Should Christians favour creation or evolution?: 4 different perspectives | Article | Unbelievable
By: Unbelievable
I just wonder. . . .
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Writer Steve Schramm explores Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, Intelligent Design and Theistic Evolution
Many Christians might be surprised to find that there are a variety of different ways to approach the issue of creation and evolution. Some believe in Young Earth Creationism, which states that the Universe was created in six literal days about 6,000 years ago.
Other Christians believe in different versions of Old Earth Creationism, which states that the universe is much older than that and creation happened over billions of years.
Others still are persuaded by Intelligent Design theory, which holds that some higher power guided the creation process, although it is not their project to consider what or whom that higher power is.
Finally, there are those who believe in Theistic Evolution, which says that God directed the process of evolution. Each of these views has strengths, weaknesses and additional considerations.
Why debate creation and evolution?
Firstly, is it even necessary to debate creation and evolution? After all, doesn't the Bible make it clear that God created the world?
Yes, but how exactly he did so is less clear. And for many, attempts to harmonise what they see in the natural world with what they read in scripture has led to different conclusions.
Some take the view that, while the creation narrative is not scientifically correct, it is theologically correct. They would state that the story is more like a myth or poem rather than a straightforward historical account, and thus the text should not be pressed to line up with scientific discoveries.
Therefore, while this question is secondary to matters of salvation, or whether God even exists, it is still worthy of consideration.
View 1: Young Earth Creationism*
Young Earth Creationism (YEC) is the view that the Universe was created in six literal days about 6,000 years ago. This view takes a very literal (that is, natural) approach to the Genesis creation narrative.
YEC proponents would say that "days" in Genesis 1 must be interpreted as 24-hour days because that is how the word 'day' is defined in the context, which is confirmed by Exodus 20:11. They also believe that the creation of Adam and Eve was a historical event that happened exactly as described in the Bible.
*In full disclosure, this author finds Young Earth Creationism to be the biblically and scientifically correct view.
Strengths:
• Young Earth Creationism is the most natural interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative. One can derive an approximate date for creation by appealing to known history as well as the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11.
• Young Earth Creationism is the historic position of most in the Christian Church and Jewish tradition and has been for millennia.
• Young Earth Creationism provides a biblically clear and concise answer to the question of how creation happened.
Weaknesses:
• Young Earth Creationism runs into problems when trying to explain the scientific evidence for an old Earth. Some problems have been given explanations, but many others have not.
• Sedimentary rock layers and the fossil record are considered difficult to reconcile with a young Earth view by many. Creationists usually answer with an appeal to the flood story in Genesis 6-9.
• Potentially, Young Earth Creationism's most difficult challenge is the existence of stars and galaxies that are billions of light-years away. Again, solutions have been proposed, but it is still an open question in the YEC community.
Additional considerations:
• Many creation scientists have PhDs and are well-qualified to engage in the creation vs evolution debate.
• Young Earth Creationism is the most popular view among American Christians, although that is slowly changing.
• The landscape of Young Earth Creationism is shifting toward 'model-building' instead of 'evolution-bashing'. Many proponents and opponents alike view this as a shift in the right direction.
View 2: Old Earth Creationism
Old Earth Creationism (OEC) is the view that the Universe was created by God, but that the creation process took place over a longer period of time than six 24-hour days. This view is also sometimes called 'Progressive Creationism', because it holds that creation happened in a series of progressive steps over time.
There are variations on this view (for example, John Sailhamer's Historical Creationism or Day-Age Creationism). The current study will focus on Progressive Creationism since it is the most widely accepted form.
Strengths:
• Old Earth Creationism is a more moderate view that tries to find a middle ground between creation and evolution.
• Old Earth Creationism seems, to some, more academically palatable because it has no qualms with modern radioactive dating methods.
• Old Earth Creationism doesn't have the same problem with starlight and galaxies that are billions of light-years away as Young Earth Creationism does.
Weaknesses:
• Old Earth Creationism requires a lot of 'tweaking' of the Genesis creation narrative in order to make it fit with scientific discoveries.
• If God truly created over billions of years, that means death and suffering prior to the fall of man must be accounted for. For this and other reasons, YECs argue that all versions of Old Earth and Evolutionary Creation potentially impugn God's character.
• Old Earth proponents often lose credibility with scientific peers because they reject evolution by natural selection.
Additional considerations:
• Old Earth Creationism is growing in popularity, but it is still not as widely accepted as Young Earth Creationism among American laypersons.
• There are many different interpretations of Old Earth Creationism, which can make dialogue and debate difficult.
• Old Earth Creationism is not an explicit teaching of scripture, and therefore must be inferred rather than logically deduced.
View 3: Intelligent Design
Intelligent Design (ID) is the view that some natural phenomena or objects are too complex or too intricate to have arisen through undirected natural processes. Proponents of ID believe that these phenomena are best explained by the act of design, or a designer.
The most common example used to support ID is the bacterial flagellum, which is a tiny rotary engine that helps bacteria move. ID proponents such as Dr Michael Behe modestly conclude that the flagellum is too complex to have arisen through natural selection and must have been designed.
Strengths:
• ID is a growing movement with increasing support from the scientific community and is neutral or agnostic on questions of religion or God.
• Many ID proponents are well-qualified scientists who engage in serious research and dialogue.
• ID offers a more nuanced view of creation that does not require a complete rejection of evolution.
Weaknesses:
• ID is often seen as a 'back door' to creationism, and therefore many scientists are immediately sceptical of ID arguments.
• ID doesn't offer a specific explanation for how or why things were designed, which leaves many questions unanswered.
• ID does not offer or suggest anything about how the biblical creation narratives should be interpreted.
Additional considerations:
• ID proponents vary across a spectrum of biblical beliefs (YECs, OECs) as well as other viewpoints and worldviews entirely.
• ID is a relatively new view, and therefore it has not been as widely studied or discussed as the other creationist views.
• ID proponents often, though not always, use negative arguments (arguing against evolution) rather than positive arguments (putting forth a positive case for design).
View 4: Theistic Evolution
Theistic Evolution (TE) is the view that God used evolutionary processes to create the Universe and everything in it. Proponents of Theistic Evolution believe that God is the ultimate author of creation, but that he did not make significant miraculous interventions during the development of the early Universe and life on Earth. TE allows that he may have been responsible for guiding or tweaking things, or that he may have set the entire development of the Universe up at the beginning so that it would organically take a certain form in the course of development.
This view is sometimes referred to as Evolutionary Creationism, a term proponents have tried to popularise in an effort to increase solidarity with their Christian brothers and sisters.
Strengths:
• TE attempts to find a middle ground between creation and evolution, which can be appealing to people who are uncomfortable with either extreme.
• TE is welcomed by an increasing number of Christian denominations and organisations.
• TE enjoys the most support from the scientific community because it purports to treat matters of faith and science equally.
Weaknesses:
• TE doesn't offer a clear explanation for how best to square the Genesis creation narratives with scientific discoveries.
• TE somewhat downplays the role of God in creation, which can be a turn-off for people who are looking for a more robust view of creation.
• TE potentially suffers from the same biblical-theological troubles as Old Earth Creationism, and possibly more. This is primarily because it is debatable whether Christians can hold to a historical Adam and evolution at the same time, and what that means for the image of God and work of Christ.
Additional considerations:
• If Theistic Evolution is true, it has dramatic implications for the understanding of many biblical teachings and doctrines, which include an original man, a perfected Creation, or a fall.
• Part of TE's quick rise in popularity is due to new Ancient Near-Eastern studies which potentially undermine the literality of the creation account.
Conclusion
These are four of the most popular creationist views in the running today. Each view has its own strengths and weaknesses, so it is important for the Christian to prayerfully consider which view best aligns his or her biblical beliefs and worldview.
No matter which view is chosen, it must be remembered that all Christians serve the same God and are called to love one another. As brothers, sisters and Christians first and foremost, the Church must be willing to lovingly call one another both to correction and communion.
Steve Schramm is an autodidactic writer, Bible teacher and host of the Bible Nerd Podcast. He's authored four books, including Truth Be Told: A Believer's Guide to Sharing
Tags
Who is online
445 visitors
I find this article interesting because it dares to offer a choice for Christians versus giving a prescription. Even when the AUTHOR announces to the reader: (His choice.)
Then the author has disregarded reality and put mythology in its place.
It is curious to me that the author 'makes the case' critically, but then, comes away stating "biblically AND SCIENTIFICALLY young earth creationism is the correct view in his opinion. Why does he include scientifically in his conclusion?
He doesn't make the case critically. He defaults to "God works in mysterious ways", which is in no way critical thinking.
Indeed. "God did it" is not a scientific (or rational) answer for anything.
I suspect it is because the text literally speaks of a 24 hour day which matches science.
What I mean is he lays out strengths, weaknesses, and additional considerations with a conclusion. for each view, even as he acknowledges his own personal view of YEC.
That is the problem though, isn't it? The Christian view is conservative 'naturally.' That is, the biblical view can not easily 'follow the science where-ever it goes.
He might "lay out" the weaknesses of YEC, but he doesn't examine them critically. He just dismisses them. And the strengths he lays out aren't necessarily strengths. They're fallacies. They boil down to "a lot of people believe this way" and "it's clear and easy to understand". Those aren't strengths.
I am presently understanding that the 'ready' problem for conservatives is their/a lack of diversity in thought. That is, conservatives, especially religious conservatives, speak in terms of certainty (black or white . . . or vice-versa, with few gray-areas). In which regard the author of the article asserts as a strength what the Bible says on its 'face.' People who speak, write, and present materials from the scientific view speak about uncertainty.
Understood.
But scientists will always speak of uncertainty, because science never considers anything to be absolutely certain.
Agreed. Believers have a 'bad' habit of talking/behaving as though matters are 'settled,' because "we" are biblically directed to. . . deeply believe as though it is certain then live out that 'certainty' largely in word or deed. That, I think, is why the author of this article, can lay out four choices and then 'fall back' on the one choice closest to his religious basis.
“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who disbelieve, no amount of proof is sufficient.”
— Ignatius of Loyola
Those are extreme positions (opposite ends of the spectrum) he is sharing in that quote.
Belief in the absence of evidence is an unwise position. The second portion of the quote is just not true.
It's just a soundbite from before soundbites were a thing.
No proof is necessary to believe (obviously, people believe all sorts of nonsense without proof or even good evidence) but proof (or at least sound evidence) is necessary to credibly claim a belief is truth.
Who gets to decide what is nonsense and what is not you? I think not. Me? Well you wouldn't like that since I know there are things we strongly disagree on and I think your beliefs are nonsense.
Can you support your belief with objective verifiable evidence? That is my standard.
Nonsense = illogical and/or factually wrong.
Don’t leap to make things personal.
And who decides if it is illogical or factually wrong? That is not necessarily personal. I just wonder who gets the final say.
I don't have to support anything to you. I don't have to meet or live down to your "standard
Logic has formal rules that are well accepted. Facts are evaluated in many ways depending on the situation. Court of law, scientific, political, religious, … different methods apply.
There's a word for that: Gullible.
"Believe" has two radically different meanings.
1 To consider something true on the basis of factual observation.
2 Faith - belief without proof.
Those are downright contradictory, but they meet! I've never seen an atom, nor have you... but we believe they exist.
"Believe" is typically used in a religious context. If one has facts, they do not need mere belief. And yes, we have seen atoms. We know atoms exist because chemistry.
Do you believe in the theory of evolution? Have you seen it?
Have YOU seen an atom? I doubt it. People in whom you have confidence say they have seen atoms, so you believe in atoms' existence. Taking the word of persons (sources) in whom we have confidence is assimilated with "having seen"... but it isn't really the same.
My point is that semantics can get in the way of understanding. If I say "I believe in God", meaning "I have faith (belief without proof), you might take my meaning as "I have seen God"... which is not at all the same.
Why are you so worried and concerned about what other people believe. Does someone's belief in a higher power (God) some how effect you?
No, I do not "believe" in evolution. I accept evolution as a valid scientific theory and explanation for biodiversity based on the objective evidence supporting it. I do not need or go by mere belief.
Atoms have been visualized by electron microscopes. I recall an image of an atom was published in a science journal years ago. And yes, I do see atoms. All matter around me including myself is composed of atoms. The entire field of chemistry is based on the Periodic Table of Elements.
I didn't imply that you actually saw God. I'm not sure how you got that from my post. Belief (of the religious persuasion) is commonly associated with god and often used in a religious context. Do you disagree?
Whatever gave you that idea? Believe whatever you want. I don't care. But I will call it for what it is.
We're talking past each other. My topic is semantics, language, understanding one another.
For example: You are convinced that evolution is real. (So am I.) But neither of us has actually seen it. We accept the testimony of persons in whom we have confidence. Clearly, you (and I) have a mechanism for "belief" that does not require "seeing".
Good thing, too! A great deal of "what we know" is in fact the testimony of persons of confidence. That opens a huge can of worms: "what is a 'trusted source?' "
The good thing about scientific theories is, one does not need to solely rely on the words of another. One can merely examine collected evidence and even repeat observations and experiments independently, which is what often happens in science to establish and reinforce the veracity of previous conclusions or possibly refute them. It's a logical, methodical process which does not require belief.
Once again, we're talking past each other.
No. You and I most emphatically cannot repeat most modern scientific experiments. CERN won't fit in my backyard, nor in yours. And neither of us could afford it. Neither of us will ever observe Higgs. Which will not prevent both of us from believing that Higgs exists.
As children, we accept a great many "facts" from our parents and teachers... and from our friends, which may not always be wise.
We must believe what we're told by "trusted sources" because we simply don't have the means (time and money) to find proof. So the real problem is determining who is worthy of our confidence. Fox News, for some, sadly.
It's not about the source, but the evidence. Belief is acceptance (or wishful thinking) sans evidence or proof.
You and I do not have access to the evidence. Unless we trust a source, we cannot know.
Oh I don't know. Maybe it is all the talk about how those that don't believe like you and others are not intelligent,and they are not being logical or that they are being gullible.
Oh and BTW don't presume you know what I think about the subject. You would probably be wrong.
Do you think it is rational to believe the Earth is 6,000 years old?
Similarly, do you consider the flat Earth belief to be rational?
I didn't presume anything. Neither did I mention my beliefs. Clearly you presume wrong and seem rather defensive. Some beliefs are clearly ignorant and/or wrong and holding to such beliefs is being willfully ignorant and possibly delusional. Belief does not equal fact.
That is what the internet is for. Easy access to anything we need.
We have access to reams of data collected by multiple people across multiple years of study that add to a growing record that constantly adjusts what we know in almost all areas of scientific study. The modern scientific method is about pier review where not only is the data picked over, but the methodology of the study is also scrutinized.
Exactly. We have access to reams of data...... and.... we trust the holder of that data to have collected and archived it correctly.
We do not observe directly.
pier # peer
The data can be found in multiple places. It's not like there is one library somewhere everyone needs to get all their scientific data from. The whole idea of the internet was brought to be to network these various places of learning together to share data and collaborate on projects.
Anyone with the means is free to replicate and observe any scientific study. One can travel and observe fossilized remains in situ in many places across the globe. It is also possible of nearly anyone with the intelligence and passion necessary to enroll into a forensic anthropological program at a university - graduate and go on to preform any test they think should be done on, including testing the work of past studies.
The bottom line is we can observe directly if we want to badly enough. It is possible to see an atom or to personally examine the bones of a woolly mammoth. Where one can't directly observe, we rely on consensus. I've read many scientific articles where a breakthrough seems likely, but every one of those articles says it must be reviewed and other studies done to confirm it.
Yes. That would be Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk... pooling their funds.
You and I have to "believe" someone.
Why are you refusing to recognize the fact that you know what you know because you have listened to smart people? Are you really saying that you have personally observed everything that you know?
All those poor college students in STEM classes are going to be pissed they've been lied to. /s
I'm not refusing to recognize anything. I'm point out that it is people - as in plural - as in more than one source doing more than one study. That adds up to multiple data sets one can base something on more than simple belief. I don't know how to do
No, I'm saying if I want to badly enough I can find a way. You make it seem as if a cabal of secret monks control all the information in the world.
It doesn't matter what I think or what you think for that matter.
Do you think it is rational for a person that is born male or female to think they are not? Do you think it is rational for someone to arbitrarily kill their unborn offspring? I for one do not think any of that is even better he slight bit rational
Exactly. It isn't you.
You must have confidence in others. You must believe.
You could invest everything you have, and you might see one single scientific discovery. What about the others? Pick up any science textbook. You know a lot of what's in it, because you've read it (and believe it) or you've been taught by people you trust.
That is how human beings learn 99% of what they know.
Is it rational to believe all humans are binary, as in either 100% heterosexual or 100% homosexual, when the experts on human sexuality attest that the vast majority of humans are not one or the other, but somewhere upon a spectrum between. What you believe is rational is not necessarily so for everyone else...
Ask some women suffering unwanted pregnancies if it is rational to terminate!
Who died and made you moral arbitrator?
I could ask you the same question. Are you going to answer this time?
If she didn't want to be pregnant she should have either made sure precautions were taken to prevent it or refrained from sex as men who do not wish to be father's are told.
Then why ask me questions?
It can be. A person most certainly can be born with an orientation that is at odds with their physical plumbing. That is how they were born.
In many cases, yes. Take for example a pregnancy by rape. It is quite rational for a rape victim to ensure she is not impregnated by her rapist. But people like you would force her to give birth to her rapist’s child.
Arkpdx, people are born any number of ways, with any number of attitudes, shapes, and sizes. . . so try not to let the 'middle-sex' between boy/girl and male/female throw you! As for the "unborn" well, what is a better time to not allow for the life of a new person than before they can be classified as "born"?
I have no problem with ending a pregnancy that was brought on by rape . I do believe that it is a bit unfair to the baby to be condemned to death because of someone else's action but I can understand it. That makes this statement of yours false.
What I object to on abortion is the woman that wants an abortion not because of rape or incest but because she just doesn't want to be pregnant or she thinks it is just an inconvenient time to be a mother.
Then they have a mental problem and need mental therapy to see where there are wrong.
Human beings are born male or female. That is determined at conception and what makes one male or female is defined by biology. A male has XY chromosomes, a prostate gland, a scrotum , testicles and a penis. A female has XX chromosomes, ovaries, and a uterus. That is science (biology) and cannot be changed. Parts can be removed but that changes nothing.
The unborn is a alive and separate . It has human DNA and it a living entity in every way. Just because it may be an inconvenience does not mean that life can just be discarded at ones whim.
No. NO. NO! The time has come for me to set you straight. The problem here is some conservative 'strict parenting' model. Y'all can run your homes anyway you can get it legally accomplished. But, some conservatives y'all do not get to come off your 'property' and start telling liberal 'parents' and folks they are sick because they do not want to IGNORE what their hearts and minds are telling them.
You have heard all the arguments against calling homosexuals "sick in the head" and yet here you are calling the LGBTQ community "mentally sick" —again.
What the hell is wrong with y'all?
When you TRY to tell me what your 'affliction' is, I want you to tell me just what forcing homosexual men/women/children to feign love for conservative men/women/children in practice could/will look like in your community.
Moreover, homosexuals are attracted to people of the same sex. THEY DON'T WANT 'YOU' -the collective you. Why are 'YOU' so needy that y'all have to hang your hats on wanting to stick something in a lesbian or receive something from a homosexual that they have told y'all until they are 'blue' in the face:
"Look foolish, narrow-minded, conservatives we don't want to live out 'your' order of life! 'You' go live it out! And get the hell out of our business once and for all!"
Some conservatives it is y'all that have a mental problem and are in desperate need of mental therapy, because y'all can't keep 'your' eyes off another group's organs and they don't want you or your conservative children.
Go! Be conservative with yourselves and close the door/s behind yourselves!
I don't need a biology lesson, arkpdx. But you do need a class in sex education. I have possessed XY chromosomes, a prostate gland, a scrotum , testicles and a penis all my life. And I have even 'stuck it' in girls (my age) and women over the years. But, all the time I did 'it' . . . it was not 'great' sex, it was experimentation and analysis of the differences I was feeling through my 'instrument' in her 'instrument.' She like me-thus, she wanted it. She 'took' it-thus, I should not have tried to sleep that night in her bed. She was 'expedient' - I wanted a massage and she wanted to give me a 'hand-job.'
Do you follow what I am describing to you? I have had 'plenty' of sex with females over my lifetime and in each case I was 'exploring' or it was about 'convenience. I can recall one night when my friends were having this. . .young woman. . . and afterwards, when she should have been leaving the room (I watched it all), my friends went to sleep and she crowded into my space and left me in a predicament for it was 'advisable' not to say no!
So I don't need a biology lesson from you. I have even been down 'there' with a woman once or twice in my life (cunnilingus) and probably did'nt know what I was doing, but she did not complain.
I don't need a biology lesson from you! Every sexual act I executed with a girl or woman (even that "two-some" and I will let you figure out who was in front and who was in back - it was not me as I have never done 'that' with a woman 'there') and it was interesting as a sensation. But, that is all it was. During the time I was thinking about him!
