Why I don't like naturalism...

[Happy Hearts Club]

Yeah, I mean, right on this forum I've seen creationists affirm

• geocentrism
• an eternal universe (steady state cosmology)
• open theism
• Jesus isn't God
• black supremacism
• white supremacism

... oh, you mean this is a thread about the doctrinal dangers of theistic evolution? Sorry, can't really think of any off the top of my head right now.

It would seem that everyone has been programmed to view only black and white, creationist or TE. You only reaffirm my point in regards to the influence of Biblical predispositions, which have been constantly perpetuated rather than choosing to read the scriptures transparently and without ulterior motives. I am not a creationist, nor does the history of mankind misusing the Bible have to do with what I said.

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

Lesser primates are devoid of intellect? I hope you are joking.

Would you claim to have a practical view of the narratives that evolutionary theory presents us? Do you even know what evolution is? Given universal common descent, the very first primate species at the entrance of our phylogenetic ''branch'' most certainly could no have possessed any intellect, or else you don't have evolution anymore, you have *gasp* the super natural...?! Like I said previously, I just like throwing in the balancing force, given how naturalism functions via the removal of God from creation, and given how it is a post-modernist worldview replacing belief in God, and also given how it can creep in full force into various proponents of christianity.

 

[Mallon]

given how naturalism functions via the removal of God from creation, and given how it is a post-modernist worldview replacing belief in God

You say that you believe that just because something can be described with reference to natural processes does not mean it somehow excludes God's action. But then you say something like this, which makes me think you believe the exact opposite. Evolutionary theory is simply a description of how biodiversity came to be via natural processes; it in no way excludes God.

 

[realtruth101]

I don't like God being accused of deception and lying, which He is if the universe is only 6,000 years old, because all of the available tools for us demonstrate a much older a universe. If the universe looks 14 billion years old but is only 6,000 years old then God is lying to us.

-CryptoLutheran

So would the creation of Adam and Eve demonstrate God lying to us. Since they were created pre-aged, they never were children, they have no memories of being younger than the day they were created. Since they have broken the laws of time, they came into existance man and woman, You have God in a very small box, you equate what science says, and for some reason God has to bend His knee to the rules and laws of science and physics. Did it ever accure to you that God may have created earth like Adam and Eve, already aged, And when God said let there be light, you have the notion that, the light is going to have to travel millions of light years to get to where its going, as if God is bound by time and space......Its almost laughable how small your God is! He can create the whole universe and yet somehow He's got to follow your silly rules and laws of science or you will call Him a liar?.......thats pretty sad, You see when My God spoke, it was!

 

[philadiddle]

We really ought to compile a list in the TE forum.

But then TEs would be tempted to use sock puppets to make the list even bigger, and then YECs would make sock puppets to make their own list. You'd have to be careful about who you included.

 

[Mallon]

But then TEs would be tempted to use sock puppets to make the list even bigger, and then YECs would make sock puppets to make their own list. You'd have to be careful about who you included.

Yeah, I'm not thinking about creating a list in order to paint all YECs with the same brush. But ECs get a lot of flack for being heretics that reject the teachings of the Bible -- I think it would be a good thing to have a list of individual YECs we could point to who reject the Trinity and believe that Jesus died only for white people, for example, in order to combat the idea that the beliefs of YECs are inherently more "biblical".

 

[philadiddle]

Yeah, I'm not thinking about creating a list in order to paint all YECs with the same brush. But ECs get a lot of flack for being heretics that reject the teachings of the Bible -- I think it would be a good thing to have a list of individual YECs we could point to who reject the Trinity and believe that Jesus died only for white people, for example, in order to combat the idea that the beliefs of YECs are inherently more "biblical".

I think that it is a very good idea, but we should probably have a list of published works instead of random chat forum users. I'd help do some research if some of us want to compile this together.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

So would the creation of Adam and Eve demonstrate God lying to us. Since they were created pre-aged, they never were children, they have no memories of being younger than the day they were created. Since they have broken the laws of time, they came into existance man and woman, You have God in a very small box, you equate what science says, and for some reason God has to bend His knee to the rules and laws of science and physics. Did it ever accure to you that God may have created earth like Adam and Eve, already aged, And when God said let there be light, you have the notion that, the light is going to have to travel millions of light years to get to where its going, as if God is bound by time and space......Its almost laughable how small your God is! He can create the whole universe and yet somehow He's got to follow your silly rules and laws of science or you will call Him a liar?.......thats pretty sad, You see when My God spoke, it was!

The argument would stand better if you argued that when God created Adam and Eve they had memories of growing up. If God created Adam fully matured, but Adam had a lifetime of memories at the moment he received the breath of life, then that would be similar enough to make a point; but it would still prove my point.

We can look into the universe's ancient past, a past that--if the universe is only about six thousand years old--never happened; it would be like Adam having memories of a lifetime that never existed.

As far as boxing God in, on the contrary. I'm not saying God couldn't have created the universe in six days, or instantaneous, or three days etc; I'm saying that if we take the very creation which God made seriously then it demonstrates a very old universe, far older than six thousand years. And if I believe God is a truthful God (which Scripture says He is) then I must confess that God's creation is as old as it gives evidence of.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[juvenissun]

Is it not a two-way street, though? You seem to think that God will be offended if we read a literal passage too metaphorically, but do you not think He would be upset if we read a metaphorical passage too literally, thereby missing the intended message?

Yes.

But, we should evaluate which way is an easier trap for people to misunderstand. A literal reading is a much safer way. It may make a Christian not to understand some verses, but it will not lead to a serious misinterpretation, which could become the source of cult.

 

[juvenissun]

The key word is "available". As new tools and information becomes available to us no doubt many of the ideas we have right now will be changed simply because we don't have everything right now. But all of the available tools at our disposal all seem to point toward a very common direction and it would require extremely radical new data to simply overturn everything over night.

-CryptoLutheran

If so, your argument can not stand.

Biblical authors had no scientific understanding on what they put down in the Scripture. Now we can see what those words mean because new methods became available two thousands years later.

If so, how could you say that a 900-year-old man is not real?

 

[philadiddle]

Yes.

But, we should evaluate which way is an easier trap for people to misunderstand. A literal reading is a much safer way. It may make a Christian not to understand some verses, but it will not lead to a serious misinterpretation, which could become the source of cult.

Well the flat earth concept was because of a literal interpretation. So was the geocentric concept. Also, maybe we should poke our eyes out if they cause us to sin?

I don't think it's as simple as "Start with the literal and go from there" or "Start with the figurative and go from there." Passages should be studied using a variety of methods.

Biblical authors had no scientific understanding on what they put down in the Scripture. Now we can see what those words mean because new methods became available two thousands years later.

Yes, we can see that those words are referring to an ancient cosmology that has been explained to you over and over again throughout the last few years. And we can see what the meaning of the creation account is when comparing it to it's babylonion/egyptian counterparts. We have the scientific knowledge to know that it wasn't meant to be a science lesson. If it was, then the atheist bible critics are right when they say that the bible was wrong on creation. I'm not sure why you still cling to that type of understanding after all that has been explained to you.

If so, how could you say that a 900-year-old man is not real?

Because people can't live to be 900 years old. It's pretty simple really.

 

[juvenissun]

Well the flat earth concept was because of a literal interpretation. So was the geocentric concept. Also, maybe we should poke our eyes out if they cause us to sin?

I don't think it's as simple as "Start with the literal and go from there" or "Start with the figurative and go from there." Passages should be studied using a variety of methods.

You said it, we should start to read the Scripture literally. Than allow some interpretation.

Geocentrism may be wrong when literalists misinterpreted it (note: it CAN be correctly interpreted literally). But people who believed the wrong interpretation did not (have no chance to) stray away from Christianity. However, if we interpret the same subject allegorically, it has a chance to turn into cult. Allegorical interpretation can only be limited by your imagination. It is dangerous.

 

[theFijian]

Yes.

But, we should evaluate which way is an easier trap for people to misunderstand. A literal reading is a much safer way. It may make a Christian not to understand some verses, but it will not lead to a serious misinterpretation, which could become the source of cult.

Except it demonstrably isn't safer and it demonstrably has been the source of cults. It leads to christians thinking that only white people are made in the image of God, it leads to denying the triune nature of God, it has lead to cults of snake-handling christians, it has lead to JWs believing that only 14400 people will be in heaven with Christ, it leads to christians believing that Bill Gates\the EU president\Barak Obama (delete as appropriate) is the Anti-christ, it even leads to Deism! What is so safe about these beliefs?

 

[Dark_Lite]

...We are to believe that God was muddled and confused with His intentions, claiming that all He made was good and perfect yet concurrently requiring millions of years of death and decay in order to select and produce biological life.

I find it odd that creationists think this planet was created perfect. The earth was created "very good." It was not perfect. Man is another story.

We are to believe God intended death and decay to be a constant in His plans for creation.

Such is the natural order of things. Death is not inherently bad. The world was created good (not perfect), and death is how it works. Adam and Eve had to eat. By eating, they killed plants. This is evidence of survival being required as well as actual physical death before the fall. There is no reason to assume that there was some magic world where vegetarian lions frolicked amongst thornless roses with their zebra friends.

 

[40creek]

The argument would stand better if you argued that when God created Adam and Eve they had memories of growing up. If God created Adam fully matured, but Adam had a lifetime of memories at the moment he received the breath of life, then that would be similar enough to make a point; but it would still prove my point.

Interesting. Now who would Adam remember as being his mother and father?
Can you imagine the arguments he would have with his wife?
Adam: Really sweety. God took my rib and just made you 3 days ago. It's true. I saw it.
Eve: OH you men! Then exsplain to me how come I distincly remember sitting on Moms knee on the front porch and watching the sun go down when I was 6?
Adam: UM! Eve sweety. There's no way you sat on any porche when you were 6. You never had a Mom, and you couldn't possibly remember anything past 3 days ago.
Eve: And I suppose YOU were just created HUh!
Adam: Of course not. I was born on the east corner of the garden 26 yrs ago. Just ask Ma and Da when they get home.

 

[philadiddle]

You said it, we should start to read the Scripture literally. Than allow some interpretation.

Geocentrism may be wrong when literalists misinterpreted it (note: it CAN be correctly interpreted literally). But people who believed the wrong interpretation did not (have no chance to) stray away from Christianity. However, if we interpret the same subject allegorically, it has a chance to turn into cult. Allegorical interpretation can only be limited by your imagination. It is dangerous.

So after starting with a literal approach to the creation account, you've now found that it needs to be interpretted in a different way?

 

[juvenissun]

So after starting with a literal approach to the creation account, you've now found that it needs to be interpretted in a different way?

No.

Here is the key: When you try hard to abide to literal meaning as much as you can, you WILL be inspired on new understanding.

The Gen 1 is almost >95% literal to me now.

 

[juvenissun]

Except it demonstrably isn't safer and it demonstrably has been the source of cults. It leads to christians thinking that only white people are made in the image of God, it leads to denying the triune nature of God, it has lead to cults of snake-handling christians, it has lead to JWs believing that only 14400 people will be in heaven with Christ, it leads to christians believing that Bill Gates\the EU president\Barak Obama (delete as appropriate) is the Anti-christ, it even leads to Deism! What is so safe about these beliefs?

You see a white rock. That does not mean all rocks are white.

You can not factor logic error into misinterpretation. Many people do make illogical conclusions from literal (or any way of) reading. That is not the fault of literal reading.

 

[theFijian]

You can not factor logic error into misinterpretation. Many people do make illogical conclusions from literal (or any way of) reading. That is not the fault of literal reading.

Exactly, so a literal interpretation is no 'safer' than a non-literal one, because any illogical conclusions from a non-literal interpretation are because of, as you put it, a 'logic error' , not the fault of the non-literal reading.

Thanks for validating a non-literal interpretation juvie

 

[realtruth101]

The argument would stand better if you argued that when God created Adam and Eve they had memories of growing up. If God created Adam fully matured, but Adam had a lifetime of memories at the moment he received the breath of life, then that would be similar enough to make a point; but it would still prove my point.

We can look into the universe's ancient past, a past that--if the universe is only about six thousand years old--never happened; it would be like Adam having memories of a lifetime that never existed.

As far as boxing God in, on the contrary. I'm not saying God couldn't have created the universe in six days, or instantaneous, or three days etc; I'm saying that if we take the very creation which God made seriously then it demonstrates a very old universe, far older than six thousand years. And if I believe God is a truthful God (which Scripture says He is) then I must confess that God's creation is as old as it gives evidence of.

-CryptoLutheran

Then the biblical line from Jesus to Adam is in error, I'd say your theory is in error, the bible has always proven itself to be correct