YECist's tragically weak view of God

[jereth]

Disclaimer: I'm not attacking the personal faith of individual YECists in this post, I'm simply pointing out the folly of some of their common arguments.

GOD is some idiot who wanted billions of years of death and blood

This exemplifies something that I've noticed for a long time now: namely, when YECists frequently accuse TEists of somehow damaging God, all this does is reveal that it is in fact they (YECists) who have a damaged and fragile view of God.

Let me explain with examples.

When YECists say: "TEists make God an immoral killer, because they believe he caused millions of years of animal death and bloodshed" ...
What they mean is: "My God would be an immoral killer if he caused millions of years of animal death and bloodshed" ...
But what TEists actually think is: "God can jolly well cause millions of years of animal death if he wants to, and he would still be indescribably holy."

When YECists say: "TEists make God a weakling, because they say he took millions of years to create the universe" ...
What they mean is: "My God would be a weakling if he took millions of years to create"...
But what TEists actually think is: "God can jolly well take millions of years to create if he wants to, and he would still be indescribably powerful."

When YECists say: "TEists make God a liar, because they say he put myths in the Bible" ...
What they mean is: "My God would be a liar if he put myths in the Bible"...
But what TEists actually think is: "God can jolly well put myths in the Bible if he wants to, and he would still be utterly truthful.

When YECists say: "TEists give God no reason to exist, because they think everything was made by natural processes" ...
What they mean is: "My God would have no reason to exist if everything was made by natural processes" ...
But what TEists actually think is: "God can jolly well make everything using natural processes if he wants, and he would still be LORD OF THE UNIVERSE."


Do you see what I'm saying? These sorts of frequently made accusations are a bad reflection on your view of God, not ours. You are the ones who are judging God by human standards (calling him immoral, weak, liar, etc.). It is your opinion of God that is so weak and fragile that it cannot tolerate animal death, millions of years, natural processes. You have put God in a box, a box which says that God can only be God if animals don't eat each other, and creation happened quickly. You are ones implying that God isn't worth worshipping if evolution is true.

The TEist view of God, OTOH, is far more robust. We believe that God is God regardless of how he chooses to do things. Our faith in him is not shaken by carnivores, or a big bang, millions of years, or myths in the Bible. Our God is holy, moral, truthful, powerful NO MATTER WHAT. No matter what we discover about his works in nature, we will still worship and adore him as our God.

So, to return to this fascinating remark:

GOD is some idiot who wanted billions of years of death and blood

You called him an idiot, not us.

 

[Mallon]

Heck, God takes pride in the fact that He created 'imperfect' animals. Just read Job 39. He takes credit for the stupid ostrich (not "endowed with widom") and for the blood-thirsty eagle. God isn't ashamed of His creation, warts and all, so why should we be?

 

[metherion]

*bump*
*happy dance*

DUDE! Thanks you very much for putting words to this.
Many Y.E.C.s that I have met do think exactly like that.
After how, if He did do things over millions of years, had untold numbers of animals die, told myths to teach a lesson, and did stuff through natural processes He must be incredibly wise and powerful to make it all, to sustain it all, and figure out the right way to present things to us mere humans!

Metherion

 

[Chief117]

You have put God in a box, a box which says that God can only be God if animals don't eat each other, and creation happened quickly. You are ones implying that God isn't worth worshipping if evolution is true.

Well, I don't agree with your logic, but at the same time your points are not worth ignoring either.

As a YEC, I take offense at the fact that I "put God in a box"...basically what I would mean when I use such arguments is that I believe God did it the way He said that He did. You, however, do not and therefore have not only contradicted Genesis, but have limited God to your understanding of natural sciences. Natural laws are a limitation that do not have to bind our Lord.

When YECists say: "TEists make God an immoral killer, because they believe he caused millions of years of animal death and bloodshed" ...
What they mean is: "My God would be an immoral killer if he caused millions of years of animal death and bloodshed" ...
But what TEists actually think is: "God can jolly well cause millions of years of animal death if he wants to, and he would still be indescribably holy."

I can follow most of your "examples," but this one I have to step up and take the YEC position. There is a serious problem when begin suggesting that God created evil.

