Evolution

[Randy Wise]

Sure. Agreed. This has nothing to do with what I said. What I communicated was the basis of male-female marriage based upon God's creation of one male and one female to marry each other as the model.

Well such scripture (below) was used for a interpretation of what is lawful by the one who judges. Not us (Jesus) If that scripture isn't held true by God then why would Jesus state it as a foundation for His interpretation? Note the word "beginning". While we are to love one another I don't know how you state with confidence "God did not..." as a guide to others in your desire to be a leader in the church.

Matthew 19
Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

4“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’a 5and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’b? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

7“Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

8Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

10The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”

11Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriagec because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

Randy

[Dale Cozby]

You know the thing I like about Theistic Evolution is it doesn't make either side really despise you when you present it.

I have had hardline Agnostics(aka atheists that don't want to admit it) and hardline fundamentalists listen and respect the opinion once I dumb it down and make it palatible to them as a means of keeping the faith yet accepting the possibility the mainline science might be correct.

To many doubting or skeptical Christians who have suffered to reconcile the "truth" of scriptures to the ridicule and bombastic nature of worldly science it comes as a welcome alternative to know sanother opinion can exist whereby God still created everything in accord with the Word, yet did so in a way consistent to a modern scientific explanation(with modifiers). Then when you bring it down to all a matter of faith for all opinions anyway, it brings peace, knowing even hardline athesitic evolutionists are just people of "faith" in thier opinion too, misplaced as it is.

[Randy Wise]

When it comes to the origins of the universe and how life began on this planet it is all theory and a lot of guess work. Like others stated it is a matter of faith. There are some highly educated Professors of other faiths who even teach the New Testament but without faith they try to figure out who the real Jesus is. Some might even think we are brain washed as we proclaim that we have the Spirit of Christ in Us. So faith plays a part and certainly we are influenced by what we confidently state. "Jesus Lives"

Speaking of gravity it was always been unreasonable to me that gravity has the "precision" to form Suns and planets and set their orbits. Now the Sun is too round. I guess we can wait for science to explain their latest theory. They see what is already created and try to explain to man without using God. I do think the importance in Genesis is to show God's hand in every aspect of creation rather then the timeline however the truth is to us God "created".

Isaiah 40

To whom will you compare me?
Or who is my equal?” says the Holy One.
26 Lift up your eyes and look to the heavens:
Who created all these?
He who brings out the starry host one by one
and calls forth each of them by name.
Because of his great power and mighty strength,
not one of them is missing.

"I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like me.
10 I make known the end from the beginning,
from ancient times, what is still to come.
I say, ‘My purpose will stand,
and I will do all that I please.’"


Whenever the living creatures give glory, honor and thanks to him who sits on the throne and who lives for ever and ever, 10 the twenty-four elders fall down before him who sits on the throne and worship him who lives for ever and ever. They lay their crowns before the throne and say:

11 “You are worthy, our Lord and God,
to receive glory and honor and power,
for you created all things,
and by your will they were created
and have their being.”



Randy

[James Diggs]

You know the thing I like about Theistic Evolution is it doesn't make either side really despise you when you present it.

I have had hardline Agnostics(aka atheists that don't want to admit it) and hardline fundamentalists listen and respect the opinion once I dumb it down and make it palatible to them as a means of keeping the faith yet accepting the possibility the mainline science might be correct.

To many doubting or skeptical Christians who have suffered to reconcile the "truth" of scriptures to the ridicule and bombastic nature of worldly science it comes as a welcome alternative to know sanother opinion can exist whereby God still created everything in accord with the Word, yet did so in a way consistent to a modern scientific explanation(with modifiers). Then when you bring it down to all a matter of faith for all opinions anyway, it brings peace, knowing even hardline athesitic evolutionists are just people of "faith" in thier opinion too, misplaced as it is.

Just to be clear Theistic Evolution isn't science either, it is a philosophy based on science. Evolution as a science makes no claim to God either way, it can't. God is beyond it's scope. Unfortunately there are atheists, even atheists scientist who claim science and evolution as "proof" their is no God, but they are dead wrong because the can not name one observable, testable, repeatable, and measurable test to prove such a hypothesis one way or the other. Now the atheist can cling to his atheism as a philosophy based on science, but like the person who believes in theistic evolution he can not claim that this philosophy is in itself science.

Everybody on all sides has got to stop obfuscating what science can and can't do. The atheist adds to the problem as much as the one who insists on intelligent design. I can buy intelligent design as a philosophy based on science the same way theistic evolution is, it makes sense, I see purpose and intent all that God created, but it is not a hypothesis you can test and "prove" as far as science goes.

The problem we have in our country is that the discipline of science isn't understood and scientist who claim their atheism or faith is proven by science confuse matters all the more. Frankly the scientific community has done a great disservice for letting atheist claim their views are science and should be calling them out for it as much as they do the creationist or intelligent design folks.

Our education system is failing us because we keep having discussions as if there things like creationism, intelligent design, theistic evolution, and atheistic evolution are all different forms of scientific evolution. None of those are science, there is just science and evolution, and within evolution there is still plenty of different opinions of evolution and specifics of how it works that are being explored, but evolution as the broader real concept that actually takes place is not in dispute.

This thread is not about evolution, it is about different philosophies of how people want to deal with evolution. Some just deny it and just go with "God", some deny God. Others find ways to work it in on one level or another whether it is distinguishing between macro and micro or talking about theistic evolution or intelligent design. But none of these are science but philosophy about science and God, once we start talking about God one way or the other we are no longer just doing science.

What is sad in our country is that people don't know what science really is, they don't understand the scope and what it can and can not tell us and both the atheists and the Christians often get in the way of better educating people about science.

[Cam Pence]

You know the thing I like about Theistic Evolution is it doesn't make either side really despise you when you present it.

I have had hardline Agnostics(aka atheists that don't want to admit it) and hardline fundamentalists listen and respect the opinion once I dumb it down and make it palatible to them as a means of keeping the faith yet accepting the possibility the mainline science might be correct.

To many doubting or skeptical Christians who have suffered to reconcile the "truth" of scriptures to the ridicule and bombastic nature of worldly science it comes as a welcome alternative to know sanother opinion can exist whereby God still created everything in accord with the Word, yet did so in a way consistent to a modern scientific explanation(with modifiers). Then when you bring it down to all a matter of faith for all opinions anyway, it brings peace, knowing even hardline athesitic evolutionists are just people of "faith" in thier opinion too, misplaced as it is.

Eh...I am willing to bet if you went down to the Creation Museum in Kentucky and told Ken Hamm and the good folks at Answers in Genesis that you subscribe to Theistic Evolution, that will most certainly not be "good enough" for them. God creating for a lot of Christians, it seems, is not good enough. You have to know exactly how and when. Me personally I don't care how God created. God is the still the creator and no one will convince otherwise. The method matters very little to me. Would you believe for some 6 day creationists AND theistic evolutionists, my position STILL isn't "good enough"?

[James Diggs]

Eh...I am willing to bet if you went down to the Creation Museum in Kentucky and told Ken Hamm and the good folks at Answers in Genesis that you subscribe to Theistic Evolution, that will most certainly not be "good enough" for them. God creating for a lot of Christians, it seems, is not good enough. You have to know exactly how and when. Me personally I don't care how God created. God is the still the creator and no one will convince otherwise. The method matters very little to me. Would you believe for some 6 day creationists AND theistic evolutionists, my position STILL isn't "good enough"?

That's because anything but Creationism threatens the way they read the scripture. Science to them isn't science as they aim to "prove" their position the way we might try to "prove" a legal position, by gathering up the evidence that supports our case. Creation is, and always will be, as they understand it according to how they read the scripture and then they gather up the science that supports their case. This makes sense and can be compelling to us because we tend to see "evidence" in this way in other arenas, but in the end its not science itself even though they use science as "evidence".

