Why Christians and evolutionists can NEVER agree

SkyWriting · Jan 25, 2014

mark kennedy said:
Thanks for the link. I'm not really sure what you guys are debating here but I did have a comment. I think the parables were often some kind of an example, always thought is was synonymous with parallel, but I tend to take things kind of literally.

The Prodigal Son, the Good Samaritan and some of the Wedding parables sound like anecdotes from actual, contemporary events. The way I see it, they are actual events until you have a sound reason to think otherwise.

Other parables are things like the Sower in the kingdom parables, seed falls along the wayside falling on different soils. I don't think he has an actual guy this happened to in mind, it's a common enough thing it's moot.

Parables are marked with a 'like' or 'as' usually, it's a key indicator. That's one of the ways we can be sure that the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31), isn't a parable even though it's sometimes passed off as one. Your really don't get to decide for yourself what the meaning of the text is, the Scriptures are perfectly capable of doing that for themselves.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Under some circumstances parables would be the fiction of a wise man.
Even then, most likely to be comparisons of viewed events in the persons past.
In the case where the speaker is the Jesus, the Son of God, insights into
the ways of humans need not have any fictional basis. "Like" is a construct
of the story telling providing comparison, not an indicator of creative fiction.

KWCrazy · Jan 25, 2014

Sayre said:
.... And with many such parables He spoke the word to them as they were able to hear it. 34 But without a parable He did not speak to them. And when they were alone, He explained all things to His disciples.

par·a·ble [par-uh-buhl] Show IPA
noun
1. a short allegorical story designed to illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson.
2. a statement or comment that conveys a meaning indirectly by the use of comparison, analogy, or the like.

A parable is therefore a story, true or ficticious, with an unexpected lesson brought up by means of comparison. But, contrary to other anecdotes and illustrations, instead of being intended to merely illustrate or amuse, the parable is intended to surprise and to reveal. The narrative brings, in the setting of the familiar, the surprise of the unfamiliar, disrupting the listeners in their expectations or in their perception of reality. This allows the parable to increase the force of its impact.
Parables can be true or illustrative creations of fiction. The Bible makes no distinction either way. Despite your condescending rant, my point still remains that they could have been real stories or not. You haven't given a shred of evidence against their being true. You've only pointed out their intent, which was already known to all. You post is a total fail.

gluadys · Jan 25, 2014

SkyWriting said:
Under some circumstances parables would be the fiction of a wise man.
Even then, most likely to be comparisons of viewed events in the persons past.
In the case where the speaker is the Jesus, the Son of God, insights into
the ways of humans need not have any fictional basis. "Like" is a construct
of the story telling providing comparison, not an indicator of creative fiction.

Now that is actually fairly close to what I have been saying or trying to say.

If Jesus used his knowledge of humanity and of the social realities and customs of the people he was speaking to, and told parables rooted in those realities without necessarily discussing one particular sower or Samaritan or woman who lost a coin, then his parables, while not factual in particulars are fictions with a basis in reality. They are not fantasy.

He uses the realities of life to generate stories which are analogies of spiritual matters. That analogy is what makes them parables.

Fiction, like reportage, can be used to speak the truth and can be misused to speak falsehood. But fiction is not falsehood merely because it is fiction any more than reports are truth merely because they are reports.

SkyWriting · Jan 25, 2014

mark kennedy said:
Other parables are things like the Sower in the kingdom parables, seed falls along the wayside falling on different soils. I don't think he has an actual guy this happened to in mind, it's a common enough thing it's moot.

By "common enough" you mean that all the readers would be familiar with situations where a sower of seeds would throw seeds onto poor soil and have them not grow. That puts it into the non-fiction category for me. No one has yet made a case for a fictional parable.

Let me make the case for fiction:
This writer insists that this parable is fiction.

Does the writer give even ONE reason to support his view that this is fiction?
Nope.

Next he goes to this "parable": Judges 9:7-15 NASB - Now when they told Jotham, he went and - Bible Gateway

Two things. This is not a parable from Jesus. That would be my error if I seem to be making the case that every vision in the scriptures was a literal event. To be clearer, I only meant to say that the New Testament parables from Jesus were non-fiction. Not every mountain top vision in the OT is a literal event. Though I think it likely that God also avoids any fiction in his communications. With God, every event is real. Some just seem odd to us...flying Cherubin and such.

gluadys · Jan 25, 2014

SkyWriting said:
By "common enough" you mean that all the readers would be familiar with situations where a sower of seeds would throw seeds onto poor soil and have them not grow. That puts it into the non-fiction category for me. No one has yet made a case for a fictional parable.

OK. That is an idiosyncratic definition of non-fiction.
But it puts us on the same page as far as Jesus' parables are concerned.

However, when I say fiction is not equivalent to lies, I mean that of a much wider category of literature than biblical parables. Even wider than biblical literature.