Evil is not a created thing. It is a product of our free will. If evil were created, as you above imply, then you do taint the character of God. So this one, I'll have to hold to.

When YECists say: "TEists make God a weakling, because they say he took millions of years to create the universe" ...
What they mean is: "My God would be a weakling if he took millions of years to create"...
But what TEists actually think is: "God can jolly well take millions of years to create if he wants to, and he would still be indescribably powerful."

I agree. This one is subjective. The only problem is, the Bible suggests strongly against millions of years--especially a gradual evolution over millions of years. So it is not really an issue of God's strength, but rather what He claims He did vs. what evolutionists suppose happened.

When YECists say: "TEists make God a liar, because they say he put myths in the Bible" ...
What they mean is: "My God would be a liar if he put myths in the Bible"...
But what TEists actually think is: "God can jolly well put myths in the Bible if he wants to, and he would still be utterly truthful.

Again, as written, I would agree. I would never claim that God is a liar if there should be myths in the Bible. I would find much less credit to the Bible if it contained a myth that it treated as a literal history.

For example, if the 2nd coming of Christ were compared to the flood, and the flood were actually a mythical event, then what credit would there be to a literal 2nd coming? (and for the record, Jesus does compare His return to the flood of Noah).

The presence or non-presence of "myth" in the Bible is irrelevant. However, use of a myth as if it were not one is a SERIOUS issue that would weaken the credibility of it.

When YECists say: "TEists give God no reason to exist, because they think everything was made by natural processes" ...
What they mean is: "My God would have no reason to exist if everything was made by natural processes" ...
But what TEists actually think is: "God can jolly well make everything using natural processes if he wants, and he would still be LORD OF THE UNIVERSE."

This one I would never say--nor have I ever heard it. Personally, I find the evidence so stacked against evolution that it would be impossible without God's guiding hand.

The problem is, in my opinion, if you reach the point where you know God must have had a hand in it, then why not believe that He did the way He said He did it.

You don't have to concoct complex theories to "explain away" Genesis--think Ockham's Razor--the simplest answer is probably the correct one. Just take it as written. That's all I am saying.

God Bless.

 

[artybloke]

Why is eating animals more evil than eating plants? Plants are alive as well, y'know. Don't you think a plant suffers when its pulled from the ground and chomped on?

Right from the beginning, God seems to have created living creatures that can only survive by eating other living creatures. TE or YEC, it doesn't stop being a "problem" - though frankly it's really a non-problem unless you think that death is automatically "a bad thing."

Evil is not a created thing. It is a product of our free will.

Agree with you there. Which is why animals eating each other aren't evil either.

 

[jereth]

As a YEC, I take offense at the fact that I "put God in a box"...basically what I would mean when I use such arguments is that I believe God did it the way He said that He did.

I did not mean to offend you (as the OP's disclaimer said, this was not a personal attack on any individual YECist). But I really do think that YECism in general puts God in a box. The whole concept of "God did it the way he said he did" presupposes a particular style of viewing the text of Genesis 1, namely that it is God's report of exactly how he did it. It does not allow for any other interpretation (though there are many). So YECism is putting a major constraint on God -- it is saying that he is only capable of communicating with us in a literal-scientific-modernist manner; he is incapable of communicating theological truth in any other way.

You, however, do not and therefore have not only contradicted Genesis, but have limited God to your understanding of natural sciences. Natural laws are a limitation that do not have to bind our Lord.

I think you are just reinforcing the point I made in the OP. It is you (a YECist)who are saying that natural sciences/natural laws bind the Lord. No TEist would ever dream of God being bound by natural law -- on the contrary, we believe that God presides over the natural laws in his sovereign might.

I can follow most of your "examples," but this one I have to step up and take the YEC position. There is a serious problem when begin suggesting that God created evil.

Evil is not a created thing. It is a product of our free will. If evil were created, as you above imply, then you do taint the character of God. So this one, I'll have to hold to.

You are making a massive assumption here (and an unbiblical one at that), and that is that "animal death" and "carnivores" are "evil" by definition. No TEist (or OECist for that matter) believes this. The Bible does not teach this. It is purely a YECist opinion that animal death makes a blemish on God's character, and one can only suppose that this arises from YECism's inherently fragile view of God's character.

