The alternate debating creationists thread

[Resha Caner]

Resha, I believe you are making this far too difficult and quite frankly choosing your own interpretation of what I am saying. I guess it is possible I may not be clear, but I do think I am clearer than what you give me credit for.

I'm willing to accept that criticism. My whole premise from the beginning has been the two sides don't understand each other.

I think you've finally said you don't understand me - or at least that I don't make logical sense to you. I see that as progress. The question now is whether you engage me to clarify or whether you develop your own answer apart from me.

I talked about how the bible describes God and how I can't reconcile how this God would judge people based on the christian belief and explained why I can't reconcile the same.

The Bible says God will judge people (1 Peter 4:5), so judgement is part of the Biblical description of God. If the Bible were clear and it was only Christian misrepresentation that were the problem, does that mean you would accept the Bible? Or is it that you can't reconcile one part of the Bible with another?

How exactly do you propose stopping people from believing in falsehoods? My position may be a falsehood and your position may be the falsehood, so what is the solution?

Yep. There is no human solution to the problem. As I said very early on, one of the basics of Christianity is that something outside of us has to fix the problem. The first step in the program is realizing that (Lutherans emphasize that as the role of law).

Do you think there is a human solution?

 

[bhsmte]

I'm willing to accept that criticism. My whole premise from the beginning has been the two sides don't understand each other.

IMO, there is more understanding then you give credit for. The difference is, is regarding how we have come to our conclusions, the logic we use. If you are in the creation camp vs evolution, what is it exactly about creation that makes sense to you?

I think you've finally said you don't understand me - or at least that I don't make logical sense to you. I see that as progress. The question now is whether you engage me to clarify or whether you develop your own answer apart from me.





The Bible says God will judge people (1 Peter 4:5), so judgement is part of the Biblical description of God. If the Bible were clear and it was only Christian misrepresentation that were the problem, does that mean you would accept the Bible? Or is it that you can't reconcile one part of the Bible with another?

Yes, the bible states God will judge people and the bible also is quite descriptive of God's character and how he loves and cares for all his creation. I simply can not reconcile that God would judge people based on the christian beliefs. God sends Jesus the savior of all mankind (after man suffered on earth for 100,00 and maybe 200,000 years) and decides to send the savior to an area where only a small portion of the population gets exposure to his word and acceptance of his word is required for eternal life and to avoid eternal torment. Would a loving God cherry pick in this manner and put so many at a disadvantage, I don't think so. According to christian dogma, a person who has lived a horrible life, can accept Jesus as his savior and they are in good shape with God, but the person who happened to be born in the wrong part of the world and was exposed to the wrong belief systems, is doomed, even if they lived a caring loving life. Doesn't strike me as loving, caring or even moral. I could go on, but I again, can not reconcile the description of God in the bible, with the christian belief system and the realities of the world we live in. The OT and the NT are quite contradictory, but that is another matter. To me, the bible itself does not hit me as being the divinely inspired word of an all powerful, all knowing and loving God, but instead, of men who did the best they could with the knowledge and agenda they may have had.


Yep. There is no human solution to the problem. As I said very early on, one of the basics of Christianity is that something outside of us has to fix the problem. The first step in the program is realizing that (Lutherans emphasize that as the role of law).

The mind is a powerful instrument and with the right motivation, is capable of quite a lot. Nicotine addiction is potent and when I stopped chewing tobacco cold turkey 3 years ago, I had already become an unbeliever and was successful and I have also had other positive changes to my life since that time, since I made the leap to be honest with myself and move away from fooling myself and that can be an enlightening experience, at least it was for me. For others, the approach you describe may work better for them, if they feel someone else is in control.


Do you think there is a human solution?

A human solution to people not believing in falsehoods? No, I do not believe there is a way to to eradicate this. IMO, you could reduce it with knowledge, but people would have to chose to acquire knowledge. And even assuming for a moment that God created humans, he then created humans that believe in falsehoods, so maybe that is the way he wanted it to be.

 

[Resha Caner]

Yes, the bible states God will judge people and the bible also is quite descriptive of God's character and how he loves and cares for all his creation. I simply can not reconcile that God would judge people based on the christian beliefs.

We could talk about Romans 1:20, but I would rather put it this way: First, you seem to assume that "judgement" means "foregone conclusion" and that is not the case. God judges fairly. IOW, I expect some of the people you refer to (some, not all) will be in heaven. I'm not the judge, so I can't say who will and who won't. All I can do is witness as best I can.

Second, regardless of what others haven't heard, you have heard - have read the Bible. So, let's focus on what you have heard rather than diverting the conversation to speculations about what others haven't heard.

IMO, there is more understanding then you give credit for. The difference is, is regarding how we have come to our conclusions, the logic we use. If you are in the creation camp vs evolution, what is it exactly about creation that makes sense to you?

My initial snarky reply is to say that if so much understanding exists, this should be an easy discussion - given that I've not asked for agreement, but only a discussion on understanding.

The second snarky reply is that if so much understanding exists, you shouldn't have to ask the question you did.

But since I'm not being snarky P) we'll move on.

To answer your question, I didn't start off with an intellectual journey seeking to determine if my dad existed and if he was necessary for my existence. He was just there. I was fortunate in that when my dad promised to do something, he did it. That doesn't mean it always went smoothly, or that I always liked how he chose to do things, but he kept his promises. As such, it was also easy for me to "know" what dads do and what they don't do (or at least what my dad does and doesn't do).

