evolution is correct, they then by definition no longer believe what the Bible tells them.

These problems are NOT the result of some Christians believing, as you do, in a young earth and in special creation over a six literal day period. They are the result of the people teaching that this any belief other than this is contrary to Scripture.

This danger could be entirely avoided if YEC's would just present and teach the following:

"We believe the earth is very young and that God did not create through evolution, but instead specially created all living creatures over a six 24-hour day period, and we believe this because we think that the Genesis account of Creation should be read literally. Other Christians do not believe that these Scriptures should be read literally, and so accept the scientific conclusions that the earth is billions of years old and that evolution is a process by which God created all life on earth."

If this was done, there would be NO stumbling block to the presentation of Christian message, there would be NO crisis of Faith for those who were raised as Biblical literalists but then come to accept scientific conclusions, and it would still be presenting the YEC concepts as your own.

Why is this not the best solution?

 

[PotLuck]

And if all would accept your opinions this would be a better world to live in.
I see.

I don't accept evolution's teachings of unproven processes. And there are going to be many that follow suit. I do not see the need for additional philosophies to support the Word of God. The bible can stand on it's own and has done so quite nicely for some time now.

 

[Vance]

But that didn't address anything I just said. I am not saying everyone must believe as I do. There are very few Christians doctrines which rise to that level. My point is just the opposite. YEC's teach that their view of origins is the ONLY correct possible reading and that evolution and an old earth are directly contrary to Scripture.

This has nothing to do with what you or I believe, but how the issue should be presented.

You must see the unnecessary dangers in presenting a non-salvation doctrine in this "either/or" fashion. The key word being "unnecessary". Why does this need to be taught this way?

Again, what is the problem with just presenting the issue the way I have set it out? It avoids the danger of losing souls to Christ and still conveys the YEC message as the one the speaker believes in. It is a win-win situation.

 

[PotLuck]

Again, what is the problem with just presenting the issue the way I have set it out?

That's the whole gist of it isn't it?
I reject evolution therefore I'm a rebel against your point of view?
No, I surrendered to Christ not to a fellow in a white lab coat.

 

[Vance]

Are you purposefully ignoring my point, or I am just not explaining it well enough?

I do NOT expect you to accept my point of view regarding origins. I can fully respect your belief in YEC'ism and a literal reading of Genesis. Again, this is not about your belief or my belief.

All I am talking about is how you and I would present this issue to those around us, and how YEC organizations and Churches who believe YEC concepts should present the issue. The way they are presenting the issue now is dangerous to the Christian message whether the YEC's are right or whether the TE's are right.

We are told in the Bible NOT to create a stumbling block for our fellow Christians. The YEC teaching does just that, and this is a fact that can not be denied. Many, many Christians lose their faith, or never accept God's gift of salvation in the first place, as a direct result of believing that the Scripture directly contradicts an old earth an evolution.

Why not tell people the simple truth: while one position is right and the other is wrong, it simply doesn't matter to God's ultimate message to us since the Bible is believable and true in its message of salvation regardless.

 

[PotLuck]

|v10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
|v11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
|v12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
|v13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
|v14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
|v15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
|v16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
|v17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
|v18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
|v19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
|v20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
|v21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
|v22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
|v23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
|v24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
|v25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
|v26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
|v27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
|v28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
|v29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
|v30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
|v31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.
(NewT:1 Corinthians 1:10-31)

 

[Didaskomenos]

How come no one ever discusses the posts I open threads with? Not interesting to anyone but me, I suppose. Perhaps I should just keep them to myself. I did like Karl's rant, though.