And FYI, previous polls have shown that not all YECs believe that animals were originally created immortal:
http://www.christianforums.com/t2953201-yec-a-coherent-theological-system.html
http://www.christianforums.com/t2968208-basic-yec-vs-advanced-yec.html

Again, as written, I would agree. I would never claim that God is a liar if there should be myths in the Bible. I would find much less credit to the Bible if it contained a myth that it treated as a literal history.

There is not much difference between the 2 statements. "Much less credit" is just another way of saying "less reliabile", which is another way of saying "I'm not sure I can believe it", which is another way of saying "the author might be lying to me". If your opinion of God is that he can only communicate 100% reliably through a literal-scientific text, and all other forms of written communication are less truthful, then you are really reducing God to something rather pathetic. Again, this is the point I'm making in the OP. Our (TEist) view of God is big enough to accept that he can communicate truth through any kind of literary medium he wishes.

For example, if the 2nd coming of Christ were compared to the flood, and the flood were actually a mythical event, then what credit would there be to a literal 2nd coming? (and for the record, Jesus does compare His return to the flood of Noah).

I'll make 2 points in response to this:
1. the majority of TEs believe the flood was a historical event (see http://www.christianforums.com/t3048578-opinions-on-the-flood.html)
2. the comparison which Christ makes is not on the basis of historicity (i.e. the flood was real, therefore the 2nd coming will be real). It is on the basis of the suddenness and severity of the judgement -- i.e. people will be living their lives normally, and suddenly they'll be swept away. Whether or not the flood story is actually historical has no impact on this comparison.

This one I would never say--nor have I ever heard it.

AiG says things like this all the time. And we also frequently hear it on this forum -- YECists saying things like "TEism is practically the same as atheism" etc. Maybe you don't believe that, but there are certainly many YECists who do.

Here's a quote from the AiG site which claims that in TEism God is just a (highly useless) appendage to atheism.:

The atheistic formula for evolution is:

Evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods.
​

In the theistic evolutionary view, God is added:

Theistic evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods + God.
​

In this system God is not the omnipotent Lord of all things, whose Word has to be taken seriously by all men, but He is integrated into the evolutionary philosophy.

You don't have to concoct complex theories to "explain away" Genesis--think Ockham's Razor--the simplest answer is probably the correct one. Just take it as written. That's all I am saying.

*sigh* no one is explaining away Genesis. We believe Genesis is teaching us vital and profound truth about God's majesty as creator of the universe, we just don't interpret it as a literalistic account of how he did it (since the text was never intended that way). And since you bring up Occams razor -- I find that YECism/creation science constantly violates Occams razor ... coming up with all sorts of incredibly improbable, implausible and impossible explanations for the simplest of things

 

[laptoppop]

Jereth,
I'm pretty darn sure you did not mean to flame or bait the entire YEC community - but your rhetoric is insulting and inflammatory. Attacking a group's beliefs is no different than attacking the members of the group. Ridiculing the group's beliefs is like an attack on each member, because of the way beliefs are held in such a personal way. Trying to avoid this with your "disclosure" does not address the real issue. When you use the phrase "When YECists...." my initial reaction is to identify myself as being addressed -- because I see myself as a "YECist". Then I have to "argue" about you putting words in my mouth. I am very tempted to put up an example counter-post regarding TEs - but I don't want to hurt anyone, or get them mad. As an example - lets say you read a post that started "I don't mean any particular man...", but then had a series of insulting remarks starting with "Men say..." --- and ending with "and this is why men are such idiots."

You raise some interesting points for discussion, but the way you raise them makes me feel defensive and angry. There are other ways to express the points without attacking.

In any group, one can find a variety of knowledge, maturity, and depth of understanding. I believe the most helpful discussion in comparing positions is one which deals with the most mature expression of each position. As such, I am continuing to try to understand and appreciate the varigated set of beliefs under the TE umbrella. I do not want to set up a straw man position and then deal only with the superficial issues that raises. For example, less mature YECs are not the only ones who can be arrogant about their position. There have been a number of posts by TEs which ridicule YECism without providing specificity and content. Should I respond in kind? No, I don't think so -- what would it accomplish? Instead, there a few TEs on this forum that I choose to ignore most of the time because I don't feel that they are really interested in a discussion, rather than an opportunity to belittle someone else's beliefs without really being open to discussion and learning.

It can be a good challenging discusstion when one raises logical consequences of a belief system. It can be helpful to discuss the sources and implications of even inflammatory rhetoric by people expressing beliefs with passion -- even if they express them with less maturity or respect. We just need to seperate the discusson of beliefs from attacks on a group as a whole. We also need to respect the wide variety of beliefs, and not define a belief system based on the expressions of passionate, less mature people.

 

[Mallon]

I can follow most of your "examples," but this one I have to step up and take the YEC position. There is a serious problem when begin suggesting that God created evil.

Evil is not a created thing. It is a product of our free will. If evil were created, as you above imply, then you do taint the character of God. So this one, I'll have to hold to.

Ohhh... I wouldn't even be so sure about that one. If we read our Bibles literally, as creationists claim to, then the book of Isaiah has this to say about God and evil:

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

Admittedly, it's a hard passage to wrestle with. But there it is. God makes no apologies.

 

[mark kennedy]

Disclaimer: I'm not attacking the personal faith of individual YECists in this post, I'm simply pointing out the folly of some of their common arguments.

I'm pretty patient but with a title like you hung on this thread I think otherwise.

This exemplifies something that I've noticed for a long time now: namely, when YECists frequently accuse TEists of somehow damaging God, all this does is reveal that it is in fact they (YECists) who have a damaged and fragile view of God.

Now there is something wrong with our theology. Before we start let me give you a Calvanist definition of God. God's Eternal qualities and Godhead are expressed in the Scriptures as:

1) God's aseity (utter independence) from everything in the created universe. Also known Biblically as Holyness.

2) God's will and authority in all human affairs. "The Most High is sovereign over the kingdoms of men" (Daniel 4:17)

That is neither weak nor fragile but let's see where you go with this.

Let me explain with examples.

When YECists say: "TEists make God an immoral killer, because they believe he caused millions of years of animal death and bloodshed" ...
What they mean is: "My God would be an immoral killer if he caused millions of years of animal death and bloodshed" ...
But what TEists actually think is: "God can jolly well cause millions of years of animal death if he wants to, and he would still be indescribably holy."

What a convoluted load of baloney, you are not describing Young Earth Creationism. You are describing Darwian Natural Selection and the survival of the fittest. The fit survive and the weak perish leading to a gradual accumulation of improved characteristics.

When YECists say: "TEists make God a weakling, because they say he took millions of years to create the universe" ...
What they mean is: "My God would be a weakling if he took millions of years to create"...
But what TEists actually think is: "God can jolly well take millions of years to create if he wants to, and he would still be indescribably powerful."

The young earth cosomology rejects modern projections into the far unlit past as speculation and supposition. The primordial past is beyond the reach of the tools of modern science and it is our vain imaginations that create the illusion of an old earth. You can call it science but it isn't, science is about the here and now, the telescope has not been made that can see millions of years into the past.

Well, that's two strawmen dispatched...what's next?

When YECists say: "TEists make God a liar, because they say he put myths in the Bible" ...
What they mean is: "My God would be a liar if he put myths in the Bible"...
But what TEists actually think is: "God can jolly well put myths in the Bible if he wants to, and he would still be utterly truthful.

Characterizing the Bible as a book of mythology is repulsive to Evangelical and Fundamentalist persuasion. It is grossly offensive to diminish the historical quality of redemptive narratives making them some nebulous contrivence. The Scriptures describe the wonderful works of God to the final revelation of Christ at His appearing at the end of the age.

You leave a very crucial consideration out, the historicity of the Gospel. It is blindly remiss to omit the clear testimony of prophets, apostles, kings and priests. Let me give you a hint, the authors of Scripture died for what they wittnessed and testified to but it is too much to ask modernists to consider the historical content of the Bible.

When YECists say: "TEists give God no reason to exist, because they think everything was made by natural processes" ...

What they mean is: "My God would have no reason to exist if everything was made by natural processes" ...
But what TEists actually think is: "God can jolly well make everything using natural processes if he wants, and he would still be LORD OF THE UNIVERSE."

God can do jolly well what He wants unless he decides to create Adam and Eve fully formed 6,000 years ago. He can do what he jolly well what he wants as long as he uses exclusivly naturalistic processes. As long as it's not distiquishable from the modern TOE of natural history that's fine. Doing something only God can do as an expression of His sovereign will is anathama to TEs. It is indistiquishable from the materialist philosophies of our day and indistinquishable from the antithestic rationalism of Darwinism. As a matter of fact, the only Darwinians I am aquainted with are TEs, most evolutionists don't care for Darwinism.

Do you see what I'm saying? These sorts of frequently made accusations are a bad reflection on your view of God, not ours. You are the ones who are judging God by human standards (calling him immoral, weak, liar, etc.). It is your opinion of God that is so weak and fragile that it cannot tolerate animal death, millions of years, natural processes. You have put God in a box, a box which says that God can only be God if animals don't eat each other, and creation happened quickly. You are ones implying that God isn't worth worshipping if evolution is true.

I understand that this has nothing to do with either orthodox TOE or mainstream Creationism. Now, I know a number of TEs who simply don't see a confict between evolution as natural history and the Bible as God's Word. There are some points of contention surrounding the history of humanity and God's role in it. What you are doing is neither constructive nor substantive.

The TEist view of God, OTOH, is far more robust. We believe that God is God regardless of how he chooses to do things. Our faith in him is not shaken by carnivores, or a big bang, millions of years, or myths in the Bible. Our God is holy, moral, truthful, powerful NO MATTER WHAT. No matter what we discover about his works in nature, we will still worship and adore him as our God.

Why not give credit where credit is due, that remark was never made by a YEC. It was made by a TE who embraced Darwinism and mocked at genuine theistic reasoning.

So, to return to this fascinating remark:

Nevertheless, the number of living species has not dwindled; indeed, it has probably grown with time. All this is understandable in the light of evolution theory; but what a senseless operation it would have been, on God's part, to fabricate a multitude of species ex nihilo and then let most of them die out!

You called him an idiot, not us.

Why don't you take another look at the rules, particularly the ones prohibiting trolling.

 

[Chief117]

Well, I would like to have the chance to respond to some things here...but there was a lot so I might do it over multiple posts. Bear with me.

Ohhh... I wouldn't even be so sure about that one. If we read our Bibles literally, as creationists claim to, then the book of Isaiah has this to say about God and evil:

[quotes Isaiah 45:6-7 (KJV?)]

Admittedly, it's a hard passage to wrestle with. But there it is. God makes no apologies.

Actually, it is not a hard passage to deal with at all. The word for "evil" here is the Hebrew ra' (8273 for NIV Strongest). The word has many meanings, which include evil but also includes words such as "calamity" (NKJV) or "disaster" (NIV).

Calamity or disaster fit the context MUCH better and are therefore the better translations of the word. To say that God "creates disaster" or "calamity" is in line with a just and loving God--He has the sovereign right to judge His people and to bring judgments upon them. Indeed, he has done so many times--the Curse, the Flood, the plagues of Egypt, etc etc. etc.

However, to say that He created "evil" is vastly different claim altogether--and this claim cannot be reconciled to a just and loving God. For if God is the author of evil, then He cannot be "all good" (He has no darkness in HIm at all).

 

[Chief117]

The whole concept of "God did it the way he said he did" presupposes a particular style of viewing the text of Genesis 1, namely that it is God's report of exactly how he did it. It does not allow for any other interpretation (though there are many). So YECism is putting a major constraint on God -- it is saying that he is only capable of communicating with us in a literal-scientific-modernist manner; he is incapable of communicating theological truth in any other way.

Well maybe we should talk about the text then. Everything in the text suggests that Genesis 1-3 is a literal, historical account. There is no indication that the text is to be taken any other way, to my knowledge. The only reason for wanting to take it non-literally, that I am aware of, is to reconcile the Bible with the modern Evolutionary theory.

I am not limiting God at all. I believe that He could communicate with us in any way. I only hold to the view that He did not communicate with us through a mythological story but preserved an historical account.

If you push aside the Genesis Creation account, you contend with far more than just Genesis. You have to also "re-interpret" other passages of Scripture--especially wherein a literal or important theological element is "compared" to Creation.

For example: (1) animals as created "kinds" is a theme present in many places (1 Cor 15), (2) Christ is frequently compared to Adam (Romans 5), etc.

I think you are just reinforcing the point I made in the OP. It is you (a YECist)who are saying that natural sciences/natural laws bind the Lord. No TEist would ever dream of God being bound by natural law -- on the contrary, we believe that God presides over the natural laws in his sovereign might.

No, I just said natural laws do NOT bind the Lord.

Here's what I am saying: you do not accept the literal reading of Genesis. Why not? I am assuming the primary reason is it conflicts with the TE/Evolutionist understanding of natural sciences. I do not feel that this is a valid reason to "re-interpret" Scripture.

I agree--God presides over Natural Law. He created the laws. He can break them when He sees fit--including the creation of the world as described in Genesis 1 and/or Exodus 20.

You are making a massive assumption here (and an unbiblical one at that), and that is that "animal death" and "carnivores" are "evil" by definition.

Well, I see my mistake. I'm not making a very sound argument. Allow me to change gears:

It is not these are necessarily "evil." It is that the Bible claims that SIN BROUGHT DEATH INTO THE WORLD:

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men because all sinned...(Romans 5:12)
​

Sin bringing death into the world is theologically important. Not to mention a literal Adam.

Death is ultimately the punishment/judgment for sin (i.e. evil). This is where my previous argument was really coming from.

 

[Chief117]

No TEist (or OECist for that matter) believes this. The Bible does not teach this. It is purely a YECist opinion that animal death makes a blemish on God's character, and one can only suppose that this arises from YECism's inherently fragile view of God's character.

Again, it is not that "animal death makes a blemish on God's character," but that the idea that death before sin contradicsts God's word. Again, death of ALL kinds is the result of the Curse, which is a judgment for SIN (evil).

http://www.christianforums.com/t2968208-basic-yec-vs-advanced-yec.html

There is not much difference between the 2 statements. "Much less credit" is just another way of saying "less reliabile", which is another way of saying "I'm not sure I can believe it", which is another way of saying "the author might be lying to me"

I would agree. That's what I am saying. You CANNOT make a good comparison between a myth and a real event/person etc. without causing serious damage to it. Here are some reasons why you cannot really claim Genesis 1-3 is a "myth":

Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come. (Romans 5:14)
​

"From the time of Adam to the time of Moses" makes NO sense if Adam were a "mythological" character. Just doesn't float.

For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.

For just as through the disobedience of the one man [Adam] the many were made sinners, so also throught the obedience of the one man [Jesus Christ] the many will be made righteous. (Romans 5:17, 19)
​

If Adam was not really the one who brought sin and death into the world--in other words, if it was NOT "the disobedience of the one man"--then what does this mean when Scripture makes the claim that in this same way one man [Christ] can take it all away?

For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. (1 Cor 15:22)
​

Same argument. If Adam is a myth and in fact not everyone dies because of Adam, what assurance do I have that I will be made alive in Christ? The promise, the claim, is built on a "myth", in your perspective.

So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. (1 Cor 15:45-47)
​

First off, it is ABUNDANTLY clear from this passage that Paul is treating Adam as a literal, living-breathing human being--NOT A MYTHOLOGICAL CHARACTER. Paul says that Adam had a natural body.

This is yet another comparison between Adam and Christ.

 

[Chief117]

If your opinion of God is that he can only communicate 100% reliably through a literal-scientific text, and all other forms of written communication are less truthful, then you are really reducing God to something rather pathetic. Again, this is the point I'm making in the OP. Our (TEist) view of God is big enough to accept that he can communicate truth through any kind of literary medium he wishes.

That is not my opinion at all. However, I do believe the Genesis text to be a literal historical account. It may not contain a lot of science--but it does make simple claims that would affect scientific presuppositions. Such as being fully created and not gradually evolved, or that biological life does NOT share common ancestry.

I'm sure you would agree--the Bible is not a science textbook. Nonetheless, that doesn't make it incorrect or worthy of ignoring whenever it does make a claim or observation about our world. Such as God "stretching out the heavens", or that He sits above "the circle [sphere] of the earth." Or that He created everything "according to their various kinds".

I agree with you that IF that were my position, I would be limiting God to something pathetic. Indeed, much in the Bible is metaphorical in nature--or in some way "not literal."

I'll make 2 points in response to this:
1. the majority of TEs believe the flood was a historical event (see http://www.christianforums.com/t3048578-opinions-on-the-flood.html)

I have NEVER heard this in my life. You are the FIRST non-YEC I have ever heard claim this. I would like to hear your POV on a few things sometime then--if you wouldn't mind.

For example, evolutionists often claim there is no evidence for a flood. Do you know of any? Also, how does a global flood affect your interpretation of geologic strata, fossil study, etc.

2. the comparison which Christ makes is not on the basis of historicity (i.e. the flood was real, therefore the 2nd coming will be real). It is on the basis of the suddenness and severity of the judgement -- i.e. people will be living their lives normally, and suddenly they'll be swept away. Whether or not the flood story is actually historical has no impact on this comparison.

"No impact" may be a bit bold, but I guess I see your point.

AiG says things like this all the time. And we also frequently hear it on this forum -- YECists saying things like "TEism is practically the same as atheism" etc. Maybe you don't believe that, but there are certainly many YECists who do.

That wouldn't even make sense--and I'd be the first to tell them. If anything, as I've said before, I believe that the ONLY way evolution would be true is if God had a hand in it. Otherwse it would be impossible. The problem I have, and I know you dislike it, is that God of the Bible claimed He did it another way.

Here's a quote from the AiG site which claims that in TEism God is just a (highly useless) appendage to atheism.:

The atheistic formula for evolution is:

Evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods.

In the theistic evolutionary view, God is added:

Theistic evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods + God.

In this system God is not the omnipotent Lord of all things, whose Word has to be taken seriously by all men, but He is integrated into the evolutionary philosophy.

This quote from AIG says nothing like what you claim. It merely says, and I agree, that when you accept the TE viewpoint you automatically say that Genesis 1, Romans 5, 1 Cor 15, and all the other related passages of Scripture are not to be taken as written--"not to be taken seriously." The wording may not be the best but I think the message is clear enough.

I believe the meaning behind the claim of God's omnipotence is in reference to the "blind" nature of evolution. Evolution produces countless misfits and mistakes in order to make the onward progress of evolutionary change. This seems to contradict the nature of an omnipotent, omniscient God. Why would He create the world with mistakes?

*sigh* no one is explaining away Genesis. We believe Genesis is teaching us vital and profound truth about God's majesty as creator of the universe, we just don't interpret it as a literalistic account of how he did it (since the text was never intended that way).

I believe you are "explaining" it away. So, in your opinion, Genesis "contains" some truth but is overall a fairy tale--a myth likened to that of the Roman gods?

Never intended that way? I'm assuming that is your opinion--I am aware of NO evidence as to why it should be considered anything else. Throughout Scripture, even in the quotes of the early Church Fathers, everyone has always understood Genesis to be the historical account of our world's origins. It has ALWAYS been intended that way.

And since you bring up Occams razor -- I find that YECism/creation science constantly violates Occams razor ... coming up with all sorts of incredibly improbable, implausible and impossible explanations for the simplest of things

I find the same in Evolution--even the theistic variety.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

let's follow the logic of just one statement

Again, death of ALL kinds is the result of the Curse, which is a judgment for SIN (evil).


so Christ's death and resurrection essentially undoes the curse for the elect, not completely but in the final judgement.

if all death is from sin, then all death is redeemed in some way by the resurrection. this is the argument that your pets go to heaven. but not just pets, all animals, this is universalism with a passion. nonsense. no justification in Scripture even for your favorite pet going to heaven, let alone all the rest of animals.


sin is disobedience towards God.
it is done by humans, who are created in the image of God and possess a reasonable soul.
physical death of human beings is the only death that has moral consequences, the death of animals has no ethical component.

Jesus died for the elect, not for the masses of animals that suffer physical death plus humanity that suffers the dividing of the soul from the body with the body dying.

the "no death before the fall" is an attempt to make TE solve the unsolvable, theodicy without talking about the fall. Evil is an ethical and moral catagory and is only about people and God, animals are amoral, their deaths are not evil, not good, they are not ethical in any way.


but you could show me from Scripture where any of these ideas are, i'll study it. but i've never seen anyone show that animals go to heaven or that they have souls that God is concerned about saving.

 

[Chief117]

I never claimed anything in reference to "animals going to heaven." That would be a strawman.

I think universalism and calvinism is a debate for another forum. Personally, I believe that Christ died for all, but that it has to be accepted by faith.

God Bless.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I never claimed anything in reference to "animals going to heaven." That would be a strawman.

I think universalism and calvinism is a debate for another forum. Personally, I believe that Christ died for all, but that it has to be accepted by faith.

God Bless.

universalism for all living creatures(anything that has breath) is exactly what you are claiming in

Again, death of ALL kinds is the result of the Curse, which is a judgment for SIN (evil).


Christ's death is payment for sins.
if death of animals is result of sin then that death is ethical important and the death/resurrection covers it.

essentially the cross puts the elect back into the garden.
but you not only have all humanity there (as do all arminians) but you have all the animals there as well because their deaths are ethically important because they are the result of sin.

simple logic.

it is not a reformed vs arminian argument. you have well exceeded any traditional or historical arminian when you have animal death associated as a result of the sin of Adam.

if it is a judgement for sin, then the resurrection potentially fulfills that judgement.

 

[Chief117]

Christ's death is payment for sins.
if death of animals is result of sin then that death is ethical important and the death/resurrection covers it.

Christ's death is payment for people's sins--not the sins of animals (who are sinless).

It is in fact important to theology that animals are not "ethically important" in their subjection to the sin's penalty. The sacrifice rituals of the OT are basically a form of blood atonement--where the blood of something without sin can, in some way, cover the sin of the person. Of course, these sacrifices were not sufficient and this is why Christ's sinless sacrifice covers our sins once and for all.

Christ's death resurrection does NOT cover animals. I say it again--you're building strawmen. Not only that, but that isn't even the topic of this thread! How did we even get on this?!

I say it as plain as I can: animals do not (cannot) sin. Death of ALL kinds is the result of Adam's sin--for we are all affected by the sins of others. The penalty to the WHOLE EARTH (which is now travailing as in the pains of childbirth) was the result of Adam's sin. Death could not have come before Adam.

 

[Mallon]

Actually, it is not a hard passage to deal with at all. The word for "evil" here is the Hebrew ra' (8273 for NIV Strongest). The word has many meanings, which include evil but also includes words such as "calamity" (NKJV) or "disaster" (NIV).

The passage may not be terribly difficult for you or me, but for those KJV-only Baptists (which make up the majority of creationists) who take their Bible "literally", it might be a little more difficult to explain away.

 

[laptoppop]

The passage may not be terribly difficult for you or me, but for those KJV-only Baptists (which make up the majority of creationists) who take their Bible "literally", it might be a little more difficult to explain away.

Not even close. 1)Most Baptists are not KJV only folks and 2) Baptists do not represent the biggest group of "literal" creationists -- that honor goes to "nondenominational" affiliation. The KJV only folks are very vocal, and end up with disproportionate representation in this kind of forum, but numerically they are much fewer than one would expect. I just finished my degree at Biola - a very conservative "literal" type of university -- and KJV only folks were virtually non-existent on campus. I know its easy to lump people together - but this isn't even close to being right.

 

[Mallon]

Not even close. 1)Most Baptists are not KJV only folks and 2) Baptists do not represent the biggest group of "literal" creationists -- that honor goes to "nondenominational" affiliation. The KJV only folks are very vocal, and end up with disproportionate representation in this kind of forum, but numerically they are much fewer than one would expect.

I dunno... I think it's pretty close. Certainly, most creationists I've come across are Baptists. Just look here:
http://www.christianforums.com/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=11233
Even those best-known creationist leaders, such as Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, Kurt Wise, Carl Baugh and the beloved Henry Morris are/were Baptists.
And for that matter, most Scripture I see quoted in support of YEC is in ye olde English. I suppose our experiences are quite different. I also think the polls around here, while not scientific, are certainly suggestive.