When it came to males, boys my age and men my age - nobody but nobody has to tell me where my 'tools' go and they go there with my heart and mind happily in the mix. Even my spirit.
So you don't know what the hell you are talking about. You have some ideology that you are 'running' around trying to 'master' as a black and white set of rules for live and don't allow any grays. If that is not hard on you or for you - good.
It has not a damn thing to do with me and the LGBTQ community. Why? Because we have tried to live 'your heterosexual way' and it all amounted to a big pile of BS for us and in the process- some of us really, really, screwed up the lives of some people we cared about and we (not me of course I didn't bother) can't change it or take it back!
Be well with your heterosexual, one-way, marriage for life according to the conservative worldview play book and well shut the hell up about people's lives you won't bother to try to understand or relate.
Am I making myself clear? Or do you need to be more plain?
One last thing. I have women in my life who find me interesting and 'available' and all I want from them is friendship. Nothing about them is sexually stimulating from my XY chromosome point of view!
BTW, the best way to know if a guy is homosexual; ask him about his 'wet' dreams. Which sex is in those.
It changes nothing for some conservatives that is. Because it changes matters tremendously for transpeople (inside and outside). Now then, 'how long' and 'where' do LGBTQ people have to go to get away from some conservatives and their authoritarian tendencies? Apparently, y'all got control issues!
Parts are parts . And all that matters is what people do with them . What is so telling is, some conservatives are okay with LGBTQ people living celebate lives, but can't tolerate same sex relations or same-sex marriages. That says something about the conservative brain: It's not that LGBTQ folks are having sex-for you all, it is who they do 'it' over or under.
Y'all want some moral ideology of what a man and woman, boy and girl, ought to be according to a standard dreamt up for what make a perfect society. Of course, like the rest of us, and from daily experience, you all know this world is not perfect and can never be perfect due to the dynamics, contrasts, and spectrums plural, coursing all over this planet nonstop.
Biology can be changed and in the future biology is setting itself up to change quite a lot and more often. I heard a rumor that science is 'bout to coax human eggs (baby-batter) from skin cells.
Arkpdx, I would suggest you and others of like mind, don't keep trying 'blow' out the science that is dragging y'all out into the future. Just stop kicking and screaming about the world you 'knew' and join the world colliding with y'all!
Arkpdx, something else to consider 'coming down the pipe' to meet up at some space and time "skin-cell derived eggs" and sperm, fertilization between two men wanting a child of their 'own' making :
A conceptual artificial womb facility called EctoLife is providing a glimpse into one possible future of fertilit y.
Of course, the processes involved will meet with certain condemnation from some conservatives who wish and intend to make moral prescriptions and pass judgements on the 'ways and means' used by others in this country to get around what conservatives call 'traditional values.' That is, no demand for progress !
Well, progress on these 'fronts' shall happen. If not in the United States, then some other nation, and this country will be left out and faced with scrambling to catch up and deal with the consequences of lacking behind in science.
The "unborn" is unborn-yes or no? "Alive and separate" - where? In a girl's or woman's body cavity? Are you kidding?
And 99.99 percent of girls and woman do not have an abortion on a whim. Some conservatives need to stop trying to 'hype' the rhetoric for effect, because rhetoric of this sort can't make a female want a lifetime of parenting.
Go moralize to people who want and are vested in the same set of liberties and freedoms you wish; leave others to decide their liberties and freedoms.
This raises a very good question: Is a person, derived from stem cells, a person?
Physiologically yes. Biblically.... is outside my competence.
Do you object to contraception? Do you object to the day after pill.
If a woman has sex do you demand she spend the next 9 months pregnant and then give birth to an unwanted child?
We're have to 'wait' for the conservative theology response to 'know' for sure to ascertain how difficult or easy this will be for them to accept. Speaking for them in their absence, such a birth/creation could be an anathema (because it is 'man-made' and science co-opting) as "two fathers" is anathema to conservatives. As for liberals, who cherish and adore science, a life born into this world is worthy of all the rights and liberties as any other citizen/personage.
The questioning could go like this:
1. Will a 'man-made' creation be considered as possessing a soul?
2. Will this offspring/life be considered innocent (of the method of its creation) and 'blessed' by conservatives who are likely to be disturbed the most by its existence?
3. Will conservative society give these babies a special designator/label to 'separate' and speak of them distinctly from the 'pack' of humanity?
BTW, this is one reason why some conservatives are constantly displaying a love/hate relationship with science and go out of their way to have their own team/s of experts (quacks/schemes/conspiracy theorists, and so forth).
Then you must think pedophiliacs are ok because after all they are just sexually attracted to children.
Apparently you most certainly do!
No I do not.
So you have never had your parts removed and you don't go around pretending to be something you are not and never can be dressing up to look like someone or something other than what you are does not make you one. Just as the man in San Diego that had a types of surgery to look like a cat, he still never could be one . No matter how many surgeries one has a male us still a male and a female is still female despite their appearance
No
Not sure I don't know how it works or when it works.
If the sex was consensual and there is no health reasons to terminate the pregnancy , absolutely.
Do you think a man should be financially on the hook for 18 to 21 years or more because he had sex but didn't and doesn't want to be a father? What if he does want to be a father and wants the child in his life ..Where are his reproductive rights?
Wow. Now that is the most out of touch thing I have read from a conservative this 'week'! On the 'real' what I think is it is sad, pathetic, egregious even for a conservative like you to come online and 'mouth' the toxin you are steadily putting forward for consideration, when it has been explained plainly to you (on several articles):
1. Pedophiles are not Homosexuals. Homosexuals are not heterosexuals. Any more than heterosexuals are pedophiles or homosexual.
I am not going to add anything else to this comment. Just wait and 'see' if you let that sink in or will you continue to write unreflective and obnoxious statements for its own sake!
Excellent questions.
Again, a man looking like a cat is irrelevant. Why try to make sympathetic bestiality 'fit' in this discussion?
As for what defines a man: Arkpdx, liberals don't need conservatives to define what a man is for us. Just define 'manhood' for yourselves-using your own sense of right and wrong and it will go good for us all. Again, liberals don't care how you define manhood or womanhood as long as we can live in a collaborative society where diversity of thought, conscience, and existence is the order of the day.
Let's 'engage' them!
Well, don't 'affirm' me yet. Because had the science been possible (an open and honest option) I might have had a sex change. But, 'those' times were not in my favor. And yes, I 'ordealed' with the idea once it became 'passable.' That said, if I am going to stay physically a man, I might as well be 'butch' about it.
So why am I letting you and others who might see this into my 'inner sanctum'? Because we need to stop talking pass each other with conservative ideology about 'grounds' and foundations on which others 'build' their lives! You need to hear (me) and try to understand rather than just 'blowing' what we tell you 'off'!
And you think you are going to be the judge of what is wrong and what is ignorant and who is delusional?
So you support the state forcing a woman to carry an accidental pregnancy to term. Taliban thinking.
A man should have no right to force a woman he impregnated to carry his child to term. That too is Tsliban-esque.
Never said they were.
You said.
And implied that that is an absolutely normal condition
I replied
If you think homosexuality is a normal condition then pedophilia must be a normal condition since pedophiliacs are just attracted to children.
For consistency sake, if you are going to say that a trans-male or trans-female is still a male and a female, then in your conservative moral ideology accept them without making negative connotations about their state of mental health. How about that?
Otherwise, your quote above is untrue. It is simply conservative ideological counter-narrative. Just saying so does not make it so. Indeed, you deny the 'work' of science to just make a conservative moral 'declaration' about such matters.
Sexual desires are all over the map. Some are harmful, others are not. Don’t view reality in such simplistic terms.
So according to you men do not have any reproductive rights.
Just reproductive responsibilities, not rights.
Then I suggest/recommend pedophiles 'plead' their case in a court of law and in the halls of congress. And, by the way, with the medical and psychological societies to seek and 'win' legitimacy. Other than that, your 'assignment' is to decouple in your head all that obnoxious $hit you keep coupling together with homosexuals. Homosexuals are sufficiently adults attracted to and seeking love from other adults. Nothing else, including your 'slippery slope argument' applies to us! And because it does not apply, you're being repulsive to try to brand LGBTQ members with any/all of that!
“So according to you men do not have any reproductive rights.”
Of course they do if they choose to man up.
But men (read legislators) have absolutely no business interfering in a woman’s reproductive rights.
What reproductive rights do you see it they "man up"? Is "man up" a divisionary term and not at all inclusive of the range of humans?
Find a woman that wants to be a mother
“What reproductive rights do you see it they "man up"?”
Rather simple. Taking responsibility for spewing their seed and not leaving it solely to the woman, and worse the state, to determine the consequences.
So you support a woman being able to kill a full term, fully viable fetus seconds before birth.
Monstrous thinking
You failed to list any rights.
Touché! A fundamental difference between conservatives and libertarians demonstrated.
I would... but I'd probably be in the minority. In conversations about abortion that derail into "personhood", I ask about AI. No one seems to accept the idea that an AI could have a soul.
Since I consider original sin to be a very stupid idea, I think everyone is innocent at birth. Obviously, I'm in the minority again.
IMNAAHO, homo sap is a pack animal. So we automatically mistrust "the other". This is often expressed through xenophobia and racism. Our reflex is to disdain anyone who is different.
Many Americans are "Christian Taliban".
What percentage are you tracking?
I made no comment that even remotely approached that. This gross intellectual dishonesty is the best you can do?
"many"
Do you not understand the words you use? Unless you support abortion for any reason up until birth, you support forcing a woman to carry an accidental pregnancy to term.
By your logic, if you support any restrictions at any time you are American Taliban.
1. Artificial intelligence by type is technology driven. An organic child is birth through processes mimicking or steeped in organic matter. The question then becomes: How much matter grants an individual 'right' or entitlement to a soul? That one generates an alarming follow-up question: 'Who' is handing out designations in the first place?!
Remember this, liberals openly and largely respect the scientific method and its accomplishments. Conservatives do not respect science unless they control and manipulate outcomes. Thus, some conservatives with by fiat grant these organic 'skin/pod' children sanctuary and their blessing or they will diligently and perpetually fight to terminate their lives (which will tarnish and de-foul their pro-life narrative for good), and not let them enjoy a 'moment' of proper peace as a members of humanity.
2. I think conservatives will 'split' the difference and 'love' the innocence of the (pod) children, but politically will treat them worse than being spawn of 'bastards.' Worse than.
3. That is not the nature of everybody. Plenty of people extend a modicum of trust to others and build on its 'platform,' at least until they do something unworthy of trusting. To which a process of 'depletion' begins to eek it out.
A woman takes the morning after pill after sex to ensure a fertilized egg does not implant into her uterus and produce an unwanted pregnancy.
Taliban level control of a woman.
Do you realize you are asking a question that would argue FOR abortion???
Already addressed this @1.1.69. If a man wants to be a father then marry a woman and start a family. No, I am not in favor of some guy impregnating a woman (who did not want to be impregnated) so that he can reproduce. Are you??
You need to pay attention to the discussion. My focus was specifically on the earliest stages of pregnancy.
Again, completely dishonest bullshit from you Sean. Do better than ridiculous strawman arguments.
How would an AI have a soul? What do you mean by 'soul'?
By what mechanism are dead conscious?
Is the existence of a human soul logical?
Good questions. Why are you asking me?
Yet again, that's not what you wrote. And you do, in fact, favor forcing woman to give birth against their will.
But, bigger picture, congratulations. You truly have the Taliban mindset down to a T. You have no problem forcing a woman to give birth against her will after an arbitrary cut off date of your own choice, but condemn anyone who disagrees with you as to what the arbitrary date should be as being beyond the pale of permissible American thought. The self righteousness oozing from that standard would make the blind Mullah have a second thoughts about being so judgmental. , "If you differ from my opinion about an arbitrary standard you are a religious terrorist." Do you actually pay attention to yourself?
More bullshit. Deliver the quote where I even remotely imply that later stage abortions should be freely allowed.
You clearly have no clue what you are yapping about.
Is it entertaining for you to blatantly lie on a forum?
I was expounding on your query in 1.1.83.
Are conscious machines logically more capable of having souls than corpses?
I have no concept in my mind of what a soul would be for a machine. A soul is typically a religious concept that some believe is the essence of each human being. The soul exists when the individual is alive and continues to exist after the body has died.
Since the soul is a religious construct and I know of no religion which would consider an AI to have a soul, the concept makes no sense to me.
The concept of personal consciousness past death makes no sense to me...
Yet, if an entire memory, personality and values were digitalized and could learn to care, reason and even love is that "soul"?
I can conceptualize it, but how that would even work remains to be explained.
I doubt any "soul-believer" would consider that to be a soul. To them a soul is the essence of a human being forged by God.
The concepts of babies born from skin cell eggs and sperm and AI both having souls. . . points to the impossible becoming possible (to begin with). Science has proven time and again that when humanity puts its best forward, 'nothing' is impossible for us!
The two questions that must be asked at this point:
1. Can the doctrine of resurrection (life after death) be applied (carried over) to babies and adults born from skin-cell eggs and sperm and artifical 'wombs'?
2. Can Artificial Intelligence which can imitate the human mind, mimic a resurrected state of consciousness once it been 'purged'?
Expanded questions:
3. What would be the expressed/clear purpose for 'resurrecting' an artificial intelligence? Judgement? Gifting it with 'eternal' life? Reincarnation? Reanimation?
4. Is (future) skin cell egg production and sperm and/or Artificial Intelligence: 2 dimensional or 3 dimensional representations life and mind?
Why yes, I would be a very good judge, thank you.
They have the right to consent to sexual or reproductive activity or not, just as the woman does.
Emotional rhetoric.
Fair and logical
Thank you. That is how I would approach it.
The unborn is not separate until it is removed and detached from the woman. It's also not a legal person until then too. And a woman may abort for whatever reason she deems fit or necessary, includingon a "whim." It is not your nor anyone else's place to say otherwise.
DO you not understand words the words you use ? You should understand the words you use.
"You support the state forcing a woman to carry an accidental pregnancy to term. Taliban thinking."
So you either support "Taliban thinking" or you support the state forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. That's how the English language works.
s it entertaining for you to blatantly lie on a forum?
Hall of Fame levels of projection from you.
Yet again, the context was the early stage of pregnancy. I first asked about rape then asked about accidental pregnancy.
The questions were to see if arkpdx would force a woman who had just discovered an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy to carry it to term.
Since you are obviously trolling (pathetic), the comment is for others to read to counter your bullshit strawman argument.
If she did not want to be impregnated she should have used some of the means that prevent pregnancy from occurring. Better yet if she doesn't want to be impregnated she should not have gotten into bed to have sex in the first place.
If a woman is pregnant and does not want the baby, according to you she has the right to terminate it. On the other hand if she wants the baby she may continue the pregnancy. In the first instance if the father wanted the baby, he is shit out of luck. In the second case, if he has no desire to be a father he is still required to be at least financial involve. In neither case does the father gave any choice or reproductive rights.
What if the pregnancy was accidental? What if she (they) used contraception and it failed?
Do you still force the woman to carry the pregnancy to term and force both the mother and father to have an unwanted / unplanned child?
Let me add this: The argument arkpdx is making is moot. Why? Because some conservatives are attempting to void freedom and liberty and ignore the progress that science is making by leaps and bounds in the area of female pregnancies/accidents/reproductive health for purposes of controlling society's morality. That is, arkpdx' argument is not about what these girls and women are doing responsibly or irresponsibly, it is about some patriarchal sense of, if you can call it so, a girl or woman having only the "freedom" to keep her legs closed! That is, "she" answers to some conservative 'authority" on the matter of pregnancy/ies, as they know best for "her."
You need to cut the crap pretending as though I am making the rules; it is a slimy way to operate. I am asking questions to expose your dominating position. My position is that she should have the right to terminate a pregnancy —especially when first detected— especially especially if it just happened.
Well of course.
Yeah, only Taliban-thinking would presume it right for a man (or state) to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term against her will. (And Sean, we are talking about early stages ... that is the context).
Here you have a point. He has no choice if the woman wants to carry to term. But, then again, he should not have the choice to force her to get an abortion. Keep in mind that this is the woman's body that bears all the burden.
You seem to be trying to move the goalposts. I am addressing your father concerns but the focus has been on a woman's right to not be pregnant.
It is Taliban-esque.
Top/down hierarchical society of patriarchs. And girls and women should know their place first and foremost is in the home and rearing children.
You mean she accidentally went into the bed?
Accidental pregnancy occurs less than 100 times according to the CDC far far fewer than the amount of abortions for convenience.
Actions have consequences. One of the possible consequences of having sex is getting pregnant.
Faux obtuseness.
Taliban-esque
“Actions have consequences…”
,,,,and just whom bears the consequences?
The state?
Gawd forbid.
She was willing to have sex. A consequence of having sex is getting pregnant. Unfortunately for the woman in this case biology prevents the man from birthing a baby and that baby will not be unwanted.
Maybe not but he be able to deny any. Paternal responsibilities if he does not want children. No visitation, no child support , nothing.
You are repeating yourself. Thus I repeat my assessment:
Your position of forcing a woman to carry a discovered/accidental/unwanted (implicitly first trimester) pregnancy to term is Taliban-esque.
I just wonder? Was comment 1.1.121 supposed to be insulting? If it was you failed miserably. [[Deleted.]]
You mentioned consequences. And your imply responsibility. You conclude the responsible consequence is to have an 'accidental' pregnancy or carry a fetus to baby full term as your moral solution. As the only viable solution. But science.
It is not the only solution.
There is a term of phrase in life that goes: 'With the right tool, you can do anything!' God through medical science has provided the means for a girl or woman to acceptably free herself of an "accidental" impregnation, and a forced pregnancy until a sufficient time for her to come to grips with the responsibilities of child-rearing and more importantly parenting accountability.
Thus, it is some conservatives who are once again being "old-fashioned" and dismissive of the times in which we live with its remedies and solutions to pregnancy dilemmas, just for stubbornness sake!
We get it. You want sternness, your want strict rules. You want life to be lived by conservative (black and white - no gray) rules. But, you can only attain that with conservative men/women/children- liberals are not obligated or interested in what drives your policies.
Just because something can be done does not mean it should be done.
No not stubbornness but belief and the reverence for human life.
It is funny. You and other liberal will put down those that believe in God but will bring Him up when it seems to suit you. Does the word hypocrisy mean anything to you?
Oh and BTW you do know that God is against the taking of innocent human life.
Do you consider 'God' to be the god of the Bible?:
And if that is not enough:
I am a Christian, and I don't bring God up to suit "me." I live in Christ everyday. Why don't you know this when you 'see' and 'hear' me sufficiently enough on NT. Did you overlook the name of this group you have been visiting: Christian State of Mind.
Now seriously, tell me you are not a fundamentalism Christian who has judged liberals as not be sufficiently Christian or as having 'another gospel'?!
As for the word, hypocrisy. . . some conservatives have over-saturated this site with the term so much so that it barely registers its meaning anymore.
Now you are going to 'require' me to state the obvious from world news: Turkey's earthquake death toll is 20,000 men/women/children. How many innocent human lives do you 'count' among the 'lot'? Technically, God 'signed off' on that event!
And this:
Abortion is also a possible consequence of an unwanted pregnancy. What's your point?
Why shouldn't something be done? Who are you to decide that for anyone else?
What about reverence for the woman's life and autonomy? Do those not matter if she's pregnant? Or are you just trying to appeal to emotion?
What does God have to do with anything? Abortion is a medical issue between a woman and her doctor. God has no place or say, especially if one does not believe such things.
"Oh and BTW you do know that God is against the taking of innocent human life".
What about the first born of Egypt?
If arkpdx does not accept your/TiG's answer and does not respond with a deeper question. . . then, "we" can take it that it is willful ignorance and he does not intend to be persuaded of the truth, but is pushing some conservative patriarchal talking points void of depth and heavy on authoritarianism. That is, conservative (strict father) control over the womb: Nice (questionable?) soundbite but not well thought out! Let's call it what it is!
I think you did call it for what it is. I certainly do not expect any meaningful or logical response addressing the points made from ark.
Ok I am not now nor have I ever been a fundamentalist Christian. I was born and raised a Roman Catholic.
The baby being aborted has done nothing to deserve the consequence of being put to death.
All my responses are reasonable and logical. You just don't like them most likely because they cause you to have guilty feelings and a crisis of conscience
Making erroneous presumptions like that is neither logical or reasonable. It just makes you look foolish. As does you calling the unborn "baby," when that is the incorrect terminology and likely meant to appeal to or stir emotion. Your multiple uses of meta and CoC skirts/violations some in this very discussion alone, to say nothing about other discussions, are also indicative of unreasonable & illogical responses
[deleted]
Thank you for clarifying your religious affiliation as Roman Catholic. Now, what is your understanding of religious liberals; are we sufficiently Christian or religious at least as Roman Catholics?
Caution, please.
has it done anything to require it to continue?
Get up to date. No meat on Friday who changed decades ago
great, maybe minding their own business [deleted]
Maybe you should take your own advice
In that case, his pov is already discredited and null and void.
I can see that! Yes.
YECs read the Bible literally. They do not engage in deep exegesis because they, as Ken Ham puts it, "take God at His word". This, to me, is a logical way to interpret the Bible. If the Bible is meant to communicate to men from God, it makes very good sense that God would ensure it be clear and understandable and not be something that can be interpreted dozens if not hundreds of different ways.
So in that sense the YECs seem to be most sensible. Of course, their view is sensible only if the Bible is divine and true.
The scientifically correct view part works for the meaning of a day, but it fails miserably in pretty much every other way from cosmology through evolution.
Sorry, it took me so long. I have been back and forth this evening (my time). All I can "add/say" to your comment is it is God in Genesis who 'baffled' the one language into many languages (thus, putting understanding on a spectrum) thus, we have an original language and other languages in the "Bible" either/or containing words which have no translation in some other language or multiple meanings. God could have resolved this issue by being deliberate to explain the proper meanings, but. . . that would have defeated the purposes of confusing the one language in the first place, in my opinion!
Well, not quite a thorough literal bible(for the YECs). As the bible writers use "like unto. . . . " regularly and excessively. For example:
1. "Feed my sheep." (meaning: Flock of believers)
2. "A farmer when out to plant his fields and found weeds among the proper seedlings. . .let them grow together." (Meaning: Let the good, bad, and ugly stay/grow together.)
3. "I am Light." (Meaning: Is God/Jesus really 'light'? God is 100% Good and no darkness indwells God.)
4. "A farmer when out to sow his seed, and some fell: path, rocks, shallows, good ground." (Meaning: The sustainable 'power' of God is in that one which possesses "good ground.)
5. "You must be born again" (Meaning: Even young and old must have created 'new' in Spirit.)
6. "A day is like a thousand years. . . ." (Meaning: For God time is humanly immeasurable and of undetermined duration.)
I pull these few items out of a larger group of metaphorical statements in the Bible to make the point between literal (exacting) statements and metaphorical statements which inherently can be 'tweaked' to contain all the variability/ities, and 'weaknesses of interpretation,' of a metaphor.
In Genesis, would you consider the literal reading to mean that each day is a 24 hour period (a single rotation of the planet)?
Nice. Well, based on what it takes to accomplish anything which occurs in space as observed and explained today; as I can determine by what I get accomplished-and view others accomplishing in "a single rotation of the planet" - no, a literal 24 hour days do not work for the equation.
Which begs the question that YEC should plan a worldview around it.
Granted, the phrase nothing is "impossible" for God can mean what it says or. . . on the other-hand, it can mean that nothing is impossible for God if/when God deems to do it in whatever time-frame God chooses and is capable of executing.
In my private and personal opinion. The discussion of the age of the Earth seems an open scientific question/statement and I tend to follow the science. Because my salvation does not hinge on knowing or commenting on the age of the Earth. It is superfluous 'filler' to me, in any case. Something to ponder-for which I at this time don't invest time or energy.
A literal 24 day in Genesis (see @2) contradicts science (the order of events also contradicts science), but that is not what I asked. If you read the text of Genesis, how is it possible to interpret those words other than 'day' = 24 hour period we call a 'day'?
Oh. Okay. You want me to 'interpret' what Genesis is authoritatively saying about the fourth 'day'?
How is this literal, unless God's power is that of a magician/witch/warlock (in human terms)? That is, "Snap" and rocks and heat and radiance constructs itself in what we determine to be 12 hour cycles?
I am aware that I am not directly answering your question, because I don't 'have' an answer to the question of what Genesis is conveying about "the beginning" order of the Earth! For instance if you look at the discussion of the days individually, it reads like prose. (Which is probably why men like Ken Ham should not attempt to quantify it as literal 'anything' in my opinion. At-known, qualifying it as 12 hours of day and night.) For who is to say that God did not -as a 'laborer' would do pause the 'work' which obviously was industrious since the 7th day is a period of extended rest (which carries on even now).
And, assuming we are in some agreement that God 'exploded' the universe into being, I could ask this: Are the bible writers ignorant or just ignoring the time it would have taken after God's "big bang" for the Earth's gaseous matter and elements to cool?
It's 'terribly interesting, and at the same time, defeatedly incomplete and unfulfilling literally.
Occam's razor would indicate men like Ken Ham are highly probably taking advantage of the 'hole' left from the beginning scientifically (and in the biblical 'fog') to imagine what they will to their social and financial 'gain' in this life, and this life alone.
As for me, I can not know (how can I), without a reasonable 'teacher' what/how time immemorial looked or played out.
The above stated. A somewhat interesting and good discussion can be 'held' to broaden and deepen the point of why/how come we can't know how these 'days' are to be considered over the expanse of time and space.
Given the tie to the moon and the sun and the correlation with the evening and the morning how is it possible to reasonably interpret 'day' in this context other than the 24 hour period??
I don't mean to sound rude, but why ask me? After all, I am not God, I only exist in recent time and space, and ultimately, as I as I 'offered' above God could 'pause'/stall the 'work' of day/night indefinitely and resume at will. Such 'great' sweeps of time may not be clarified in a 'sealed' bible which scantily dealt with the topic of creation or by even by science. It is highly probable that the act of creation wiped out all the 'evidence' to investigate or falsify.
The reason I posted the whole of the series of 'day' and 'night' is because the statements do not follow in proper succession: for instance:
Was there light and night before the fourth day? Yes. There was according to the verse. So what does that do to the sun and moon as being 'timers' of day and night? God was already 'hard' at work for 3 'days/nights' before the fourth night/day started!
Because you are an intelligent human being who can read plain English, recognize context, recognize cross-referencing notions and realize that the authors of these words were speaking of days (with mornings and evenings correlating with the sun and the moon, among other things).
I was reediting my comment. Please see the additions.
Again, I don't know what you want me to 'say' precisely as I can't tell you what the writer meant to convey. It is important for you and others to understand that the Bible 'says' a great many assertions which believers' take on faith or simply quietly wrestle with and 'take' because we can not gain-say it one way or the other. What believers', at least those of the "good ground" (quality/life-long faith variety) do know is at a point in time (think Francis Collins as an example of what I 'speak') we changed in our course of life and its explanation we credit to God because of its awesomeness and lasting 'power.'
Also, there is a book I read with a section by a/several Jewish rabbis offering 'words' in Talmudic (if that is a word) fashion on how the Jewish people "interpret" but do not fully comprehend those 'early days of creation' or what the Jewish writer of Genesis was explicitly trying to communicate, and finally that it is not any article that should 'trip' the Jewish faithful up. As they should wait for some future revelation on the matter.
(I have attempted to recall the title and section of the book, when I do I will post it, but it has been several years since I read it. It will come to be I don't doubt if I persist.)
Nevermind.
Did you reread @1.3.8 addition:
I'd like your take on the questions. What if anything do you think?
Light was created on the first day. The first day had evening and morning. Darkness and light. The 24 hour cycle we see.
The fact that the text has the moon and the sun created on the fourth day is just another failure in understanding (by the ancient authors) of how our planet and solar system work.
I was not asking if this text is scientifically accurate (since it is clearly not), I was asking you how it is reasonable to view this language as referring to anything other than the 24 hour period we call a 'day'.
Where does it state the length of the first day? What was taking the measurement of time the first (3) days? What do we have to establish days and nights have always and nonstop been as we see them accounted for/before the arrival of the sun (and moon)? After all, on the first day, second day, and third day, there is no mention of even stars being formed. Do we just 'jump to conclude' they must have been in the heavens already?
Because if we do 'conclude' the sun, moon, and stars were in existence as sign/markers of day and night on the first day (for consistency), then we may be faced with this section of scripture being prose and not wholly literal, in my opinion.
Evening and morning, light and darkness. The obvious cycle of an Earth 24 hour day. This is true for every day: "And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day."
You are using errors in the text (understandable given the authors) as an indication that this is metaphorical. This is common apologetics. If something seems wrong ... it is simply metaphorical.
"Errors in the text" Okay. I am only working with/through the text, though.
Because it does appear to be some type of light and day 'feature' utilized the first day. And a 'clear' mention (is that so?) of the sun and moon making entries on the fourth day. Eh? It's right there in the text. . . . It gives 'liberty' to ask: What was God utilizing as light before the sun's and moon's (and stars) advent? And could that light be framed as a different. . . period. . . of light and dark unlike what we know today.
Can we agree this is not exacting writing? That it lends itself to interpretation as least in the English language?
Either the sun and moon (and stars) were made the fourth day literally or they were there all along since the first day—which the text does not state.
This is the problem for believers trying to 'divine' what such difficult passages mean us to understand, when they seem to be 'out of step' with. . .well, themselves. And yet the text is sealed (right along with our entry into this great world-wide faith in God). We believe because we are allotted a spiritual 'home' in this faith. However, we can not verify every word nuance, or deny words their place, in the only book of texts which informs us about anything at all related to our chosen / unctioned faith (altogether).
BTW, this is why our faith (Chrisitanity) can be frustrating to a critical-thinker/reasoner of the Bible. There are simply multiple alternative-facing views of certain passages—and no clear authority to ask for a clarification.
We are instructed to continue in faith daily, nevertheless. And leave those passages for later revelation/s if any will be forthcoming.
My view is that this is a story conceived by ancient men. They provided a narrative based on what they could see. They could see light change to darkness. They could see the sun when it is light and the moon when it is dark. They could perceive the repeated cycle of the day.
They also imagined that all this was created for us. In result, they came up with this narrative of a creator.
The day they are talking about is obviously the 24 hour cycle that brings forth morning with light (and the sun) and evening with darkness (and the moon ... usually).
If this text was meant to be figurative, then it is absolutely awful. It would be among the worst descriptions since it ties so obviously with what ancient men could see yet is somehow to be taken as a metaphor. It would be a bizarre, confused commingling of reality with metaphor. I do not see that as likely.
The text states the sun presides over ("rules") the day. It does not state that the sun delivers light. Remember, these are ancient men who have no idea that the sun is what causes all the ambient light. They just knew the sun was a great light in the day and the moon was a light in the night. So, for all we know, they envisioned light as something beyond the sun.
But note that they correlate morning, light, sun and evening, darkness, moon and on each day there is morning and evening.
Keep in mind that these are ancient men who thought the planet flat with Heaven 'above' it. All the gods of old were seen as residing in the sky. They have no concept of a planet, rotation, revolution, etc.
Well, then it is what it claims to be or it is not. In either case, the Bible does a lot of 'work' in the lives of its believers! Good, bad, or ugly. . . and as we all know the books can get ugly too, the books get across a great about of information and has been doing so for thousands of generations around the world.
I don't know what else to say about it. I am familiar with this so-called, 'ancient writers theory' and commentary of the Bible because it is being 'delivered' by other men who are not interested in any thing spirit or supernatural about the Bible. So the two schools of thought continue on their 'tracks. . . .' Neither, apparently, being able to 'fully derail' or defunct the otherl
The sun does "rule' the day with its light, heat, and other characteristics which only happen when it is present. Who can possibly deny the sun gives/delivers light (even to an overcast/cloudy/foggy/rainy/snowy/etceteras day)? Light derived from the sun is undeniable. And the text states that the sun appeared on the fourth 'day.' Yet, there was light already of some kind on the first 'day' of creation. The text is clear in pronouncing that too! When we take the text, literally.
Addendum: This is plainly what can happen when people go too far in making text sacred, by over-blowing and 'over-loading' their commentary. Such is the case with solo scriptura. There are difficult passages in the Bible which may never square with texts, plural or the ever-changing and 'reproving' world. And yet, the Bible with its beauty and blemishes "soldiers on." Changing (and improving) many, millions of lives in each generation and giving hope to countless billions.
This is not me defending the bible either. This is me looking at it from a 'distance' and stating what I 'see.'
Found it! Judaism, God and the Astronomers. Second Edition. Robert Jastrow. Copyright 1996 Reader's Library Inc. W.W.Norton and Company Inc. New York/London. There is is simply too much to copy and paste here across several pages, I would advise a full reading of the several pages in the link provided. Here is an excerpt :
Pages 124/125.
I bring the Jewish 'account' up to describe and indicate that not even the 'originators' and 'stewards' of the Old Testament are clamoring for one unified narrative, and certainly not one single translation-meaning, of the Genesis account of creation. If they won't do it; Christians will be hard-pressed to come up with one understanding too!
We know there are all sorts of interpretations of this and the balance of the Bible. The lack of a single, definitive interpretation does not change the fact that the language clearly depicts the visual effects one can see with the naked eye for the passing of a 24 hour day.
Actually, we have no way of knowing, no way to account, for what was happening in the beginning before time and space sorted themselves out. My friend, can you agree or do you assert that science can account for what was happening in its entirety at the inception of the universe regarding the light of the "big bang" explosion and the creation and order of days and times before the biblically accounted for 'fourth" day?
If the associated 'originators' of the Torah can't deliver explanation and nuance about the creation; how can "we" who are 'indefinitely' removed from the original subject matter? The Jewish rabbis were historically 'near' to the issue/matter and they are not 'settled' on it. Indeed, the rabbis have their oral traditions and other peripherals surrounding the Torah so that it does not 'speak' for itself.
Of course not. And I am not speaking of science. I am speaking of words penned by ancient men given the knowledge they had (and did not have).
I am also not implying nor assuming that the words written in the Bible reflect truth. I am speaking of what the authors intended to convey and the context of their words clearly show that they were conveying the standard 24 hour day — the phenomenon they saw daily with their naked eyes which served as the master clock for their lives.
But,. . .that is your worldview (if I can call it that). It is your perspective as someone who can not/will not allow for any imagination and/or acceptance of the supernatural. That is, you are looking into the Torah, 'billing' itself as speaking for God a long time ago and you question and critique it to exacting standard: science and reason. The writers, admittedly, were unsophisticated and ordinary (with few exceptions) who took on ranks as prophets, teachers, and apostles as proportioned to them by God (Spirit). These writers, men mostly, wrote their scrolls and the like as Spirit gave them 'utterance' and unction. Evenso, when they wrote they wrote to their 'brethren.'
Thus, the question becomes: Why would God give a prophet, any prophet or apostle, out-sized knowledge beyond the times in which he wrote? Especially considering that God's purpose was clearly to have these men write about topical times and to foreshadow the coming of Jesus, the Son of God?
The age of reason and science these were . . . remote (The Enlightenment Age) was in the 1700's. A time and age, in which the prophets and apostle, speaking and communicating their own 'enlightenment' about their periods, were long dead. Their writings continue to live after them. And, more importantly, those writings still are effectively changing lives undoubtedly for the good, even as some sought in the past and well into the present to manipulate, imitate, and wield for selfish reasons what they shared with humanity.
God would not give these men prophets and apostles reason and science. Because the times for prophets and apostles did not call for such advanced modes of thinking. They would have likely been thought of as 'gods,' small "g," themselves with such 'smarts' and higher education institutions.
Remember, religion and government were chiefly what ancient folks operated under and served as authority. They were not 'ready' for Enlightenment. That is, one has to wonder if such worldly knowledge that was to come would have gone in one ear and out the other for them.
As we can see occurring in modern times, people in the states as well as around the globe yet rail, push-back, fight against, and protest 'learning' and change.
Finally, when I 'speak' about Genesis' "first day-fourth day" in discussion, I am not trying to 'divine' anything at this time. I am merely going with the premise of what is literally on the page about "light" on the first day and "sun and moon" apparently making entry on the fourth day. It is reasonable to say that the sun can not give its light before it is said to have been caused and its effect following.
I will end on this comment here. (I have received two phone calls and become distracted. For now, my focus is temporarily scattered. It will have to become refocused.)
This has nothing to do with the supernatural. It has everything to do with what ancient men knew (and did not know).
If this was dictated to scribes by God then He chose to communicate that He created the universe in 6 of our days. If God did not mean a day as understood by the scribes then why deal with evening and morning, light and darkness, sun and moon? Why make all these consistent references to a 24 hour day if God really meant a much longer period?
It makes no sense unless God wanted everyone to be mislead.
Well, I do not think this has anything to do with a supernatural entity. I think Genesis reads just fine if we consider the source (ancient men) and what the knew (and did not know).
Who is saying it is a reference to 24 hours day? Where in Genesis is it time limited to 12 hours day/12 hours night? Do point that out to me. Are are you reading into the verses time as you and I understand it to exist?
What Genesis does say is this:
Now then, this makes all the sense in the world to us humans, because we require light to see our work! Plus, we can take for granted that the "beginning of time and space was set in motion by a grand and great "fireball" or "explosion" or "Big Bang" for which scientist (men) have found the background (light) radiation from: Penzias and Wilson.
Then, Genesis does say this:
Now, this is as plain and 'literal' as one can state it to say that God said on the fourth day, 'Be!' To sun, moon, and (somewhat 'flippantly') threw in. . .the starry hosts .
Two themes are at work here:
1. God is working. This is evidenced by later mention of the seventh day as one of 'rest' (in the Heavens).
2. The creation work on 'day one' was accomplished then, and the creation work on every other 'day'—including the fourth 'day' is wholly unto itself .
It has to be or what would the literal point of stating 'days/times/appearing'?
Either the Sun and moon used to set time and 'cycles' occurred on Day Four or the verse is wrong for saying so! And one has only to read to see which day the Bible remarks on the sun and moon's advents: Day Four..
On the other-hand: The volume of 'work' executed in the "First Three Minutes " by Professor Steven Weinberg 1977 Bantam Books after the Big Ban g where light, neutrinos and antineutrinos were forming and occurring in hasty succession corresponds to light transmission on the first day of creation apart from a not yet 'created' or formed sun and moon (and stars). Steven Weinberg 'grants' us a way to have light of creation 'work' distinct and apart from the setting of a 'great 'light' in the sky on day four!
What are you doing, friend JBB?
Morning and evening ... that is what happens each day.
Light and darkness ... that is what happens each day.
Sun and moon appearance ... that is what happens each day.
That which happened "in the beginning" is not, neither should it be, what is happening 'now.' For example, our universe is expanding which implies it can not be considered the same as it was.
Well, we're picked this subject matter apart; and left it better than we found it!
The Bible is irrelevant unless it can be established to be divine (and true). If it is merely the work of ancient men then their words on creation are no more real than J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter series.
Indeed, Genesis speaks of the sun lighting the day and the moon lighting the night and also, for each day, speaks of the evening and the morning.
This is one area where the YECs actually get it right. How utterly clear can this text be in speaking of a day as a 24 hour period? The ancient writers of the Bible certainly were speaking of a 24 hour period in this portion of the text.
But in the end, this is religious people arguing over how to interpret the Bible and they are all making the assumption that the Bible is divine and true. Step one is to determine the veracity of one's source before engaging in deep exegesis.
This point is particularly interesting, because it corresponds to what the author is engaging in doing. He is making a case for critical thinking on an issue that he purposes (in his own life) comes down to a faith statement = In full disclosure, this author finds Young Earth Creationism to be the biblically and scientifically correct view.
First, his 'conclusion' is drawn from a book attesting to be a book of faith and not science. Lastly, since it is taken from a book claiming itself to be a sacred text, he has limited capacity (from where he appears to enter this) to move his perspective (unchanging - conservative) to change his perspective (changing - liberal).
[deleted]
[Deleted]
By the way, my answer to the title question: "Should Christians Favour Creation Or Evolution?" is absolutely yes.
The reason is because there is overwhelming sound cross-disciplinary evidence that evolution is indeed how species (including homo sapiens) arose. At this point one must blindly discard (or cherry-pick / distort) the evolutionary sciences (biology, paleontology, genetics, etc.) to hold that evolution is some kind of mass fraud.
I recognized science as one discipline you are discussing what is the other adding its 'voice' to evolutionary evidence you mention?
The cross-disciplines are all disciplines of science such as evolutionary biology, sociobiology, paleontology, genetics, etc.
Accepted. This article does limit itself to four choices of 'belief' in creation or evolution that a Christian can maneuver or align with his or her religious perspective. Of course, the author keeps (a) God involved in the act of existence.
The cross-disciplines do not exclude a role for a creator. They simply do not require a creator to explain the origin of species.
Religious+Scientific organizations such as BioLogos suggest that evolution is a process that could have been implemented by a creator to produce species. Nothing in science precludes that. Of course, nothing in science or really anywhere provides credible evidence of a sentient creator.
It would seem that God (if there be God - to your perspective) is determined to let humanity kind have the stage for now. And. . . just look at the mess we make of this? Much of humanity simply refuses to grow up a proper stage of co-religious (spiritual) and scientific development - if such is even our future! I wonder what institutions like Biologos is coming up with these days in the realm of belief/science?
BioLogos is a science-based apologist organization. They seek to explain Christian beliefs in terms of science. Thus they seek to preserve the Christian God while holding true to science. Typically the contradictions are resolved by special interpretations of religious beliefs rather than compromise science. This is in contrast with YEC organizations like AiG which will twist and mangle science to be in tune with their beliefs.
Hmm.
Biologos is somewhere I could find myself affiliated (though I have not joined the group or spend 'time' there). I do know what Dr. Collins is about professionally and religiously.
There is something rather implicit under-riding the scientific attitude in regards to God and the supernatural: If there is a God or (g)Gods, why won't any one or several speak up for themselves. . . because as it is, we have the fact (and apppearance) that men are smarter than any 'Word' left behind by an 'absent' deity.
Good question. You know my view. The absence of any credible evidence of a creator deity (much less the Christian God) makes it impossible for me to believe there is one. That does not mean I think it impossible that a creator deity exists, only that nothing persuades me to believe this is so.
I think you might enjoy this civil debate between two functioning adults: Dawkins v. Collins
Two men whose views I respect.
I will interrupt listening to share this really interesting segment at 1:05 minutes in about miracles and "intellectual error."
The moderator of "The Big Conversation" is always an exceptional host. As regards to Dr. Collins and biologist Richard Dawkins. . . to me the 'space' between the religious scientist and the irreligious scientist is a spectrum similar to a spectrum God and Satan (not meaning Dawkins is a 'devil' not at all) "inhabit." That is, our world, its universe is replete with spectrums (contrasts) nearly in every way. In every way there is a "Yes". . . its equal and perfect opposite is a "No."
Food for thought: It could be supposed that God and Satan have determined to be at opposite ends of a spectrum. Thus, humanity's interplay is the md-ground between two indescribably great forces.
When did Christ explain creation? The texts concerning Creation are Old Testament. They are the myths of a pastoral Bronze Age tribe.
Nothin' Christian here...
Interesting. You make a distinction between the Old Testament and the New Testament at the only juncture where the two connect in time. Do you really think it wise to do so?
It's essential.
Christ liberated us from OT barbarism, giving us the single commandment to love one another. Returning to OT barbarism is a refusal of Christ.
Christ did not liberate Christians from a (biblical) knowledge of "In the beginning" any more than he liberated us from 'knowing' prophets (of old) which foreshadowed and pictured his advent. Do you read the Old Testament as a means to understand from where Jesus Christ 'sprang'? Have you ever/do you read the Old Testament at all now?
I would aid discussion to have an explicit statement of your religious worldview if you can share it.
Christianity became a state-sanctioned war religion in 312 C.E., under the Emperor Constantine, and it has primarily functioned in that capacity in the ensuing 1,711 years.
My religious worldview is, "Love one another."
As I said, "refusal of Christ".
Christian mythology is a Roman Empire era syncretic product of Judaism and Platonic philosophy largely promoted by Saul of Tarsus based on a delusional episode he apparently experienced on the road to Damascus.
A great deal of self identified christians are actually Paulists. They often identify the words and writtings of Paul aka Saul of Tarsus as being those of Christ or intermingle the two as if the words of Paul/Saul were interchangeable or equally as doctrinal as those of Jesus...
Paul/Saul never met Christ and basically coopted Christianity for the Romans. His writing is mere history of the early church and should never be confused with gospel.
In many way Paul is antithetical to Jesus...
Thus Thomas Jefferson famously ripped the Books of Paul from his Bible regarding them as unworthy of being included.
He also lined out passages about magic.
Rome had huge self interests in promoting their guy Saul/Paul to apostle status.
Paul/Saul was the TV evangelist of his day.
An iron age equivalent of Jimmy Swaggert.
Their guy? Wasn't Saul a Jew from what is now Turkey?
You clearly don't think very much of Paul.
You clearly don't think that much of Paul, or the churches he started, or his presence in the New Testament .
It is odd how few people realize that nothing about Jesus was actually written during g his supposed lifetime. Much of it was 2 generations removed from when the supposed Jesus character actually existed.
That is a well-known and well-established point already. In fact, it is often 'forgotten' because of it.
He must have made a major impression on folks to have lasted so long.
Meh, max slaughter will do that.
Who? Christ or Paul? It seems to me that "Christianity" is in fact "Paulism".
Who worships, Hitler, Stalin or Mao Zedong? Do millions worship Alexander the Great, Sa’d ibn Mu’adh or Alcibiade?
Mighty big of him to give up his name and instead use Christs.
Yes.
I think Paul was an interesting historical figure. Other than that, my opinion of him is not particularly relevant. I'm not a Christian, so the churches he started, again, I look at from only a historical perspective. His presence in the New Testament is clearly significant for the Christian religion. His writings are, as I stated in my comment, a syncretic product of Judaism and Platonic philosophy, made most manifest in the The Letter to the Romans. Paul was the figure who brought the developing Christian religion to the gentiles.
Correct.
And may I ask you as a 'bystander' if you think this is a good thing, bad thing, or "neutral" thing, notwithstanding all the baffling conduct of the many churches?
Friend Gsquared, have you read completely the Letters of Paul (to the churches)?
It is what it is, which, I suppose, is a "neutral" stance.
Yes, my very good friend CB, I have read the Letters of Paul. As an upper division undergrad studying history at Berkeley, my main area of emphasis was what was referred to as "intellectual" history and I was very interested, although not exclusively, in religions of the Roman Empire.
As an undergrad at a vaguely Lutheran college, I had an option for OT/NT studies. They were probably the most interesting courses I took. The NT prof was fascinating - everyone wondered if he was a believer. He waited 'til the last day to tell us "yes".
My interest in religion is due to that man.
My interest is piqued by your answer (as well as Bob's general demeanor of Paul): If you speculated it, what do you think S/Paul is as a man who established the 'church age' in this world? Inspired supernaturally? A "roman" agent? A nuisance/rabblerouser? A dedicated and misguided 'soul'?
That's a difficult question to answer, CB. Speculating, and giving him the benefit of the doubt for the moment, I would pick "dedicated and misguided 'soul'. But, really, who knows?
I was always interested in ancient mythology and read up on it extensively when I was quite young. In the 7th grade, one half of our semester in English class was about Greek, Roman and Norse mythology. Since I was already quite advanced in the subject, the teacher actually had me write the final exam for the class. In my later years, after many trips to various parts of Polynesian, I put together an extensive collection of Polynesian mythology. I have enjoyed visiting many archeological sites in Polynesia.
At Berkeley, one of my professors, who passed away not too long ago, was so outstanding. He was a German Jew whose family fled to France to escape from the Nazis. Four years later, the Nazis caught up with them after they invaded France, and his parents were killed, He was hidden by the nuns during the remainder of the war. He even won the seminary prize, although he never converted. One of the classes I took with him was a study of St. Augustine. I was assigned to write a paper on the concept of the wandering of the soul in the The Confessions of St. Augustine. If I may brag a bit, I received an A++ Excellent on that paper. Not too bad for a non-Christian writing about a topic in Christianity. The professor had expected that I would go on the get a Ph.D., but I opted to go to law school instead.
I was also one of two undergrads in a graduate seminar about Roman religions of the 2nd to 5th centuries. My assigned in that class was to write a paper on syncretism and the cult of the sun god.
My good friend, and fellow undergrad, who was in both classes with me, did go on to get his Ph.D. in history at the University of Chicago and he is a highly-regarded professor of Byzantine studies, although, like me, he is on the verge of retirement.
Gsquared, rolling it backwards a bit:
S/Paul was a dedicated and misguided soul in your (personal) opinion. S/Paul is said to have met with the apostles of Jesus in Jerusalem who 'blessed' his journeys among the Gentiles: Do you think the apostles (doing the blessing) were leading an authentic sect of Judaism?
How do you view the "foundation" of apostles (Peter/John/Matthew) on which the church is founded?
I ask this not to put you on the spot, or to 'frustrate' your recollection of the New Testament, or to put on a 'show.' This is a genuine set of questions for which sometimes it can be informative/exciting/developing to get the perspective/s of others who will speak openly and most importantly plainly.
I'm sincerely impressed.
Umm, you cannot separate the two. The NT is based on the OT. Same as Islam. You are basically arguing that the foundational work of the trilogy needs to be thrown out. Of course that also destroys the entire base of the sequels, but whatever.
Excellent point.
Christ brought us a new commandment and a new Covenant. He clearly stated that "Love God and one another" is the foremost commandment. The only way to give great importance to the OT is to ignore Christ's message.
Oh how convenient. but then of course you have to explain the continued belief in OT shit like Noah, the relentless homophobia, and the entire creation story, but fuck it.
No, I don't. Those who believe that Bronze Age mythology should guide our society have to explain. I say, "Love one another"... the rest is past ite due date.
Why would it matter to you if someone else believes in "OT shit"? They can choose to live according to the rules they want.
Really? Things like thou shall not kill and thou shall not steal and honor your mother and father and do not covet your neighbors spouse are past their due date and have no place in today's society?
So you reject the creation story?
Of course. It's mythology.
May I suggest you 'owe' Thrawn31 an explanation of how you mean him to understand your usage of the word, mythology?
It's in the dictionary. My usage is that.
Would you agree that "virgin birth", "the resurrection of Christ" and "life after death" are also mythological?
Virgin birth is improbable. Resurrection is more improbable. It's impossible to prove a negative, so no one can be absolutely affirmative... but they're highly improbable.
Life after death is different. It would be incorporal: a migrating soul, a reincarnation... something like that. I like the "esthetic" of reincarnation... but what I like doesn't really matter. So I wind up at, "Do your best to 'love your neighbor', and the rest will take care of itself."
Emphatically. It is increasingly clear to me that a great many hands have played a role in collecting, managing, and putting forward the volumes of sacred texts humanity cleaves. One really is left to his or her own devices in the absence of God/Jesus/Spirit 'executing,' activating, and building individual faith (into a collective).
Yes. Or rather, there are religions that tell the flock what to do and think - fundies be they Christian, Muslim, Hebrew, or whatever. There are religions that accompany the flock in their search.
My own search has been private. Others often desire / need a community.
I doubt that most people really think about "faith".
The Christian faith. . . is really very simple—even as you suggest in summation. Just love each other and leave the 'rest' of faith to God. Sin is taken care of once and for all we are 'told' by our 'books' and letters. And yes, there is this management of 'expectations' and this constant 'feeding' on what to do to be holy while in the flesh. I could go on, but not right now.
And yes, there is a great many, many, nuances (come to 'discover') about Christianity which could be explained and elaborated on at great length which are not as the subject matter becomes religion 'by rote/script.' That is, many people are just following the 'plan' of salvation and not 'testing' the spirits at all to what makes good religion or "good" sense!
I think it was John who warned against distraction. Most of what modern American "Christians" spend their time on is distractions. "Love one another".
Yes. There is a large population of Christians in the United States who are distracted by pursuing endless political warfare in a perverted practice of delusion that this country is "covered" by God and other spiritual beings when it follows a strict 'diet' of conservative theology. These people even twist the gospel to make enemies of their fellow believers who are liberal and express liberality in Christ to varying degrees. And lastly, these conservatives choose some bizarre "objective" faith (of their own private design) and complain about feelings as if God by telling us to love one another expect us to do so without any emotions!
IMNAAHO, those people are insulting God, presuming to know Her mind and intentions. That's a "distraction" from the mission we have been given: love one another.
It is the nature of a miracle to be out of the natural order. Can we assume this is what the Bible is suggesting regarding virgin birth, resurrection of Christ, and other life after death?
Of course, none of this can be ascertained 'now.' Thus in this sense it is 'myth' - without access to any followup.
I would be interested in hearing your view on the 'tangibility' of (holy) Spirit in those who are not left orphans (not abandoned by God/Jesus) through his ascension. Is Spirit a 'witness'?
Good question. I have a very hard time figuring out what is going on in people's minds today. Trying to guess what people from an entirely different culture were thinking thousands of years ago... is beyond me.
OTOH... does it matter? What people think today is important.
I'm not a fan of either the Holy Spirit or the Trinity. Too complicated. Unnecessary.
Distraction.
Miracles or not miracles? This question begs for an answer:
Pretty sure it is the nature of sacred documents to strive to ascertain/understand their meaning and purposes in order to follow after them appropriately or possess sufficient knowledge of their truths.
Yes. Because the 'first' people who formulated the "gospels," and even when translators are hard-pressed to get 'it' right through and across generations 'today' the basis of what was originally meant is relevant (if only for knowledge sake). That is, we can't know what we are agreeing to (do), if we don't try to understand what we were offered up for acceptance!
Your choice. It is a 'strange' . . . saying to 'hear' someone refer to Spirit as a. . . distraction, nevertheless. Bob, at this point, I have to ask you: Are you a Christian in any way, shape, or form?
Not really. A question is just a collection of words - it doesn't really do anything.
My own first reflex when thinking about the Bible is that it was written between five thousand and two thousand years ago, in an Bronze/Iron Age pastoral society. The "nature of sacred documents" was very different. "God" was very different.
You are absolutely correct that "the Bible" that we have today was composed decades after Jesus's death, and then "translated" several times by people who had axes to grind, and then "copied" for a thousand years by other people who had their own axes to grind.
So the probability that any sentence in that Book is "true" is... very... low.
So what?
The general sense of Christ's message was and is perfectly clear: "LOVE ONE ANOTHER". No exceptions, no small print.
Don't let yourself be distracted by small stuff...
Good question. Do I follow the Nicene Creed? (Is that your criterion for "Who is a Christian?") No. John warned us not to get distracted, and IMNAAHO, the Holy Ghost, the Trinity, Virgin Birth;;; and all that hooey... are distractions.
IMNAAHO, a Christian is someone who makes a real effort to obey what Christ Himself called the "most important commandment". LOVE GOD AND YOUR NEIGHBOR
Anyone who does not TRY to obey this commandment is not a Christian. Many Americans who style themselves "Christian"... are not.
(Note that this means that some people who do NOT consider themselves "Christian"... are.)
Then you are being selective in the sense that Jesus is said to have stated, "Love one another" - among a great many other things such as "Feed my sheep" referring to "Apostle Peter in the Others. Of course, Jesus is being nuanced in that he is talking about spiritual 'consumption' of something it falls to Peter and the Others to explain what that something is (present tense), thus the 'books' must speak!
Also, the first commandment is to "Love God with all. . . . " Such a love 'cost' something in our behavior and manner of living.
I mention this, because you seem to be 'isolating' the 'secondary' scripture from its attending first 'commandment' without any recognition of it.
Here you give recognition to, 'Loving God. . . .; ) But, I am startled that in mentioning John (repeatedly) with 'reference?,' you dismiss what Jesus (!) says about Spirit which is a 'Comforter' to believers. Do you not know this?! Calling Spirit a 'party' to "hooey" and a distraction (now twice or thrice) is near to blasphemy and disrespect.
Care to explain how you feel comfortable doing this? What justifies this repeat 'affront' to Spirit (which is inherently God in every sense of Christian doctrine)?
That is a decent question. Who do I consider a Christian? Well who I personally judge to be a Christian does 'stem' from the authority of the Nicene Council and our Protestant bible. Both are used for such purposes of identifying the appearance of believers. Though yes, there are many others who can claim to be Christ-like and followers apart from any teaching or doctrine. One must be cautious, though, because 'enemies' of the faith can creep in stealthily without some means of 'measurement' or standard.
Additionally if there are no benchmarks to what 'constitutionally' is a Christian; what stops 'intrusions' or 'excursions' into other religions into the Christian 'realm' of consciousness where those 'other' statements, ideologies, and theologies do not and can not belong?
He transmitted His message many times in the NT. None of the particular events is significant, but taken together, the message is limpid.
I said that I do not accept the Nicene Creed. I gave you my definition of "Christian". You haven't given the same. It would be useful.
So we disagree fairly fundamentally on doctrine. In such cases, I usually fall back on a "moral minimum": the Golden Rule. "Do unto others..." This exists in many religions, and was a life-long work for atheist Emmanuel Kant. Christ expressed it.
It's enough.
Okay.
Yes.
The work "virgin" as it applies to Mary is a mistranslation. The original Hebrew text uses the word "ha-almah" which should have been translated to "young" or possibly "maid", but was instead translated into the Greek word "parthenos" which means "virgin". The Hebrew word for virgin is "bethulah" and is not found in the original Hebrew text.
So.... much ado about nothing.
Maybe. A pertinent question might be, "Do people still need miracles?" I don't. Nor do I need the threat of God's retribution to understand the message of "love thy neighbor" is about how people need to work together to make strong communities.
There are people who like the supernatural. They believe in ghosts and such. That much is harmless.
Jesus's commandant to love one another was not accompanied with any threat. He exhorted us to love one another. Period. Why should we do that? Because it's the right thing to do.
Ahhhhhh... Not according to the last Christian church I attended, but personally I do agree with you.
I conclude that that church wasn't very Christian.
A pertinent question might be, "Do people still need miracles?"
Disturbingly, it appears they do. I was watching the news coverage about the terrible earthquakes in Turkey and Syria, and they were showing a jubilant crowd that had just rescued a family of six from a collapsed building. They were chanting “God is great! God is great!” while carrying the family to paramedics. Not to be crass, but maybe they need a lesson in statistics before laying such praise. Currently there are well over 16,000 dead from this natural disaster. God is not great. He’s not even good, or even marginally competent. That’s because god is a figment of imaginations.
Hal, if I may speak of for the rationalizing of the faithful at times like these (and anytime), I would explain that these people, like so many others of faith, believe God has the power to build and destroy everything (and has demonstrated it so with the shaking of their areas); that anything can be retrieved alive is a blessing of a sort—because death itself is a dynamic feature of planet Earth.
It does seem odd though that people would thank God because some people were rescued from the wreckage of a natural disaster. It is as though they thank God for sparing the few after he allowed the many to perish. That is, if God is intervening here (the reason why He is thanked) then that means that God chose to allow the many to perish.
It would be more sensible for the faithful to hold that God had nothing to do with the earthquake or the recovery.
Rational or not, it may help many overcome severe survivor guilt. That feeling of guilt isn't unusual in traumatic events like this and can lead to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
How? Seems to me survivor's guilt would result from wondering why God let the many die.
It’s also weird when the faithful speak of the riches of the afterlife for those of virtue, then celebrate the chosen few who were supposedly denied those riches and left here on earth by direct intervention of a god.
Is it really a blessing to be denied the riches of the land of milk and honey? Guess they’ll just have to wait.
Two things to consider:
1. These people consider themselves (and all others on the planet/in the universe and beyond) to be under the 'sway' and control of God. Thus, God can 'sign off' on as many as needed for God's 'purposes.' (Because from God we 'come' and one way or the other to God we 'return.')
2. Spectrums. The earth and the heavens are 'full' of contrasts. Full of dynamic happenings. It is through these 'breakages,' stresses, strains - Disruptions, Eruptions and Rewards- on Earth that humanity that society grows and delivers itself from stagnation.
For example, Turkey. . .should/will take this occasion of misery-to use a current phrase in our country: "Build Back Better."
It is observable in 99.99 percent of people of faith to see themselves as small and insignificant and 'bowed down' before the majesty and magnificent power of a planet that can consume 'capitals' with a rumble. It is the awesomeness of having the stable REALITY of your world, roiling and contorting itself beneath you that causes wonderment at what "powers that be" exist to cause such happenings. And while humanity can explain the physical, religious folks wonder about the 'why' and consider the 'who.' And when religious folks consider who invariably their thoughts and opinions are centered on God.
In a sense then they were thanking God for not killing them with the earthquake.
Indeed.
'Dripping' with facetiousness, eh? Friend Hal, let me get you a towel to aid in wiping that 'away.'
The 'truth' of the matter is this: for the believer absent from the body is present with the Lord, and qualitatively present in the body means we are present with those of our blood, kin, and friendships in the flesh. All while holding to an assurance that one day one with either lay down and die peacefully or be abruptly swept away in a 'twinkling,' or delivered through suffering. One way or another we all shall depart this place—everybody does . . . so no need to 'rush'!
What 'denial' is this? To the minds of the faithful, those people have been 'called' away from the travails (and yes pleasures) of this world to stand in their 'lot' in another time and space for which I can not reckon to you (for I have not seen it). "Hurry up and wait!" could be the case here, yes. On a serious note: People do (and its fair to) wonder about the manner of how they will depart this Earth. And many pray to just go to sleep and not wake up (the easy way), but we know that the roll of the 'dice' can land us in any number of deep despairing and painful illnesses and death.
That is, we all want to go to heaven, but can get apprehensive about the method/s used to deliver us!
There is a saying among believers: "There but for the grace of God go I." Because it could have been . . . me. And when someone is retrieved from the 'jaws" of exquisite tragedy (death is a long separation from the living and the only life we have ever known), we can be grateful. For we do not and may not understand the full scheme of a dynamic Earth and our full 'role' in it as 'accomplices.'
It is notable that the author of this article "defaults" to a YEC worldview, which is conservative (maybe even extreme), but is voluntarily offering up four propositions to consider. That, is not encountered every day!