Likewise with God. I didn't go looking for Him. He found me. And through my exeriences I learned what God does and what He doesn't do. Creation was an outgrowth of that.

In hindsight I can go back and find mechanisms to justify those things, but I don't think it will be convincing to you. I don't need that justification because it's my experience. So, honestly, I don't see why creation is such a big deal. It's only interesting to me because of the emphasis other people place on it. In other words, the truthful, bottom line answer is that creation makes sense to me because it's evident in my experience of God. Explaining that experience is what requires me to circle back and justify it.

 

[bhsmte]

We could talk about Romans 1:20, but I would rather put it this way: First, you seem to assume that "judgement" means "foregone conclusion" and that is not the case. God judges fairly. IOW, I expect some of the people you refer to (some, not all) will be in heaven. I'm not the judge, so I can't say who will and who won't. All I can do is witness as best I can.

Second, regardless of what others haven't heard, you have heard - have read the Bible. So, let's focus on what you have heard rather than diverting the conversation to speculations about what others haven't heard.

First of all, isolating specific verses in the bible to make a point, don't hold a lot of weight with me in making a point. This type of exercise, if isolated enough, can bring about hundreds of different interpretations (which is why so many denominations of christianity) but I like to view the bible in it's totality, or as best we can, the core message based on the bulk of the writings. What you are talking about here, is your version of how you choose to interpret judgement and who will be in heaven and who won't. My initial comments you replied to here, dealt with the generally accepted christian dogma and direct explanations in the bible that are pretty clear as to how non-believers will be judged. How do you know God will not judge all non-believers the way the bible explains? And sorry, the fact that many people, did not have any exposure to Jesus is critical to me, because it does not strike me as something a loving God would do (put many people at a significant disadvantage) when it came to fulfilling what is required in the christian dogma to enter his kingdom. In reality, the majority of the world's population is doomed, according to the beliefs of christianity. Again, the story does not add up with how God is described, what is required to be a believer in christianity and reality in the world. I accepted the story before out of habit and likely out of hope, but when I really dug into it, is when reality started to hit home.



My initial snarky reply is to say that if so much understanding exists, this should be an easy discussion - given that I've not asked for agreement, but only a discussion on understanding.

Having a basic level of understanding does not equate to myself having knowledge in regards to your specific logic behind your beliefs. What I understand, is what your position is and it appears to be very important to you.

The second snarky reply is that if so much understanding exists, you shouldn't have to ask the question you did.

But since I'm not being snarky P) we'll move on.

To answer your question, I didn't start off with an intellectual journey seeking to determine if my dad existed and if he was necessary for my existence. He was just there. I was fortunate in that when my dad promised to do something, he did it. That doesn't mean it always went smoothly, or that I always liked how he chose to do things, but he kept his promises. As such, it was also easy for me to "know" what dads do and what they don't do (or at least what my dad does and doesn't do).

Not sure how a parent is analogous to a God who created everything and is all powerful, but ok.

Likewise with God. I didn't go looking for Him. He found me. And through my exeriences I learned what God does and what He doesn't do. Creation was an outgrowth of that.

How did God find you and how did you know it was God who found you? What specific types of experiences caused you to learn what God does or does not do and how do you verify the experiences are coming from God? How did creation come from your experiences?

In hindsight I can go back and find mechanisms to justify those things, but I don't think it will be convincing to you. I don't need that justification because it's my experience. So, honestly, I don't see why creation is such a big deal. It's only interesting to me because of the emphasis other people place on it. In other words, the truthful, bottom line answer is that creation makes sense to me because it's evident in my experience of God. Explaining that experience is what requires me to circle back and justify it.

As above, I would be interested in hearing what experiences you verified to yourself as coming from God, led you to creationism. I agree completely regarding individual experiences, because they are just that. No one should need to justify their position to believe in it unless they choose to. One more question, you are quite aware of how 99% of the scientific professionals knowledgable of the same, feel about the strength of the evidence that supports evolution and more recently, the DNA evidence which appears to be even stronger than the fossil record which a devout christian, Francis Collins has chimed in on. Does that fact ever give you any pause, or uneasy feelings about your position with creation? Or do you feel these scientists are misguided and the scientists that happen to be christian, just haven't connected with God in the way you have?

 

[Davian]

 

[Resha Caner]

First of all, isolating specific verses in the bible to make a point, don't hold a lot of weight with me in making a point ... I like to view the bible in it's totality, or as best we can, the core message based on the bulk of the writings.

I agree. The reference was just a starting point. It wouldn't be effective to dump an entire dissertation on you in the first post. So, the verses I quote you are indicators of my conclusion. I can always provide more if you so desire, but I thought you wanted to avoid such endless discussions.

It troubles me you would even mention this. I have noted before that I disagree with your position, yet you have not once given anything to support what you say. You just continue to make general, unsupported statements, and then imply I'm cherry-picking. I don't see much value to the conversation if claims are not given some support, so I plan to keep doing that. To that end, you must realize I don't think these are just my own ideas. If I thought that, I would endeavor to find the proper answer. As such, I said what I did about judgement because God wants all to be saved (1 Tim 2:4) and strives for just that (Matt 18:12-14).

How do you know God will not judge all non-believers the way the bible explains?

The goalposts are shifting. You were referring to people whom you think have not heard the Gospel. That is different than talking about non-believers. So, as I've explained, I think I'm being consistent with the Bible. If you think differently, you'll need to support your case.

And sorry, the fact that many people, did not have any exposure to Jesus is critical to me, because it does not strike me as something a loving God would do (put many people at a significant disadvantage) when it came to fulfilling what is required in the christian dogma to enter his kingdom.

You seem to be presenting a very narrow version of "exposure to Jesus". I think you're leaving out what was said about Thomas, the example of Paul, and a myriad of other things. The OT has its examples as well, Melchizedek being one.

How did God find you and how did you know it was God who found you? What specific types of experiences caused you to learn what God does or does not do and how do you verify the experiences are coming from God? How did creation come from your experiences?

I think the parental analogy for God works quite well. For a child the parent (or care-giver) is the most powerful person in their world. For some time they define what can and can't be done. It's unfortunate you don't understand how I'm trying to use that analogy, because it answers the first question.

I didn't have some pre-expectation of "Dad" that needed to be filled. I wasn't looking for "Dad", so there was no need to identify him as such when he showed up. Rather, the person with whom I had the relationship came to define what "Dad" means to me. Likewise, I didn't try to define God and then hope the spiritual relationship I have would fit the bill. Rather, the relationship I have defined for me what a god is.

This forum is a poor format for explaining those experiences. We've already covered that. But, as an attempt, we can begin by discussing Word & Sacrament as those terms are used within the confessional Lutheran church.

Does that fact ever give you any pause, or uneasy feelings about your position with creation? Or do you feel these scientists are misguided and the scientists that happen to be christian, just haven't connected with God in the way you have?

Honestly, for a long time it didn't "give me pause". But not for the reasons most people suspect. Not because I insisted I was right about creation. Rather because views of creation do not determine whether someone has a relationship with God. I have met a few people who really know how to push my buttons on this topic, but I have never once doubted the sincerity of their faith in Christ. So, when we get to heaven, Jesus himself can explain to them why they were wrong . IOW, it's not them I'm worried about. It's those for whom the issue of creation becomes a stumbling block.

With respect to the science of it all, where most think I am wrong is in my philosophy. On the one hand are those who say my philosophy leads me to ignore the facts. On the other hand are those who say my philosophy causes me to set an impossible standard. So, there are at least two different directions this conversation could go, if not more. Regardless it's probably going to turn into a lengthy discussion on the nature of science.

To answer your question, I do spend considerable time on this because it's a hobby of mine. So, it's not like it bothers me, but I do think about it a lot. We're asking the same question: How can 2 people look at the same thing and draw different conclusions? It's just that our answers are very different. That's why I suggested the paper by Wilkins. If you read academic papers, I think that one would be worth your time.

Just throwing out an answer to your question seems like a hip shot, because I don't think you know where I'm coming from. But, in short, I don't think the type of evidence biologists use is sufficient to meet the higher claims of evolution. It's going to take a long time to unpack that statement, so put on your seatbelt.

 

[Resha Caner]

BTW, Davian, I love the cartoon. If all that stuff was stripped out of Christmas, it wouldn't bother me in the least ... though I expect you might be making a different point.

 

[bhsmte]

I agree. The reference was just a starting point. It wouldn't be effective to dump an entire dissertation on you in the first post. So, the verses I quote you are indicators of my conclusion. I can always provide more if you so desire, but I thought you wanted to avoid such endless discussions.

Well, the bible is a terrific book of theology, but in regards to accuracy from a historical standpoint, even conservative scholars and historians will admit there are issues, some more than others. If one wants to, they can derive all sorts of different meanings by isolating different verses and this happens to be a common method practiced by some christians.

It troubles me you would even mention this. I have noted before that I disagree with your position, yet you have not once given anything to support what you say. You just continue to make general, unsupported statements, and then imply I'm cherry-picking. I don't see much value to the conversation if claims are not given some support, so I plan to keep doing that. To that end, you must realize I don't think these are just my own ideas. If I thought that, I would endeavor to find the proper answer. As such, I said what I did about judgement because God wants all to be saved (1 Tim 2:4) and strives for just that (Matt 18:12-14).

I don't know, maybe I am missing something, but I feel I have given reasons why I don't buy the christian story and can not reconcile the God of the bible with reality. It is simple, it doesn't have to be complex. The bible describes an all loving God, who cares for all his creation and in fact is all powerful, all knowing and has a plan for everyone. Then you have reality; Jesus who is required to be accepted as the savior to be a christian and to be granted eternal life and avoid eternal torment, according to the christian dogma. If this is all true, the God described in the bible, would not put one person on earth in a disadvantage to get to know Jesus and his story, because he cares for all his creation. Why did God wait 100,000 years of suffering of man before he sent Jesus? Why do so many young children die a horrible death every year and the parents prayers go unanswered? Why would God give christians the leg up on getting into heaven, when he cares about all his creation and has a plan for everyone? Was his plan to send people to hell? I could go on forever, but ti isn't necessary. The christian story can not be reconciled with reality to me and I can't be any clearer than that.

The goalposts are shifting. You were referring to people whom you think have not heard the Gospel. That is different than talking about non-believers. So, as I've explained, I think I'm being consistent with the Bible. If you think differently, you'll need to support your case.

Wouldn't a person who lives a terrific life and belongs to a different religion and prays to a different God be a non-believer in christianity? Anybody who isn't christian (most of the world) is a non-believer when it comes to christianity. And today, most of the world who isn't christian, has the means to be exposed to the Jesus story and christianity, but they reject it anyway and christianity is dwindling in size in most countries.

You seem to be presenting a very narrow version of "exposure to Jesus". I think you're leaving out what was said about Thomas, the example of Paul, and a myriad of other things. The OT has its examples as well, Melchizedek being one.

That doesn't come close to reconciling the problems I pointed out.

I think the parental analogy for God works quite well. For a child the parent (or care-giver) is the most powerful person in their world. For some time they define what can and can't be done. It's unfortunate you don't understand how I'm trying to use that analogy, because it answers the first question.

I didn't have some pre-expectation of "Dad" that needed to be filled. I wasn't looking for "Dad", so there was no need to identify him as such when he showed up. Rather, the person with whom I had the relationship came to define what "Dad" means to me. Likewise, I didn't try to define God and then hope the spiritual relationship I have would fit the bill. Rather, the relationship I have defined for me what a god is.


This forum is a poor format for explaining those experiences. We've already covered that. But, as an attempt, we can begin by discussing Word & Sacrament as those terms are used within the confessional Lutheran church.

If you don't want to answer the questions I asked about your experiences that is fine, I have no problem with that.

Honestly, for a long time it didn't "give me pause". But not for the reasons most people suspect. Not because I insisted I was right about creation. Rather because views of creation do not determine whether someone has a relationship with God. I have met a few people who really know how to push my buttons on this topic, but I have never once doubted the sincerity of their faith in Christ. So, when we get to heaven, Jesus himself can explain to them why they were wrong . IOW, it's not them I'm worried about. It's those for whom the issue of creation becomes a stumbling block.

With respect to the science of it all, where most think I am wrong is in my philosophy. On the one hand are those who say my philosophy leads me to ignore the facts. On the other hand are those who say my philosophy causes me to set an impossible standard. So, there are at least two different directions this conversation could go, if not more. Regardless it's probably going to turn into a lengthy discussion on the nature of science.

To answer your question, I do spend considerable time on this because it's a hobby of mine. So, it's not like it bothers me, but I do think about it a lot. We're asking the same question: How can 2 people look at the same thing and draw different conclusions? It's just that our answers are very different. That's why I suggested the paper by Wilkins. If you read academic papers, I think that one would be worth your time.

Just throwing out an answer to your question seems like a hip shot, because I don't think you know where I'm coming from. But, in short, I don't think the type of evidence biologists use is sufficient to meet the higher claims of evolution. It's going to take a long time to unpack that statement, so put on your seatbelt.

All I can say is this; the evidence is there for all to see and each person has the opportunity to evaluate the same and come to a conclusion. You have your reasons to believe in what you do and others have theirs. As you stated, it isn't up to you to justify your stance and I agree. If what you have works for you individually, than hold onto it.

 

[bhsmte]

Resha,

I have a question i forgot to ask and you can pass if you like.

As i have already stated, i may be erong and there is a god and i may be wrong in supporting the theory of evolution. Of course, i am confident that i am not wrong but i am willing to admit it is possible for me to be on the erong side of this.

Now, regarding yourself is there any chance in your mind that you are wrong in believing there is a God or is it a zero percent chance you are wrong? What aboutcreation vs evolution, any chance you have it wrong or is there zero chance you are wrong?

 

[Resha Caner]

... but in regards to accuracy from a historical standpoint ...

I am an engineer by career, but I also hold a degree in history. In fact, per the hobbies I mentioned, I'm hoping to be accepted to a graduate program in history within the next month.

So, I don't know what issues you refer to, but what I tend to see are people who misinterpret what historians are saying. As we discussed previously, the same goes for science. I expect it's not uncommon for that to happen in all disciplines. Not that some aren't boldly denying Biblical history, but as far as I can tell they constitute a small group who aren't taken too seriously.

If you don't want to answer the questions I asked about your experiences that is fine, I have no problem with that.

For some of the personal stuff, yeah, I'm reluctant to blast it across the Internet. Were you sitting in my livingroom I'd be more willing to talk.

But I think I got too wordy, and that may have thrown you off. My apologies. I am willing to discuss it to some degree. I suggested starting with Word & Sacrament. I'm also willing to discuss how I came to creationism. So, if you get the part that God came first in my life and creationism second, we can move on from there.

Likewise, I'd like to hear your story.

That doesn't come close to reconciling the problems I pointed out.

It does. The example of Thomas makes it clear that you didn't have to be physically present in AD 30 and personally experience Jesus' earthly life to know Jesus. So, the "small region" thing doesn't apply.

Paul, an unbeliever, saw Jesus. So, God reaches out even to those who don't believe. You have to give up your false religion, but it's not an impediment to knowing Jesus.

Melchizedek showed up out of nowhere - the Bible hadn't been written, Judiasm & Israel hadn't been established, lived prior to Jesus - but was a man of faith accepted by God. That's one of the main points of the book of Hebrews.

Knowing Jesus is a much broader opportunity than you're acknowledging.

But rather than argue that, let's play a "what if" game. Let's assume God exists, that He created this world, but that He's made a complete mess of it. Where should it go from here?

- - -

Now, regarding yourself is there any chance in your mind that you are wrong in believing there is a God or is it a zero percent chance you are wrong?

Everyone has doubts, and I am no exception. With that said, my confidence in God's existence only continues to increase as time goes on. The probability I would put on being wrong is so small as to say there is no practical possibility I would ever be convinced otherwise.

You need to separate that from theology, however. The chance that I'm wrong on some point of theology is 100% - the case being that I've been wrong in the past and I continue to be a finite, fallible person.

What about creation vs evolution, any chance you have it wrong or is there zero chance you are wrong?

Yes, I might be wrong. This is more likely than my belief in God being wrong - much more likely. I expect that laying out a lengthy journey on my views of creation would be a bore, so suffice to say I have found several instances where I interpreted the data incorrectly, and had to change my view as a result. Regardless, I remain convinced that God created.

- - -

P.S. FYI, you should actually refer to me as "Caner", not "Resha", but that's a trivial thing and it doesn't bother me when people call me Resha. I understand why.

 

[bhsmte]

I am an engineer by career, but I also hold a degree in history. In fact, per the hobbies I mentioned, I'm hoping to be accepted to a graduate program in history within the next month.

So, I don't know what issues you refer to, but what I tend to see are people who misinterpret what historians are saying. As we discussed previously, the same goes for science. I expect it's not uncommon for that to happen in all disciplines. Not that some aren't boldly denying Biblical history, but as far as I can tell they constitute a small group who aren't taken too seriously.

One thing quite unique about historical and scholarly review of the bible is the fact that most people who go into this field, are strong christians to begin with and some also work for theological institutions. The conservative scholars are basically the eqivalent of having the tobacco companies determine on their own if cigarettes are bad for you. So you have to search a bit to get the most objective views, that utilize the historical method to determine what likely happened in the past as they would with any other book. When something is claimed to be divinely inspired by God himself, objective critcism doesnt come as eaily for some as it would if they applied the same to a different book. You state you have some differences in regards to how many scientists view the evidence for evolution and i could say, i have issues with how many scholars apply the historical method to the bible and attempt to put more trust in it then it deserves. Also, there are scholars with impecable credentials that are in fact more critical than the norm and they are then commonly villified by the conservative crowd. I have watched many a debate amongst scholars in regards to the NT and see how some try so desperately to protect the story, but are not very good at using logic and facts to refute criticism. I think the NT is a mixed bag at best. Some historical information is credible and some of it isnt. There are many errors, contradictions, additions etc as well, all from unknown authors written decades after Jesus lived. Doesnt add up to me as reliable just as the theory of evolution isnt to you.

For some of the personal stuff, yeah, I'm reluctant to blast it across the Internet. Were you sitting in my livingroom I'd be more willing to talk.

But I think I got too wordy, and that may have thrown you off. My apologies. I am willing to discuss it to some degree. I suggested starting with Word & Sacrament. I'm also willing to discuss how I came to creationism. So, if you get the part that God came first in my life and creationism second, we can move on from there.

Likewise, I'd like to hear your story.



It does. The example of Thomas makes it clear that you didn't have to be physically present in AD 30 and personally experience Jesus' earthly life to know Jesus. So, the "small region" thing doesn't apply.

Paul, an unbeliever, saw Jesus. So, God reaches out even to those who don't believe. You have to give up your false religion, but it's not an impediment to knowing Jesus.

Well, if you latch unto everything attributed to Paul, then I could see why you would feel that way. Let me just say this at this point from my standpoint. When you compare the objective evidence that supports the theory of evolution and put it side by side with evidence that supports the NT as legit, there is no comparison. In fact, they wouldn't even be in the same universe with each other. If I am not mistaken, many scholars believe Paul is only responsible for 7 of the 14 writings attributed to him in the NT. I am not one of these non-believers who doesn't believe Jesus existed, I believe he was a real person and a good, very liberal person for his time. Was he God, did he perform miracles, I believed that for a long time and the more I learned, the more I figured out for me personally, it just wasn't believable.

Melchizedek showed up out of nowhere - the Bible hadn't been written, Judiasm & Israel hadn't been established, lived prior to Jesus - but was a man of faith accepted by God. That's one of the main points of the book of Hebrews.

Knowing Jesus is a much broader opportunity than you're acknowledging.

Not near broad enough to me, if the christian dogma is to be believed and like I said, not something the God of the bible would do to his creation.

But rather than argue that, let's play a "what if" game. Let's assume God exists, that He created this world, but that He's made a complete mess of it. Where should it go from here?

- - -

Using the hypothetical that God did create the world and he messed it up (which I would completely agree with if he did in fact create everything) one would have to deal with reality and acknowledge, that the God as described in the bible, is not the God that exists. The God that exists in that scenario, would not appear to be an all loving, all caring or even as all powerful God, that cares about personally interacting with humans.

Everyone has doubts, and I am no exception. With that said, my confidence in God's existence only continues to increase as time goes on. The probability I would put on being wrong is so small as to say there is no practical possibility I would ever be convinced otherwise.

You need to separate that from theology, however. The chance that I'm wrong on some point of theology is 100% - the case being that I've been wrong in the past and I continue to be a finite, fallible person.



Yes, I might be wrong. This is more likely than my belief in God being wrong - much more likely. I expect that laying out a lengthy journey on my views of creation would be a bore, so suffice to say I have found several instances where I interpreted the data incorrectly, and had to change my view as a result. Regardless, I remain convinced that God created.

- - -

P.S. FYI, you should actually refer to me as "Caner", not "Resha", but that's a trivial thing and it doesn't bother me when people call me Resha. I understand why.

OK

 

[Davian]

BTW, Davian, I love the cartoon. If all that stuff was stripped out of Christmas, it wouldn't bother me in the least ... though I expect you might be making a different point.

Indeed.

I was hoping that you would directly comment on bhsmte's post where he mentioned Francis Collins, but you snipped it from your response to him:

...One more question, you are quite aware of how 99% of the scientific professionals knowledgable of the same, feel about the strength of the evidence that supports evolution and more recently, the DNA evidence which appears to be even stronger than the fossil record which a devout christian, Francis Collins has chimed in on.
...

Do you think Collins is wrong on the science, or his theology?

"It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming."

Scientist Francis Collins on evolution science faith religion genome gene language of God - Beliefnet.com

 

[Resha Caner]

The conservative scholars are basically the eqivalent of having the tobacco companies determine on their own if cigarettes are bad for you.

There are 2 fallacies with this opinion. First, you're implying that conservative scholars can't be objective, while liberal scholars are. Second, if we were to take this as a rule, it would mean Muslims shouldn't write Islamic history, women shouldn't write women's history, Americans shouldn't write American history, etc. Maybe we shouldn't even allow scientists to do science.

Merely by calling scholars as "conservative" and "liberal" you're noting what world view influences their scholarship. IMO both are biased. No one is truly objective. My further opinion is that the honest scholar is the one who can articulate his assumptions, not the one who can eliminate them - since they can never truly be eliminated. Further, the most likely witness to Christian history is going to be a Christian, so to ignore them because of the world view they espouse is intellectually dishonest.

As I said, laymen don't seem to understand historical method or the training historians get. I've learned to do "history speak", and how to analyze it. I can think of two specific cases where professors of mine - both who happened to be Christians - called me out for too much hyperbole - in one case for a favorable statement toward a Byzantine (i.e. Christian) emperor and in another case for an unfavorable statement toward Islam. In hindsight I agree with them, and I've learned to be very careful.

In short, the facts aren't quite as solid as most people want them to be. And, anything can be a primary source - even the Bible. What the historian does is discuss different aspects of the source's veracity. But they don't make black & white judgments.

Using the hypothetical that God did create the world and he messed it up (which I would completely agree with if he did in fact create everything) one would have to deal with reality and acknowledge, that the God as described in the bible, is not the God that exists. The God that exists in that scenario, would not appear to be an all loving, all caring or even as all powerful God, that cares about personally interacting with humans.

OK, but recall that the scenario takes as given that we know God exists - by whatever means. I suppose I should have been more explicit in my question. I'll rephrase. Suppose (by whatever means) we can tell God what we think of the mess He's created. Or we can choose not to talk to Him at all. The question is: What should be done about the mess?

 

[Resha Caner]

Do you think Collins is wrong on the science, or his theology?

I didn't comment because I'm not familiar with Collins. I read the link you posted, but in this brief a time I still can't claim I know much about him or his theology. He sounds like a typical TE. As I said, I'm not going to go around doubting the faith of TEs. But I do typically disagree with them on several theological points (depending on what flavor they espouse).

In terms of his comments on science, it would depend on which comment. I would agree with the title of the article - that God isn't threatened by our science. I also like the more subtle feature of that title, which makes science a human endeavor rather than some objective, infallible, truth-finding mission. I have no problem with calling DNA a "language of God" for whatever poetic value that might have, but at the same time I don't like putting words in God's mouth. I would disagree with him about UCA. I don't know how long you want me to go on.

I would ask you why Collins is of special interest?

 

[CounselorForChrist]

What are the goals of such debates?

There is no goal. And these aren't debates. Its just people from both sides fighting that their view is right with no real intention of switching sides.

Since creationism is a political movement with the general goal being to sneak religion onto unsuspecting captive children, I'd say most of the debate is to discredit it to avoid unnecessarily entangling the government with conservative Protestant religious mythology.

I doubt you're going to convince most creationists to change their mind. The goal is to show that creationism has no place being forcibly taught to other people's children.

But morally speaking who says what should be taught? In america we are all about freedom right? So who determined what should be taught and what shouldn't? Also whenever someone says things about children being young and susceptible to beliefs that aren't good. Isn't that what you are also technically doing? How can a child learn about things if hes not actually allowed learning about anything aside from what schools say is ok?

Of course there is an easy answer. Home schooling. A safe place where non-believers can't try to corrupt a childs mind with views the parents want to teach the child. Its why I don't mind when non-believers win and schools teach only one thing. Because I still have the right to teach my own child and theres nothing a non-believer can do about it.

 

[bhsmte]

There are 2 fallacies with this opinion. First, you're implying that conservative scholars can't be objective, while liberal scholars are. Second, if we were to take this as a rule, it would mean Muslims shouldn't write Islamic history, women shouldn't write women's history, Americans shouldn't write American history, etc. Maybe we shouldn't even allow scientists to do science.

No, I'm not saying all conservative scholars can not be objective because some clearly can and I have seen so. With that said, I have seen conservative scholars/historians brush away facts like; anonymous authors of the gospels, stories that appeared centuries later that were not in oldest copies of gospels, the several verses added to Mark centuries later so it would jive with the other gospels, the decades that passed before the gospels were penned etc. as no big deal and are completely meaningless. Obviously, these facts are not meaningless and to a scholar or historian that follows the historical method properly, they are not meaningless and do create doubt as to the credibility of the text. Again, you have your doubts as to how scientists view the evidence for evolution and I have SERIOUS doubts, as to how SOME scholars/historians blow off facts that should create doubt as to credibility of the NT. Lastly, I again do believe portions of the gospels are historically credible, but there is enough evidence for me to conclude, portions of the gospel are either not reliable or were simply manufactured to fulfill an agenda.

Merely by calling scholars as "conservative" and "liberal" you're noting what world view influences their scholarship. IMO both are biased. No one is truly objective. My further opinion is that the honest scholar is the one who can articulate his assumptions, not the one who can eliminate them - since they can never truly be eliminated. Further, the most likely witness to Christian history is going to be a Christian, so to ignore them because of the world view they espouse is intellectually dishonest.

Everyone has bias. I have bias, you have bias and anyone who claims they are not, is only fooling themselves. What I try and do (to the best of my ability, is take in what they all have to say and try to use logic and common sense to see who is basing their judgment on facts that are supported by what is either known to be true, or what is likely to be true. And I am not saying to ignore christians, just as you shouldn't ignore highly qualified scientists who have an opinion on evolution, but you have to try as best you can to remove bias and see who is basing their opinion on what is known or what is most likely to be known. There is no question in my mind from my research, that the majority of scholars/historians, will error on the side of backing the christian story, as opposed to being critical of it's credibility. If these same christian scholars were tasked with studying a holy book other than the bible, I would imagine they wouldn't have the pre-conceived notions they have had their entire lives, that something is true, before they get into their work.

As I said, laymen don't seem to understand historical method or the training historians get. I've learned to do "history speak", and how to analyze it. I can think of two specific cases where professors of mine - both who happened to be Christians - called me out for too much hyperbole - in one case for a favorable statement toward a Byzantine (i.e. Christian) emperor and in another case for an unfavorable statement toward Islam. In hindsight I agree with them, and I've learned to be very careful.

In short, the facts aren't quite as solid as most people want them to be. And, anything can be a primary source - even the Bible. What the historian does is discuss different aspects of the source's veracity. But they don't make black & white judgments.



OK, but recall that the scenario takes as given that we know God exists - by whatever means. I suppose I should have been more explicit in my question. I'll rephrase. Suppose (by whatever means) we can tell God what we think of the mess He's created. Or we can choose not to talk to Him at all. The question is: What should be done about the mess?

I would handle it a different way if God was real and I could talk to him. I would need to have more information to be able to adequately respond. This is what I would ask God?

-What was your intention when you created the universe and life?
-What role do humans play in your creation?
-Do you have the capability to impact the lives of humans?
-If the answer to the above is affirmative, do you have the desire to impact the ives of humans?
-Was Jesus truly your son and God, or was he just a man?
-If the answer to the above is affirmative, I would ask him how he expected all of his creation to connect with Jesus or even if that was important to him?
-I would ask him if there was a heaven and or hell and if and how he judges people to make it to heaven.

After he answered these questions, then I could be in a position to have an opinion on what could be done.

 

[Loudmouth]

But morally speaking who says what should be taught? In america we are all about freedom right? So who determined what should be taught and what shouldn't?

Ultimately, the founding fathers of the US determined that. The US Constitution determines what can or can not be taught in tax funded schools. In private schools they can teach whatever they want.

Also, we have determined as a country that an education in the sciences is important for our culture, society, and economy.

Also whenever someone says things about children being young and susceptible to beliefs that aren't good. Isn't that what you are also technically doing? How can a child learn about things if hes not actually allowed learning about anything aside from what schools say is ok?

Of course there is an easy answer. Home schooling. A safe place where non-believers can't try to corrupt a childs mind with views the parents want to teach the child. Its why I don't mind when non-believers win and schools teach only one thing. Because I still have the right to teach my own child and theres nothing a non-believer can do about it.

There are also private schools, many of which are christian-based here in the US. The only limitations with respect to teaching religion is the limitations put on the government. It was most recently ruled on in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) where the judge laid out some very basic and good rules for applying the 1st Ammendment:

1.The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose; (Purpose Prong)

2.The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; (Effect Prong)

3.The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion. (Entanglement Prong)
Lemon v. Kurtzman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is also a more pragmatic issue at work here. What is the purpose of a high school science education? I can think of three. First, it prepares students for higher education if they want to pursue a career in the sciences. Second, it passes on hard gained knowledge from past scientists to keep the sciences alive. Third, it gives students a basic understanding that they can use to better understand exciting new discoveries in science, especially given the fact that much of science is funded by those same tax payers.

So how does teaching creationism help with any of that? It doesn't. No scientist uses creationism to do scientific research, and there is absolutely no reason to learn about creationism if you are pursuing a career in the sciences. Creationism isn't science, so it isn't part of our heritage within the sciences. Finally, you don't have to understand creationism at all to understand the research being done in biology. However, you need to understand evolution for all three of those.

So the real question is why would you hobble your children with respect to the sciences?

 

[Resha Caner]

If these same christian scholars were tasked with studying a holy book other than the bible, I would imagine they wouldn't have the pre-conceived notions they have had their entire lives, that something is true, before they get into their work.

I guess I would have to ask what peer-reviewed historical studies you've read on other religions/holy books with examples of how they're being analyzed differently. In my experience historians tend to treat them all fairly evenly. Again, there are always those that step out of line, but they're a minority. Don't make the mistake of casting those on the fringes as if they are typical.

I've been asked this type of question several times: OK, if you believe in miracles and such, why do you only believe in Christian miracles? It's a loaded question with the assumption that I have some kind of criteria to define "Christian miracles", and that I use this criteria to discount everything except the ones I want to believe in. I don't do that.

I would handle it a different way if God was real and I could talk to him. I would need to have more information to be able to adequately respond. This is what I would ask God?

-What was your intention when you created the universe and life?
-What role do humans play in your creation?
-Do you have the capability to impact the lives of humans?
-If the answer to the above is affirmative, do you have the desire to impact the ives of humans?
-Was Jesus truly your son and God, or was he just a man?
-If the answer to the above is affirmative, I would ask him how he expected all of his creation to connect with Jesus or even if that was important to him?
-I would ask him if there was a heaven and or hell and if and how he judges people to make it to heaven.

After he answered these questions, then I could be in a position to have an opinion on what could be done.

That list of questions could bifurcate the discussion all kinds of directions. Is it OK if I try to focus this a bit? For example, let's assume God can impact human lives and desires to do so. Further let's assume he creates because it gives Him joy, and he wants his creations to have joy as well.

Does that sound reasonable? I'm not sure what other kinds of answers you would be expecting.

And again, for our scenario, despite what He wanted, things are just in a horrible mess. So, what needs to be done?

I didn't answer the other questions because I think that boxes us in too much. For example, the question about heaven and hell. It seems that's more for you to answer. Should that be part of the solution? Should people be rewarded and/or punished?

 

[bhsmte]

I guess I would have to ask what peer-reviewed historical studies you've read on other religions/holy books with examples of how they're being analyzed differently. In my experience historians tend to treat them all fairly evenly. Again, there are always those that step out of line, but they're a minority. Don't make the mistake of casting those on the fringes as if they are typical.

I've been asked this type of question several times: OK, if you believe in miracles and such, why do you only believe in Christian miracles? It's a loaded question with the assumption that I have some kind of criteria to define "Christian miracles", and that I use this criteria to discount everything except the ones I want to believe in. I don't do that.

Well, you will never get a LEGITIMATE historian to acknowledge miracles, because they simply can't if they follow the historical method. As you know, one of the key things these folks are trying to determine is; what likely happened in the past. When you are talking about 2000 years ago, you don't have video tape, you don't have taped interviews and about Jesus specifically, you don't have much outside the gospels themselves in regards to contemporary accounts, despite many people during that time writing about history. Absent multiple attestations that corroborate, but don't copy each other, sources that are independent of one another, absent motivation to tell a certain story, it really becomes a guessing game. Since miracles are the most unlikely explanation for anything, no historian will give them the time of day, because by definition, a miracle is always the least likely event that could happen. A theologian will, but not a historian who is doing objective work.




That list of questions could bifurcate the discussion all kinds of directions. Is it OK if I try to focus this a bit? For example, let's assume God can impact human lives and desires to do so. Further let's assume he creates because it gives Him joy, and he wants his creations to have joy as well.

Does that sound reasonable? I'm not sure what other kinds of answers you would be expecting.

Whatever he would be willing to give, he was capable of answering them, because the questions would keep flowing.

And again, for our scenario, despite what He wanted, things are just in a horrible mess. So, what needs to be done?

I didn't answer the other questions because I think that boxes us in too much. For example, the question about heaven and hell. It seems that's more for you to answer. Should that be part of the solution? Should people be rewarded and/or punished?

I am all about questions, I am like that in my professional life and personal life. I feel I am shooting in the dark, if I don't have adequate information to draw any type of legitimate conclusion. I can't know what would need to be done or even start at thinking about that, if I didn't know how the supreme being operates. Otherwise, I would just be spinning my wheels.

So this is what I would ask next in your scenario:

-Do you feel humans have failed you and how?
-Under what circumstances do you impact human lives and why?
-What about your creation brings you joy and what does not?
-Do you expect all humans to bring you joy?
-How do you determine when you answer prayers of those in need?

 

[Davian]

I didn't comment because I'm not familiar with Collins. I read the link you posted, but in this brief a time I still can't claim I know much about him or his theology. He sounds like a typical TE.

I've never met a "typical" theist of any sort.

As I said, I'm not going to go around doubting the faith of TEs. But I do typically disagree with them on several theological points (depending on what flavor they espouse).

In terms of his comments on science, it would depend on which comment. I would agree with the title of the article - that God isn't threatened by our science. I also like the more subtle feature of that title, which makes science a human endeavor rather than some objective, infallible, truth-finding mission.

Indeed, but more objective than theology.

I have no problem with calling DNA a "language of God" for whatever poetic value that might have, but at the same time I don't like putting words in God's mouth.

Other theists here do not appear to have the same reservations. Often, God thinks just like them.

I would disagree with him about UCA. I don't know how long you want me to go on.

Where has he gone wrong on the UCA? Is it a scientific objection, or that you do not like the theological implications?

I would ask you why Collins is of special interest?

It would seem to me that a person such as Collins, with the resources available to him, had he found a god- (or "God")-shaped hole in evolutionary theory it would be making headlines.

As you alluded to in post #13, are you not looking for such a hole yourself? Do you think you have a handle on something that he has overlooked?