Papias · Jan 26, 2014

Interesting discussion.

So I'm curious. What do y'all think about the story of the 10 minas (Luke 19:12-27).

True, or fabricated?

Papias

KWCrazy · Jan 26, 2014

Papias said:
So I'm curious. What do y'all think about the story of the 10 minas (Luke 19:12-27).
True, or fabricated?

Irrelevant and unknowable. Such a story has no other corroboration, but why would it? It works as a teaching device to tell about the works people do in preparation for the return of the king; Jesus. That's the thing about parables. Jesus uses them to teach important lessons, but only He knows if they are real or if they are stories. All we need to know is that they are true; not their historical accuracy but the lesson they teach.

If you really want to know if the story is true or merely a creation to illustrate His point, I suggest you get on your knees and ask the Lord. Ask and ye shall receive, remember?

gluadys · Jan 26, 2014

Papias said:
Interesting discussion.

So I'm curious. What do y'all think about the story of the 10 minas (Luke 19:12-27).

True, or fabricated?

Papias

If I have understood SkyWriting correctly, he would call it true & I would call it true fiction, but we would both mean the same thing by it.

There is a possible historic background in the Roman system of having local kings affirmed by Caesar. IIRC, on at least one occasion, local Jewish authorities sent a delegation to object to the appointment of another Herodian king. (not the same Herod who was tetrarch of Galilee).

Another part of the background is the custom of absentee landowners parceling out responsibility for the management of their estates to stewards who attempted to both make a profit for their masters and to enrich themselves--a system which led to much social oppression. (One reason why Ched Myers has suggested that the third servant is actually the hero of this parable, not the villain as is usually interpreted.)

This is similar to the tax-farming system, so it is appropriate that it immediately follows the story of Zaccheus.

So Jesus appears to have taken two well-known customs of the day and put them together in the parable.

bhsmte · Jan 26, 2014

deleted

mark kennedy · Jan 26, 2014

SkyWriting said:
By "common enough" you mean that all the readers would be familiar with situations where a sower of seeds would throw seeds onto poor soil and have them not grow. That puts it into the non-fiction category for me. No one has yet made a case for a fictional parable.

Let me make the case for fiction:
This writer insists that this parable is fiction.

Does the writer give even ONE reason to support his view that this is fiction?
Nope.

This clue from the immediate context seems to warrant calling it a parable:

And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. (2 Sam 12:7)

Yea, don't think there were any actual sheep involved.

Next he goes to this "parable": Judges 9:7-15 NASB - Now when they told Jotham, he went and - Bible Gateway

Calling someone an tree or a vine isn't really telling a fictional story. This sort of thing is common in Scripture, the Devil is called the Serpent but there is no indication that the writer means an actual snake.

Two things. This is not a parable from Jesus. That would be my error if I seem to be making the case that every vision in the scriptures was a literal event. To be clearer, I only meant to say that the New Testament parables from Jesus were non-fiction. Not every mountain top vision in the OT is a literal event. Though I think it likely that God also avoids any fiction in his communications. With God, every event is real. Some just seem odd to us...flying Cherubin and such.

I know what you mean, pointless disputes over whether or not something is literal or figurative can grossly distort the obvious message. Some of the parables seem like things that actually happened but would of been very unusual for the time. The Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son come to mind.

miamited · Jan 26, 2014

bhsmte said:
What can be categorically claimed as fact from the bible?

Hi bhsmte,

Nothing! Absolutely nothing.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

bhsmte · Jan 26, 2014

deleted

Papias · Jan 27, 2014

KWCrazy wrote:

Irrelevant and unknowable. Such a story has no other corroboration, but why would it? It works as a teaching device to tell about the works people do in preparation for the return of the king; Jesus. That's the thing about parables. Jesus uses them to teach important lessons, but only He knows if they are real or if they are stories. All we need to know is that they are true; not their historical accuracy but the lesson they teach.

Yep, I agree. It seems we agree that SW's point that all Jesus' parables can be said to be definitely true isn't valid.

If you really want to know if the story is true or merely a creation to illustrate His point, I suggest you get on your knees and ask the Lord. Ask and ye shall receive, remember?

Yes! Always a good idea.

In Christ-

Papias

P.S. Gluadys, thanks for the background.

bhsmte · Jan 27, 2014

deleted

SkyWriting · Jan 29, 2014

Papias said:
Yep, I agree. It seems we agree that SW's point that all Jesus' parables can be said to be definitely true isn't valid..

You may agree with each other, and even speak for everyone. I can only present the ideas as I find them in scripture.

My actual point was:
Colossians 1:16-17 "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist."

This suggests Jesus did not need to create any fiction for any reason.

