The Golden Rule of the Creationist

Bizzlebin Imperatoris · May 12, 2004

I am saying that if you do not believe in the Bible, you arent a Christian. If you don't blieve in Genesis' account, then you need to study it some more. As for saying that you can pull what you want out of th Bible and leave the rest, I think that violates more rules than anything.

Bizzlebin Imperatoris · May 12, 2004

Ok, just reviewed Rule 1. I do not believe I am making a personal attack however. From the Nicene Creed (Rule 6-Must believe Nicene Creed to post here):

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father [and the Son],
who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.

So I think it is not a question of anything but basic belief in scripture. If you dont believe the account in Genesis is the inspired word of God spoken thorugh the prophets, take it up with God, I cant judge you. Just do not accuse others of breaking rules to which you yourself are on the verge of breaking. I simply believe that Genesis is scripture

mark kennedy · May 12, 2004

notto said:
I'm sure that you can find many atheists who are hostile towards Christianity. Why don't you use the term atheist instead of evolutionist? The two are non synonymous, as has been pointed out.

Evolution is accepted by Christian, atheists, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, etc. To suggest that evolutionist are hostile toward Christianity is false. Atheists who accept evolution may be, but there is only a small subset of those who accept evolution.

Your argument does not hold up under scrutiny. Your sampling only includes evolutionists who are atheists.

Your original post said 'the modern evolutionist', not 'some' or 'a few' or 'a bunch'. To me this implied 'all' which of course is not the case.

Nothing was implied by this at all and I specifically prefaced my statement by saying 'many', you are being presumptive, to put it mildly. I never used the term atheist for good reason and I do not equate Darwinian evolution with atheism because I could care less if the Darwinian is an atheist or not. I have not suggested that the Darwinian evolutionist is hostile to basic tenants of Christianity lightly. This is the expressed purpose of the father of all modern evolutionist thought, he is explicit in this regards and comes right out and says what he is argueing against. Specifically that:

"Although much remains obscure, and will long remain obscure, I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and dispassionate judgement of which I am capable, that the view which most naturalists entertain, and which I formerly entertained namely, that each species has been independently created is erroneous." (Darwin's introduction to Origin of Species).

What you are saying does not stand up under close scutiny and is unsupportable both from the large body of work in modern evolutionary thought and from reading my posts. Special creation and the independent creation of fully formed species is not something Christians read into the Genesis account, its exactly what it says happened. You can believe the Bible or you can believe the modern evolutionist that claims all living systems have a unicellular common ancestor but you cannot believe both. The two views are mutually exclusive and what I am saying is not only true, it is obvious.

That is not what I wanted to talk about, I wanted to talk about how people with radically different views could have a civil debate. Let me rephrase my original statement:

Modern evolutionary thought is diametrically opposed to the Genesis account of creation. Specifically the Christian ex nihilo doctrine of God creating the universe from nothing by the speaking of words and the creation of living creatures fully formed as an act of God's soverign will.

Irregardless of where you stand on this issue the discussions turn into grudge matches and it should stop.

Bizzlebin Imperatoris · May 12, 2004

Well, you saw what was happening above I don't think anyone who believes in the Biblical account of creation can have a debate with someone else without some un-civil things happening. It usually turns into a debate about the Bible itself. Bible aside, most non-Biblical arguers should be able to hold a civil deabte. They claim the name of science, they seek the truth. We claim the name of God, and know the truth.

Captain_Jack_Sparrow · May 12, 2004

You don't know the truth. You have faith that you believe is the truth.

Bizzlebin Imperatoris · May 12, 2004

Hebrews 11 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/)
1Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. 2This is what the ancients were commended for.

Faith is being certain. And of course, with the Bible, we know its true!

Karl - Liberal Backslider · May 13, 2004

Bizzlebin Imperatoris said:
I am saying that if you do not believe in the Bible, you arent a Christian.

How can I not believe in the Bible? I've got several. It would be ludicrous to state it doesn't exist. Or is that not what you mean by "believe in the Bible"? You need to clarify your terms.

If you don't blieve in Genesis' account, then you need to study it some more.

Two responses I have to this:

(1) Don't try the "if you studied it more you'd agree with me" line - it's presumptuous and arrogant.

(2) I've studied it a great deal - my involvement in the creation/evolution debate guarantees that. Don't assume I haven't. Every time I study it I discover something new about it (it? Which it? There are two creation accounts and goodness knows what else!). But I also become more and more convinced that the one thing it isn't is a scientific account of the origins of the physical universe.

As for saying that you can pull what you want out of th Bible and leave the rest, I think that violates more rules than anything.

Ooh - two answers again:

(1) Where have I said that? Answer - nowhere.

(2) Were it true, it wouldn't violate any of the forum rules, especially the one about not implying that other posters are not Christians.

Bizzlebin Imperatoris · May 13, 2004

Sorry if I sound insulting, dont want this to become a personal basj match between us. Anyways, it does seem pretty clear that one day in Genesis is defined by one period of light and one period of darkness and that the sun and moon were told to govern these. If only six such days are mentioned, I am still confused as to where people are getting these large numbers from... Please explain it to me

Captain_Jack_Sparrow · May 13, 2004

Bizzlebin Imperatoris said:
I am saying that if you do not believe in the Bible, you arent a Christian. If you don't blieve in Genesis' account, then you need to study it some more. As for saying that you can pull what you want out of th Bible and leave the rest, I think that violates more rules than anything.

Sound dangerously like Bibliolatry to me.

Now what was that about false gods and idols?

Karl - Liberal Backslider · May 13, 2004

Bizzlebin Imperatoris said:
Sorry if I sound insulting, dont want this to become a personal basj match between us. Anyways, it does seem pretty clear that one day in Genesis is defined by one period of light and one period of darkness and that the sun and moon were told to govern these. If only six such days are mentioned, I am still confused as to where people are getting these large numbers from... Please explain it to me

I have no problem with the idea that the days are literal 24 hour days, but this is within the figurative narrative framework - in other words, it's not the days that are figurative; it's the narrative as a whole. Textual analysis 'proving' that the days are literal is like a textual analysis proving that the word used for "sower" in the parable of the sower means a literal sower - it only tells us the status of the item within the context of the narrative.

The factual period of time comes from the scientific evidence.

Bizzlebin Imperatoris · May 13, 2004

I understand context, but would the Israelites, not advanced far any any sciences or technology, regard it as literal 24 hour days?

Karl - Liberal Backslider · May 13, 2004

Quite possibly they would. I also imagine they took literally passages about the earth resting on pillars and not moving.

Calvin called this the Holy Spirit "accommodating error" IIRC; He was not concerned with historical or scientific accuracy when inspiring the Scriptures; He was happy to live with errors in such matters in order to communicate theological truth

Bizzlebin Imperatoris · May 13, 2004

How then can we make the determination that a scripture is or is not to be taken literally?

Karl - Liberal Backslider · May 13, 2004

Where the theological message is dependant upon the events described being historical, then they are. I'm not sure it's ever completely "literal" - even the accounts of the Resurrection differ and contradict; that doesn't mean I don't think that the accounts refer to a real event - I believe they do - but I don't think any one account is a literal record of events. They are told in ways that reflect particular theological concerns of the authors, and draw on contradictory traditions and recollections, being as they are written some decades later.

99% of the time, especially in the Old Testament, it simply doesn't matter. Some things, such as the Flood or the Conquest of Canaan, actually make more theological sense (or rather, open fewer theological cans of worms) if they are not historically true.

As long as one can escape from the erroneous idea that "non literal" == "non historical" == "false", then the question of, for example, whether Job is a parable or a true story fades into insignificance.

Bizzlebin Imperatoris · May 13, 2004

Karl - Liberal Backslider said:
They are told in ways that reflect particular theological concerns of the authors, and draw on contradictory traditions and recollections, being as they are written some decades later.

Is this a fancy way of saying scipture isnt 100% inspired and true?

Karl - Liberal Backslider said:
Some things, such as the Flood or the Conquest of Canaan, actually make more theological sense (or rather, open fewer theological cans of worms) if they are not historically true.

1) If the flood or conquest of Canaan weren't true, how can we believe any of the OT, which supports the NT, and Christ himself?
2) Are you putting what you believe is true science into your view of the Bible or are you putting the true Bible into your views of science?

gluadys · May 13, 2004

Bizzlebin Imperatoris said:
Is this a fancy way of saying scipture isnt 100% inspired and true?

No. It's a fancy way of saying the Holy Spirit was more concerned with theological truth than details of history.

1) If the flood or conquest of Canaan weren't true, how can we believe any of the OT, which supports the NT, and Christ himself?
2) Are you putting what you believe is true science into your view of the Bible or are you putting the true Bible into your views of science?

We CAN believe it---as a story told by the Holy Spirit for a spiritual purpose.

We can even believe there is an historical truth in the background of the story. As given in Genesis, a global flood is not a legitimate possibility. But there could be an historical core memory of a devastating regional flood behind the story.

The message of God's disappointment with the wickedness of humanity, and of his salvation of Noah and his family, which serves as a type of the salvation offered in Christ and a symbol of baptism is all intact whether or not the flood was literally global.

Similarly, while the description of Israel's conquest of Canaan may be romanticized in scripture, it is still true that prior to a certain date there was no substantial Hebrew population in Canaan and after a certain date there was. So there is an historical core to the story, even if as given it is more legend than history.

And the theological messages carried by the story are just as true whether attached to bare historical fact or romanticized legend.

btw, there is only one bible. There is not a true bible and a false bible.

There are, however, good interpretations and poor interpretations of the one biblical text. And interpretations, good or bad, are human and not inspired.

Bizzlebin Imperatoris · May 14, 2004

2 Peter 3:

5But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.

Even in Jesus' time, by his own apostles, his personal students, we can see that it was not a mere fantasy. It actually happened, all literally.

mark kennedy · May 14, 2004

Karl - Liberal Backslider said:
Where the theological message is dependant upon the events described being historical, then they are. I'm not sure it's ever completely "literal" - even the accounts of the Resurrection differ and contradict; that doesn't mean I don't think that the accounts refer to a real event - I believe they do - but I don't think any one account is a literal record of events. They are told in ways that reflect particular theological concerns of the authors, and draw on contradictory traditions and recollections, being as they are written some decades later.

But are non-material details essential to an event being considered a literal account. It can still be taken literally even if some of the details are obscured. Of course the theology has preference over the details but its like the legal definition of purjury, it is only a crime if it is a material fact. If I wittness an accident while I'm writing a post for CF and an accident occurs that I wittness it cannot be purjury if I said that I was writing a post for another board.

99% of the time, especially in the Old Testament, it simply doesn't matter. Some things, such as the Flood or the Conquest of Canaan, actually make more theological sense (or rather, open fewer theological cans of worms) if they are not historically true.

Theology is systematic and we don't avoid tangled events by just saying that it is easier to act as if it didn't happen.

As long as one can escape from the erroneous idea that "non literal" == "non historical" == "false", then the question of, for example, whether Job is a parable or a true story fades into insignificance.

Dismissing Job as a parable is like saying that the account of the rich man and Lazarus is easier to accept if its just a metaphore. It losses its vigor if it cannot be accepted as a fair and accurate account. Taking the Genesis account literally is as nessacary as taking the resurection literally, or final judgment for that matter.

gluadys · May 14, 2004

mark kennedy said:
Dismissing Job as a parable is like saying that the account of the rich man and Lazarus is easier to accept if its just a metaphore. It losses its vigor if it cannot be accepted as a fair and accurate account.

Well, those are your feelings about the issue. No one can argue with your emotions.

I don't find it to be the case that the account loses vigour if it is fiction or fictionalized history. To me it makes perfect sense that the biblical story of Job relates to a real Job (if there was one) in much the same manner as Shakespeare's Macbeth relates to the historical Macbeth.

Nor do I think that anyone would dispute that Shakespeare's dramatic account of the rise and fall of Macbeth has a great deal more vigour than the plain facts of Macbeth's history. I mean, no one today would hear of Macbeth if it weren't for Shakespeare. Many people are not even aware that there was a real, historical Macbeth. And if there were not, it wouldn't matter. Shakespeare's Macbeth has become Macbeth.

I don't feel that viewing the biblical story of Job as a parable constitutes a dismissal. (To be precise, the book of Job is a drama and the rich man and Lazarus is a parable--not a metaphor.) I feel that acknowledging the genre in which a story has been preserved says nothing one way or the other about its power and importance and spiritual value. The first time I read Job in the conscious understanding that it is a drama, and began looking for how the author used dramatic effects, I became aware of the powerful message of this story as I never had before.

Now those are my feelings. And no one can argue with my emotions either.

off-topic:

Could you please put a little effort into learning how to spell "necessary"? The constant misspelling is getting more than a little annoying. At the very least you could use the spell-checker.

Bizzlebin Imperatoris · May 14, 2004

Well, be VERY careful how you interpret the Bible. If one can assert that just a single part is exxagerated or historically wrong (kinda like deceit), that thats the end of Christianity, the Bible is no longer fully truth. Also, emotions are irrelevant when interpreting the Bible. The correct way to read the Bible for fact is to not let any former beliefs or emotions cloud your judgement. However, do not go to far and not let your emotions flow when you are reading the Bible already knowing the true doctrine. Good luck!

The Golden Rule of the Creationist

A Sinner

A Sinner

Natura non facit saltum

A Sinner

Well-Known Member

A Sinner

Senior Veteran

A Sinner

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

A Sinner

Senior Veteran

A Sinner

Senior Veteran

A Sinner

Legend

A Sinner

Natura non facit saltum

Legend

A Sinner

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency