|
|
|
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
Scientific Challenges to Christianity. - 7/11/2008 5:15:18 PM
|
|
|
Aristocrat
Posts: 905
Joined: 8/3/2007
Status: offline
|
Christians have always had thier faith challenged, but Christianity has thrived.
Now in these moderns times, Christianity is faced with new challenges that are rooted in fast-paced scientific discovery. But, what is the challenge? The challenge is that we as a race are gaining knowledge that goes beyond the understanding of the writers of the Old Testament of the Bible.
Should Christians presume that if the law of physics, quantum physics and genetics are not compatible with the Biblilcal literature, science must be a contradiction to God? Or is this a time to use the advances of science to better understand how God has performed his miracle called life?
As we, the people of the 21st Century marvel at what we are learning, a choice becomes apparent. Either attribute each new discovery to God's magnificance and trust Him that it is a part of his plan, or see the sciences of nature as a threat to Him. Seriously, can God be threatened?
Why turn our backs on knowledge? Maybe if we stop trying to make religion and science the same concept, God can better use science to continue to make this a better world.
After all, isn't that what Christians pray for?
Comments?
_____________________________
I find it odd that ID proponents call evolution materialistic and then take the materialistic approach to finding the ID or Creator.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Scientific Challenges to Christianity. - 7/11/2008 6:12:53 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7358
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: online
|
quote:
Christians have always had thier faith challenged, but Christianity has thrived.
Now in these moderns times, Christianity is faced with new challenges that are rooted in fast-paced scientific discovery. But, what is the challenge? The challenge is that we as a race are gaining knowledge that goes beyond the understanding of the writers of the Old Testament of the Bible.
Should Christians presume that if the law of physics, quantum physics and genetics are not compatible with the Biblilcal literature, science must be a contradiction to God? Or is this a time to use the advances of science to better understand how God has performed his miracle called life?
As we, the people of the 21st Century marvel at what we are learning, a choice becomes apparent. Either attribute each new discovery to God's magnificance and trust Him that it is a part of his plan, or see the sciences of nature as a threat to Him. Seriously, can God be threatened?
Why turn our backs on knowledge? Maybe if we stop trying to make religion and science the same concept, God can better use science to continue to make this a better world.
After all, isn't that what Christians pray for?
I don't think Christians have ever had a problem with scientific discovery, particularly as they are partly responsible for both the development of science and it's many discoveries. What they have a problem with is attempts to substitute the temporal and fleeting discoveries of science with the eternal and unchanging Word of God and attempts to impose metaphysical beliefs as science.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Scientific Challenges to Christianity. - 7/11/2008 9:01:40 PM
|
|
|
Aristocrat
Posts: 905
Joined: 8/3/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
I don't think Christians have ever had a problem with scientific discovery, particularly as they are partly responsible for both the development of science and it's many discoveries.
Good point, in fact if those Christians had your POV, we would still be in the dark ages. Fortunately, they also believed thier eyes and used their intellect to grow in knowledge, without some archaic fear of stepping outside the boundries of the literal bible which kept the religious leaders coffers full. And which still do today.
quote:
What they have a problem with is attempts to substitute the temporal and fleeting discoveries of science with the eternal and unchanging Word of God and attempts to impose metaphysical beliefs as science.
That problem comes from some Christians (I won't point fingers) thinking everything is their business. I have yet to see a scientist go to court to secure the rights to teach the Theory of Evolution in Christian Churches.
_____________________________
I find it odd that ID proponents call evolution materialistic and then take the materialistic approach to finding the ID or Creator.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Scientific Challenges to Christianity. - 7/12/2008 8:14:42 AM
|
|
|
Carico
Posts: 531
Joined: 8/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aristocrat
Christians have always had thier faith challenged, but Christianity has thrived.
Now in these moderns times, Christianity is faced with new challenges that are rooted in fast-paced scientific discovery. But, what is the challenge? The challenge is that we as a race are gaining knowledge that goes beyond the understanding of the writers of the Old Testament of the Bible.
Should Christians presume that if the law of physics, quantum physics and genetics are not compatible with the Biblilcal literature, science must be a contradiction to God? Or is this a time to use the advances of science to better understand how God has performed his miracle called life?
As we, the people of the 21st Century marvel at what we are learning, a choice becomes apparent. Either attribute each new discovery to God's magnificance and trust Him that it is a part of his plan, or see the sciences of nature as a threat to Him. Seriously, can God be threatened?
Why turn our backs on knowledge? Maybe if we stop trying to make religion and science the same concept, God can better use science to continue to make this a better world.
After all, isn't that what Christians pray for?
Comments?
You couldn't be further from the truth. As I already mentioned, science is Satan's biggest tool in today's society to lead us away from the bible. God says that the wisdom of this world is foolishness in his sight and that it is. Satan is simply leading more and more people away from the bible into the fallible teachings of men which change with the seasons. The theories of an old earth and of evolution contradict the bible at every turn. So what you're really saying is that not only are scientists as infallible as God is, they know more than God does, thus proving my point that unbelievers worship scientists as gods.  So since God is never wrong and humans are, then I'll stick with God as always.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Scientific Challenges to Christianity. - 7/12/2008 9:48:28 AM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
I don't think Christians have ever had a problem with scientific discovery, particularly as they are partly responsible for both the development of science and it's many discoveries. What they have a problem with is attempts to substitute the temporal and fleeting discoveries of science with the eternal and unchanging Word of God and attempts to impose metaphysical beliefs as science.
I think Jhud hit the nail on the head. I doubt I could say it any better. I will only add one simple point to this. Science is not absolute. It is constantly changing. As knowledgeable as we seem to be today, I doubt it is anywhere near the maximum capacity of knowledge (with lack of better words). People in this generation think we are extremely smart, and we are compared to 200 years ago, but people 2 centuries ago felt the same way about their knowledge as we do today. But, we now know how wrong mankind's science was just a few centuries ago. What once was accepted by nearly every individual (a flat earth) has now been proven false. Just because evolution seems to be the leading scientific theory means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Look at the trends of science and you will quickly realize popularity means squat. Why? Because as I said in the premise, science is not absolute, and is constantly changing with every discovery. It is not possible for a human being to know every fact there is in science. It just can't happen. So, to base one religious beliefs on what science seems to be proving true (whether that be a belief AGAINST God and religion, or a belief IN God and religion) is foolish. Science has too shaky of a foundation to put one's trust in. What is that shaky foundation? It isn't facts, it's one's interpretation of facts, and those interpretations constantly change with popularity, peer pressure (social reinforcement), new discoveries, or just plain, old stupidity. I pray that those here can humble themselves to the point of realizing their knowledge is not the end-all of everything. There is more to life than the consistent modification of scientific interpretations.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Scientific Challenges to Christianity. - 7/12/2008 9:50:33 AM
|
|
|
Aristocrat
Posts: 905
Joined: 8/3/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
You couldn't be further from the truth. As I already mentioned, science is Satan's biggest tool in today's society to lead us away from the bible. God says that the wisdom of this world is foolishness in his sight and that it is. Satan is simply leading more and more people away from the bible into the fallible teachings of men which change with the seasons. The theories of an old earth and of evolution contradict the bible at every turn. So what you're really saying is that not only are scientists as infallible as God is, they know more than God does, thus proving my point that unbelievers worship scientists as gods. So since God is never wrong and humans are, then I'll stick with God as always.
Where does it say in the Bible that science is a tool of Satan's? Where is the term "science" even mentioned in the Bible?
Also, you do realize that Creationism and Intelligent Design is thought of as "scientific" by Christian advocates, right? Are they playing into Satans' hands by worshipping their scientific translation of the Bible instead of using the Bible to listen to the wisdom of the Holy Spirit?
The Theory of Evolution is science and is not disputed anywhere in the Bible. In fact, science is and always has been the least of God's concerns regarding the work of the Holy Spirit. And there are no verses in the Bible which show otherwise.
Some folks just want to control the minds of other Christians and this is how they do it. They confine them to blind adherence to thier understanding of God rather than allow others to have a truly personal relationship with Him, by using fear tactics that they aren't good enough to know the difference between the good and evil spirits. And yet, each individual Christian is commanded to try the spirits. Not simply the leaders of the church.
1 John 4:1-3 (King James Version)
1 John 4
1Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
_____________________________
I find it odd that ID proponents call evolution materialistic and then take the materialistic approach to finding the ID or Creator.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Scientific Challenges to Christianity. - 7/12/2008 10:11:24 AM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
The Theory of Evolution is science and is not disputed anywhere in the Bible.
Well.......it depends on how you look at the Bible, but I won;t go there on this thread. LOL. I'm sure people are fed up with that.
quote:
Also, you do realize that Creationism and Intelligent Design is thought of as "scientific" by Christian advocates, right? Are they playing into Satans' hands by worshipping their scientific translation of the Bible instead of using the Bible to listen to the wisdom of the Holy Spirit?
This is a very good point, and this is definitely something I disagree with with Carico. Science is something GOD created, not SATAN. Science is not something to put one's trust in, but it is most certainly a tool that can be used to show the magnificence and power of our Almighty Creator. Science is not sinful in and of itself, but can definitely be used as such. There is a fine line between the two however.
I noted a bit of a contradiction is your post. You say: " Where does it say in the Bible that science is a tool of Satan's? Where is the term "science" even mentioned in the Bible? " and then go on to say: "In fact, science is and always has been the least of God's concerns regarding the work of the Holy Spirit."
You first claim that there is no verse in Scriptures that shows science is a tool of Satan (which I agree that there are no verses that show this), yet, you have no verses to somehow prove science is not a tool used by the Holy Spirit to convict an individual. This is a bit hypocritical to demand a verse to prove one's belief, and then have no verse to prove yours. And as a matter of fact, there is a verse that could be used to prove science is a tool of the Holy Spirit's conviction (Psalm 19:1). I just don't understand the hissy fit some theistic evolutionists get into when one attempts to combine science and religion. They somehow claim science and religion don't belong together, but I see no Scriptural evidence for this. God is active in the world, which means He is active in science. Why should I separate the two? Is is not possible for God to use His own creation to show His glory and power???!!!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Scientific Challenges to Christianity. - 7/12/2008 11:57:51 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
I will only add one simple point to this. Science is not absolute. It is constantly changing.
Interestingly, scientists keep making this same point. A scientific consensus is never absolute. It is always provisional and tentative, subject to change if new evidence points in a different direction.
It is a popular (and often an anti-evolutionist) idea that science has or claims to have a handle on absolute truth.
What the opponents of science seem to overlook is the crucial role of evidence in changing scientific paradigms. Science does not change paradigms on a whim---not even when a current paradigm can't seem to explain all the evidence. It needs either new evidence that gives a clue as to a new direction or a new theory that explains current evidence at least as well as the current theory and also explains evidence the current theory is having problems with.
quote:
What once was accepted by nearly every individual (a flat earth) has now been proven false.
Here is another important point. The "flat earth" was accepted by nearly every individual because that is a first non-scientific impression. It was not an idea arrived at through a tested analysis of evidence. As soon as observers began analysing their observations (e.g. the circular shadow across the moon during an eclipse, the way a mast appears before the rest of a ship at sea) they were able to infer the sphericity of the earth.
One should not confuse a common popularly accepted idea with a tested scientific hypothesis.
quote:
Just because evolution seems to be the leading scientific theory means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
Actually, it means a lot. In the flat earth example you correctly stated that the idea of a flat earth was proven false. Since it was proven false, do you suppose any new theory about the shape of the earth will even propose that the earth is flat? No, for the evidence that proved that idea false is still in existence and in a flash we would prove again that the earth is not flat. We also know now that the earth is not a perfect sphere.
Unlike the flat earth, evolution is not just a popular opinion. It is a well-established theory. That means it is supported by many observations; its mechanisms have been observed and tested and found to work as predicted; and it accurately predicts new observations.
Eventually, science may develop a more complete and comprehensive explanation of biodiversity and the origin of species. But that theory will include all that has been established within the theory of evolution. (Just as Einstein's theory of relativity included all that had been established by Newtonian physics). None of the evidence that supports evolution will go away any more than the evidence that supports a nearly-spherical earth will go away.
Whatever some future theory looks like, it will look more like today's theory of evolution than any non-evolutionary scenario, just as any future theory about the shape of the earth will be closer to the idea of a sphere than to the idea of a flat earth. And for the same reason: the evidence against the separate independent creation of species is still there. The evidence of the common ancestry of humans and chimpanzees is still there. Any new theory has to include and account for this evidence.
quote:
Look at the trends of science and you will quickly realize popularity means squat.
True. But evolution is not just a popular opinion that can be made to go away.
quote:
So, to base one religious beliefs on what science seems to be proving true (whether that be a belief AGAINST God and religion, or a belief IN God and religion) is foolish. Science has too shaky of a foundation to put one's trust in.
In a backhanded way you are right. I do not accept evolution because I trust in science. Rather I accept science because I trust in God. I accept science, including evolution, not in spite of my belief in creation but because I believe in creation.
It is because I believe that God's creation is real, orderly and knowable, that I can accept the conclusions of science. And also accept that they are partial and provisional. I can acknowledge the changes of science in the past as progress toward a more complete and accurate knowledge of God's creation. And I can anticipate the changes of science in the future in the same way.
quote:
There is more to life than the consistent modification of scientific interpretations.
Amen! One of the problematics with creationism is that it tends to assign science a privileged place in the determination of truth. Hence the imperative to interpret scripture scientifically while denigrating other approaches to scripture. Science is incomparable as a way of getting to know material reality. But we should never accept knowledge of material reality as comprehending all knowledge.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Scientific Challenges to Christianity. - 7/12/2008 12:28:03 PM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 112
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aristocrat
I have yet to see a scientist go to court to secure the rights to teach the Theory of Evolution in Christian Churches.
They don't need to, it's already being rammed down the throats of all in the public indoctrin... er ... education system.
Exactly as the secular humanists planned back in the early 20th.
_____________________________
"The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order." Sir F. Hoyle
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Scientific Challenges to Christianity. - 7/12/2008 12:35:39 PM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 112
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
A scientific consensus is never absolute.
To quote scientist Michael Crichton, "If it's consensus it isn't science. And if it's science it isn't consensus"
The consensus of science has a very poor historical record.
quote:
What the opponents of science ... And who would that be?
_____________________________
"The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order." Sir F. Hoyle
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Scientific Challenges to Christianity. - 7/12/2008 12:38:59 PM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 112
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aristocrat
The Theory of Evolution is science and is not disputed anywhere in the Bible. One could see two big mistakes in one sentence.
Of course it depends on both your definition of evolution and your accuracy in biblical interpretation.
_____________________________
"The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order." Sir F. Hoyle
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Scientific Challenges to Christianity. - 7/12/2008 12:44:35 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
Amen! One of the problematics with creationism is that it tends to assign science a privileged place in the determination of truth.
Woah woah woah, really? Since when does an evolutions accuse creationists of being scientific?! Almost every evolutions I come across accuses creationists of being unscientific individuals who are TERRIFIED of science, who run away from any scientific study. I've been accused MANY a-times of being scared stupid of science, but never have I been accused of assigning science a privileged place of determining truth. But, as I thought I clearly stated in my post, this is something I do not do, because as I said in my premise, science is relative to today's interpretation, and is likely to change as it has in the past. History repeats itself. But, I guess I'll take this as a compliment Gluadys, in a round-about way.
Other than this, I respect your post, although I only agree with about 1% of it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Scientific Challenges to Christianity. - 7/12/2008 1:11:40 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
quote:
Amen! One of the problematics with creationism is that it tends to assign science a privileged place in the determination of truth.
Woah woah woah, really? Since when does an evolutions accuse creationists of being scientific?!
They are not scientific in the sense they accept scientific consensus. But it is the position of many creationists that their literalistic understanding of scripture is a scientific reality. They consider that their alternate to the scientific consensus is also scientific and therefore ought to be part of the science curriculum. In fact, if they are persuaded that the literalistic reading of Genesis is not scientific, they consider it to be a lie. That is how many creationists become atheists.
So, when I say creationism assigns science a privileged place, I am not saying they agree with scientific opinion. But they are still accepting that in order for their alternate view to be true, it must be scientific. In this POV, truth is not true unless it is scientific. Anything not scientific (such as legend or fiction) is ipso facto, not true. That is giving science a privileged place in determining what is true.
So when they hear people like myself referring to parts of scripture as figurative, legendary, fiction, or myth, the privilege they give to science as a determiner of truth leads them to conclude we are saying the bible is a pack of lies. That is far from what we are saying, but if you limit your idea of what is true to can be determined by science, that is an inevitable inference.
The constant denigration of non-scientific truth ("mere stories/allegory/etc") by creationists is a measure of how highly they value science over literature.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Scientific Challenges to Christianity. - 7/12/2008 1:42:17 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
But it is the position of many creationists that their literalistic understanding of scripture is a scientific reality.
The effects are, the cause is not.
quote:
So when they hear people like myself referring to parts of scripture as figurative, legendary, fiction, or myth, the privilege they give to science as a determiner of truth leads them to conclude we are saying the bible is a pack of lies. That is far from what we are saying, but if you limit your idea of what is true to can be determined by science, that is an inevitable inference.
No no no, you've got this all wrong. You have let people tell you what creationists think without giving them the benefit of the doubt. A creationists DOES NOT decide to interpret the Bible literalistically (I made that word up just now ) by the science they observe. The literalistic interpretation is a theological, doctrinal debate, not a scientific one. I do not interpret God's Word literalistically because science somehow proves it right, I interpret it that way because of various doctrinal, logical, theological, and philosophical reasons, all of which are supported by Scripture (which if you DON'T interpret literally, mean absolutely nothing). Science has NOTHING to do with a creationists interpretation of Scripture. This is the battle theistic evolutionists fight, not creationists.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Scientific Challenges to Christianity. - 7/12/2008 6:07:25 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3269
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Why turn our backs on knowledge? Maybe if we stop trying to make religion and science the same concept, God can better use science to continue to make this a better world.
After all, isn't that what Christians pray for? Actually, Jesus modelled for us to pray that God the Father's Will be done here on earth as it is in Heaven. I suspect that has been seriously neglected over the centuries by many so-called scientists who selfishly thought that God could use their feeble human knowledge to "make this a better world". Indeed, the whole concept chills my soul! Thanks for reminding me, Aristocrat, that God has made foolish the wisdom of this world - 1 Cor 1:20.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Scientific Challenges to Christianity. - 7/12/2008 7:24:13 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
quote:
But it is the position of many creationists that their literalistic understanding of scripture is a scientific reality.
The effects are, the cause is not.
Yes.
quote:
A creationists DOES NOT decide to interpret the Bible literalistically (I made that word up just now ) by the science they observe.
John Dickson beat you to it. See the second section of this essay.
http://publicchristianity.org/genesgenre1.html
quote:
The literalistic interpretation is a theological, doctrinal debate, not a scientific one.
I agree.
quote:
I do not interpret God's Word literalistically because science somehow proves it right, I interpret it that way because of various doctrinal, logical, theological, and philosophical reasons, all of which are supported by Scripture (which if you DON'T interpret literally, mean absolutely nothing).
I agree. Your reasons for choosing a literalistic interpretation have nothing to do with science. But if you are a typical creationist you still insist, as you began this post, that the effects are a scientific reality. In fact, if you were convinced that it was not scientific fact that the universe was made about 6,000 years ago in 6 ordinary calendar days and that Adam was not created directly from dust, separately from all other animals, you would consider the biblical text to be untrue.
It is essential to YECism that these things be not only true, but that they be true in the sense that the empirical observations studied by science are true. That is the only sense in which the Genesis account can be true or real. If it is not scientifically true, it is a lie.
It is not acceptable in YECism that Genesis 1-11 be poetically true or morally true or mythically true. It must be what people call "really true" and that means "scientifically true".
Now creationists are not unique in subscribing to this scientific determination of truth. This is one of the bedrock assumptions of modernism---the philosophical paradigm that emerged from the Enlightenment. Almost everyone in this age thinks of "truth" and "reality" in this way. Unless they have moved on to post-modernism. (And some creationists are moving in that direction too.)
The point is that creationism is thoroughly modernistic in its understanding of how one decides if something is real or true. Therefore, no matter how far Genesis is removed from actual scientific theory, and no matter what the theological and doctrinal reasons for adhering to literalism, the bottom line is that "literally true" means "empirically true" "historically true" "physically true". It means that if Genesis is to be considered true, the creative days must have been days in history, not days in a story about creation. Adam must have been for a moment before God breathed life into him, a clay statue, and for sure he must have been an actual individual who lived an actual singular human life.
And if these things are not historically, empirically true in a way that a time-travelling scientific observer might be able to verify--then, for the creationist, they are not true at all. (The atheist, of course, has already agreed they are not true at all, for the same reason.)
I do not think I am that far off in saying this is the claim of creationism.
This is the claim that is rooted in the notion that science sets the criteria of truth.
What we need to learn is that the bible was not written by people who subscribed to these criteria of truth. The notion of "scientific truth" did not exist then. Only when we relinquish the notion of scientifically verifiable empirical observation as the sole determinant of truth can we begin to look at how the biblical writers understood truth and reality.
quote:
Science has NOTHING to do with a creationists interpretation of Scripture. This is the battle theistic evolutionists fight, not creationists.
Well, you accuse me, probably with some justice, of not understanding creationism. But if you think evolutionary creationists are fighting this battle, you have no understanding of our position either.
We hold that one must not attempt to understand the bible on scientific grounds. That doesn't mean we reject science. Quite the contrary. But we reject the idea that the bible can pass judgment on science or that science can pass judgment on scripture. We reject the notion that a Christian must accept the literalistic reading of Genesis as a genuine depiction of empirical history. We also reject the notion that if it is not empirical history it is false.
We try to get out of the modernist mind-set entirely and enter into the mind-set of the biblical authors so that we can understand what they intended. They were not scientists. They were not reporters. They were not dispassionate observers. And they did not have the example of reportorial writing as a model to follow.
The literature they knew--the literature of their culture--was mythical and imaginative. It was a basically oral, story-telling culture that kept many of the conventions of story-telling in the newly-developing written literature. And that is the type of literature they wrote. To understand them and the truths they were conveying, one needs to understand how myth is used to teach truth.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Scientific Challenges to Christianity. - 7/12/2008 7:32:59 PM
|
|
|
CrimsonMoon
Posts: 24
Joined: 6/17/2005
From: Philadelphia, PA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
So when they hear people like myself referring to parts of scripture as figurative, legendary, fiction, or myth, the privilege they give to science as a determiner of truth leads them to conclude we are saying the bible is a pack of lies. That is far from what we are saying, but if you limit your idea of what is true to can be determined by science, that is an inevitable inference.
You believe parts of the bible are fiction?
_____________________________
"Be ready always to give a defense to anyone who asks you to account for the hope within you" -- Rabbi Cephus, 63 AD
My Blog: Nightmares and Dreamscapes
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Scientific Challenges to Christianity. - 7/12/2008 7:38:27 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: CrimsonMoon
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
So when they hear people like myself referring to parts of scripture as figurative, legendary, fiction, or myth, the privilege they give to science as a determiner of truth leads them to conclude we are saying the bible is a pack of lies. That is far from what we are saying, but if you limit your idea of what is true to can be determined by science, that is an inevitable inference.
You believe parts of the bible are fiction?
Oh certainly. Ever hear of the Good Samaritan? And what of Job? Did you know that Calvin thought he could be a fictional character?
Do you have a point?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Scientific Challenges to Christianity. - 7/12/2008 7:58:44 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
John Dickson beat you to it. See the second section of this essay.
That's hilarious! Shoot, I thought I invented a new word, but I guess not. I had a few seconds of geniustic (there, has any one used that before?) glory, but was quickly shut down. Thanks a lot! 
quote:
But if you think evolutionary creationists are fighting this battle, you have no understanding of our position either.
No, I understand the position of theistic evolutionists quite clearly, since I was once one. Theistic evolutionists place a greater value on their knowledge, specifically scientific knowledge, than on God's Holy Word by interpreting Scriptures in lite of their knowledge. If an interpretation of a verse seems to contradict science, a theistic evolutionist will quickly find himself altering Scriptures to agree with science instead of reexamining one's scientific interpretations. This is the position every TE finds themselves in.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Scientific Challenges to Christianity. - 7/12/2008 8:00:12 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
Did you know that Calvin thought he could be a fictional character?
Mr. Calvin was a bit off his rocker in his day. Not too many follow his teachings now-a-days, and for good reason! lol
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Scientific Challenges to Christianity. - 7/12/2008 10:24:09 PM
|
|
|
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