Romans 9:1 I speak the truth in Christ--I am not lying, my ...
I speak the truth in Christ--I am not lying, my conscience
confirms it through the Holy Spirit ...
romans/9-1.htm - 18k

1 Timothy 2:7 And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an ...
... To this I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ,
and lie not a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth. ...
//bible.cc/1_timothy/2-7.htm - 19k

John 8:45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me!
... "But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me. ...
//bible.cc/john/8-45.htm - 16k

John 8:46 Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling ...
... Which of you convicteth me of sin? And if I speak
the truth, why do ye not believe me? ...
//bible.cc/john/8-46.htm - 17k

Job 33:3 My words come from an upright heart; my lips sincerely ...
... I speak with all sincerity; I speak the truth. ...
//bible.cc/job/33-3.htm - 16k

Proverbs 8:7 My mouth speaks what is true, for my lips detest ...
... for I speak the truth and detest every kind of deception. ...
//bible.cc/proverbs/8-7.htm - 17k

Does this mean
fake stories told regarding
imagined events using
phoney names,
but told with
good intentions?

I say likely.
But if you can show evidence that Jesus gave examples of fictional events, I will read your case.

mark kennedy · Jan 30, 2014

bhsmte said:
Since most christians agree with the theory of evolution, the title of this thread should be; why creationists and evolutionists can never agree.

That's a little better but Creationists aren't having a problem with evolution, it's confusion that causing all the fuss. The only real difference between YEC and Darwinian natural history is the time line. Darwinism, quite literally has all the time in the world while Creationists subscribe to a worldview that has life created just 6,000 years ago. To make the timeline even shorter the Deluge would have had to happen about 4,000 years ago with all the parental forms of Avians (birds), reptiles and mammals emerging from the Ark and undergoing a rapid adaptive radiation across broad taxonomic categories on a global scale.

What is hard to decide is which scenario is more outrageous since there can be no question that evolution happened either way.

Something like 'Rapid Young Earth Evolution' vs. 'Darwinian Gradualism'. The only reason we don't is that most of the people debating this, don't know what the problems are. If they did they would realize the problems are the same for both sides of the debate.

Have a nice day
Mark

KWCrazy · Jan 30, 2014

mark kennedy said:
The only reason we don't is that most of the people debating this, don't know what the problems are. If they did they would realize the problems are the same for both sides of the debate.

The problem is the other side won't admit any problems with their argument.

When you point out that the laws of thermodynamics reject both the spontaneous creation of matter and the eternity of matter they say that the laws aren't really laws and can fail at times.

When you tell them that life cannot come from no life they claim the the origination of their first "frankencell" doesn't matter, or they say abiogenesis must have been possible under different Earth conditions millions of years ago.

When you point out that the fossil record doesn't show any life forms in transition they say that all life forms are in a constant state of transition; a statement with no basis in fact. Then they make up things like "Punctuated Equilibrium" to explain why their theories of gradualism fail.

It's not that the evolutionists are dishonest, it's that the entire theory is false and there can be no truth in a theory based on lies. It's a given that rapid speciation occurred after the Great Flood, and that speciation can account for the massive diversity we have in living organisms today. All creatures were designed to adapt, but adaptation does not equal evolution. They adapt with the physical characteristics they have; they don't get to make up new ones.

It is said that science doesn't try to disprove anything; that science doesn't care what was written in a book. While that may be true, evolutionists DO care. They seek to silence the opposition. That's why sites like this are full of them, attacking Christianity, calling the Bible mythology, and demanding that we show them provable physical evidence of the supernatural.

I don't post for the evolutionists. Their minds are closed and unreceptive to the truth. I post for the Christians who are beset by forces all around them bent on destroying their faith. Even on a forum dedicated to Christian discussion, the atheists and agnostics continually attack everything we believe, accuse Christians of being simple minded and uneducated, and do everything they can to undermine their faith.

This is the problem with the debate. We come to discuss, they come to destroy.

SkyWriting · Jan 30, 2014

bhsmte said:
Since most Christians agree with the theory of evolution, the title of this thread should be; why creationists and evolutionists can never agree.

Most do not claim that genetic changes are impossible.
But many do not find that the theory explains the
origins of life or man well enough to be the reason
that life or man exists.

Even evolution devotees put their fingers in their ears
claiming that Origin-of-life is a separate issue. No chemists
or biologists publicly claim that the rules are different,
but the evo-faithful do. The separation only occurs on Wikipedia.

bhsmte · Jan 30, 2014

deleted

SkyWriting · Jan 30, 2014

bhsmte said:
Well, that would be because the origin of life is a separate issue, from how life evolved.

lol...There is no scientific support for that belief.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2aOriginoflife.shtml

Why Christians and evolutionists can NEVER agree

The Librarian

Newbie

Legend

The Librarian

Legend

Listening to TW4

Newbie

Legend

Newbie

Natura non facit saltum

Ted

Newbie

Listening to TW4

Newbie

The Librarian

Natura non facit saltum

Newbie

The Librarian

Newbie

The Librarian

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency