Dale_Husband
Posts: 118
Joined: April 2008
|
| Quote (Stanton @ Sep. 29 2009,10:20) | | So the best explanation FL can provide to explain why so many Christians, including the last two Popes, have absolutely no conflict with accepting the facts of evolution is a big whiny fit about how they're some how afraid to discuss their faith with secular people? Obviously, it didn't occur to FL that some people don't feel it necessary to find faith and salvation in ancient absurdities. |
| Quote | | So the best explanation FL can provide to explain why so many Christians, including the last two Popes, have absolutely no conflict with accepting the facts of evolution is a big whiny fit about how they're some how afraid to discuss their faith with secular people? Obviously, it didn't occur to FL that some people don't feel it necessary to find faith and salvation in ancient absurdities. |
If the Pope is not afraid of denouncing abortion and birth control, which cause many secular people to laugh at or scorn him, why would he be afraid to be a YEC and say so openly?
FL needs to realize that a lie is a lie, no matter where it is found, even in the Bible itself. Science can find truth about the universe we live in and we can use that science to test the validity of any theology.
So with science we can throw out the first eleven chapters of Genesis, but keep the ethical teachings of Jesus. The assumption that we must accept the literal teachings of Genesis is nonsense. Jesus is not even mentioned there!
| Quote |
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH050.html
Claim CH050:
True science and true religion are founded on Genesis. All Biblical doctrines have their foundations laid there, and the book of Genesis itself is founded on the events of its first chapter.
Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1983. Creation is the foundation. Impact 126 (Dec.). http://www.icr.org/index.p....&ID=218
Response:
1. This claim is an instance of religious bigotry. Lots of religions, including Buddhism, Hinduism, Druidism, and many more, have no connection with Genesis at all. For a person to say that these are not true religions is
A. a gross insult to the people who practice the religions. Many of these people are highly devout, with a spiritual relationship at least as great as any creationist.
B. a gross insult to God. The person is saying that God's revelation must coincide with his own opinion to be valid, that God cannot reveal himself differently to different people. Anyone making this claim places themself above God.
C. a disservice to oneself. Bigotry is hateful and will prevent good relationships with good people.
2. If Genesis is so all-important, why do creationists reject serious study of it? Modern (and even not-so-modern) scholarship has revealed much about the authors of Genesis (called J, E, P, and R) and other books of the Old Testament, including their motivations and places in history. For example, the Flood account is an interleaving of two different flood stories by J and P (Friedman 1987). Creationists studiously avoid any such knowledge. (Creationists are not alone in this; most Christians generally are woefully ignorant of biblical scholarship.)
3. Ideas in other parts of the Bible stand on their own. Creationists themselves frequently quote them out of context. The Old Testament itself refers to documents that no longer exist; the Book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21:14); the Book of Jasher (Josh. 10:13, 2 Sam. 1:18); and others (1 Kings 11:41; 14:29, 19, 16:5; 1 Chron. 29:29; 2 Chron. 20:34, 13:22). Knowledge of earlier scriptures is helpful but not critical. Jesus sometimes rejected the letter of some Old Testament laws, so the letter of the Old Testament cannot be too important, and Jesus exemplified the spirit. The reason creationists find Genesis so important is because they depend on it, not because other parts of the Bible depend on it.
4. If one believes that God created the earth and heavens, then surely the earth and heavens are God's primary work. Study of the earth and heavens should be foundational. Placing an object such as the Bible before them is idolatry.
5. No accepted science has ever been based on the Bible. That is not for lack of trying. Up to the nineteenth century, serious scientists tried to accomodate literal readings of the Bible to what they saw in nature. Young-earth creationism failed early on, so scientists tried gap creationism, day-age creationism, and other attempted reconciliations. But purely Bible-based science has always failed. True science is based on reality as expressed in the world (Young 1988).
|
| Quote |
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH101_1.html
Claim CH101.1:
If the Bible cannot be trusted on scientific and historical matters, then it cannot be trusted on matters of salvation and spirituality.
Source:
Morris, Henry M., 2000. The vital importance of believing in recent creation. Back to Genesis 138 (June). http://www.icr.org/index.p....&ID=874
Response:
1. The Bible was not intended to teach matters of science and history. Therefore, those areas should not be held to standards of literal accuracy.
2. The general ideas in the Bible, such as salvation and God's majesty, do not rely on literalism for their communication. An error or contradiction in detail does not affect the overall message.
3. The claim is a non sequitur. That something is wrong in one area does not prevent it from being perfectly accurate in another.
4. Theologians through the ages have considered parts of the Bible suspect but accepted the rest as canon. In fact, it was exactly such a process by which canon was determined. Even Martin Luther considered some Old Testament passages suspect (Armstrong 1996; Engwer n.d.; Shea 1997).
5. A logical consequence of this claim is that the Bible cannot, in fact, be trusted, because parts of it (not only Genesis) are known to be wrong if interpreted literally.
6. Creationists themselves sometimes make claims that contradict the Bible. For example, Whitcomb and Morris (1961, 69) claimed, contrary to Genesis 7:21-23, that some land animals not aboard Noah's ark survived.
|
| Quote |
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH102_2_1.html
Claim CH102.2.1:
Jesus refers to creation and flood as though they were literal, which shows that those stories were, in fact, literal.
Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 204,246,253-254.
Response:
Jesus's referring to traditional stories does not mean those stories were literal. People today refer to "the boy who cried wolf" and "blind men examining an elephant" and other stories the same way. Yet they do not consider those stories to be literally true. Their value, and the value of the stories Jesus refers to, is as stories, not as historical record.
|
| Quote |
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH102.html
Claim CH102:
The Bible should be read literally.
Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 204.
Response:
1. A literal reading of the Bible misses the meaning behind the details (Hyers 1983). It is like reading Aesop's Fables without trying to see the moral of the stories. Finding the meaning in a figurative reading requires more thought, but is thinking about the Bible a bad thing?
2. There are many inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the Bible that cannot be resolved without excessive pseudological contortions unless one does not take them literally. Augustine said,
| Quote | | It is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn (Augustine 1982, 42-43). |
Augustine's warning has merit. The invalid "proofs" necessary to support antievolution, a global flood, and a young earth, and the contradictions implied by literalism have pushed people away from Christianity (Hildeman 2004; Morton n.d.).
3. There are several passages of the Bible itself that indicate that it should not be taken literally:
2 Corinthians 3:6 says of the new covenant, "the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."
1 Corinthians 9:9-12 says that one of the laws of Moses is figurative, not literal.
Galatians 4:24 says that the story of Abraham is an allegory.
Jesus frequently taught in parables, with the obvious intention that the lesson from the story, not the details of the story, was what was important.
4. There is extensive tradition in Christianity, including Catholicism and Protestantism, of accepting nonliteral interpretations (Rogerson 1992). Biblical literalism is not a requirement; it is a fashion.
5. Reading the Bible requires consideration of the society in which and for which it was written. The pressing issue in Israel when Genesis 1 was written was monotheism versus polytheism. Genesis 1 is written to show that different aspects of nature -- light and dark, earth and sky, sun, moon, and stars, plants and animals -- do not have their separate gods but all fall under one God (Hyers 1983).
6. Nobody reads the Bible entirely literally anyway. For example, when God says, "into your hands they [all wild animals] are delivered" (Gen. 9:2), the phrase is obviously meant metaphorically.
7. Even reading the Bible literally requires interpretation. For example, what does "fountains of the deep" (Prov. 8:28) mean?
|
--------------
If you need a man-made book to beleive in a God who is said to have created the universe, of what value is your faith? You might as well worship an idol.
|