[Ian Gentles]

That's because anything but Creationism threatens the way they read the scripture. Science to them isn't science as they aim to "prove" their position the way we might try to "prove" a legal position, by gathering up the evidence that supports our case. Creation is, and always will be, as they understand it according to how they read the scripture and then they gather up the science that supports their case. This makes sense and can be compelling to us because we tend to see "evidence" in this way in other arenas, but in the end its not science itself even though they use science as "evidence".

Again you say science is only on the evolutionists side, and not the creationists. Creation science isnt the head in the scientific sand that you may think.

[Benjamin Burch]

For me the matter is simple (and I've said it many times before)....

If we read a story about magic trees and talking snakes and, ultimately, hidden undiscoverable gardens anywhere else in human literature, regardless of time, location, or context.... we would automatically and without question read that story as fiction. We very well might think it was a good story, it might even have political, religious, or other positive ramifications and meanings. However, that story would absolutely not be seen as historical non-fiction. No way, no how.

We are able to offer no reason for the sudden change of attitude when this story appears in between the covers of our Bibles. I suggest, as I always have, we just quit with the attitude change and approach the Bible the same way. Stories about magical trees, talking snakes, and mystical hidden gardens are not historical accounts and represent a form of myth, one which the ancient Israelites used to communicate what they believed to be truth about who they were, who they believed God to be, and how their relationship with God worked. From there, I'm more than happy to say the divine hand was at work in this, and that these stories do communicate these truths as truth.

[George Wallace]

There was actually an experiment conducted in 1953 or '54 that demonstrated that with the elements of the primordial ooze and atmospheric conditions 3 or 4 billion years ago the precursors to the complex organic macro-molecules necessary for life to begin were created. Now all this really tells us that under the experimental conditions this happens, it is supportive, but by no means proof of the spontaneous arising of the molecules necessary for life. I, personally, believe in theistic evolution. The iterations of TE provide the best synthesis of God as Creator and the scientific evidence.

You mean this?

[Ian Gentles]

For me the matter is simple (and I've said it many times before)....

If we read a story about magic trees and talking snakes and, ultimately, hidden undiscoverable gardens anywhere else in human literature, regardless of time, location, or context.... we would automatically and without question read that story as fiction. We very well might think it was a good story, it might even have political, religious, or other positive ramifications and meanings. However, that story would absolutely not be seen as historical non-fiction. No way, no how.

We are able to offer no reason for the sudden change of attitude when this story appears in between the covers of our Bibles. I suggest, as I always have, we just quit with the attitude change and approach the Bible the same way. Stories about magical trees, talking snakes, and mystical hidden gardens are not historical accounts and represent a form of myth, one which the ancient Israelites used to communicate what they believed to be truth about who they were, who they believed God to be, and how their relationship with God worked. From there, I'm more than happy to say the divine hand was at work in this, and that these stories do communicate these truths as truth.

Ah but, subject seems to be, have creationists science behind them? Having read a lot, I find they also have scientific arguments.

[George Wallace]

There was actually an experiment conducted in 1953 or '54 that demonstrated that with the elements of the primordial ooze and atmospheric conditions 3 or 4 billion years ago the precursors to the complex organic macro-molecules necessary for life to begin were created. Now all this really tells us that under the experimental conditions this happens, it is supportive, but by no means proof of the spontaneous arising of the molecules necessary for life. I, personally, believe in theistic evolution. The iterations of TE provide the best synthesis of God as Creator and the scientific evidence.

Or did you mean this? (Everyone knows Dawkin's views on God so check out the Q & A starting at the 3:11 mark)

[George Wallace]

The iterations of TE provide the best synthesis of God as Creator and the scientific evidence.

This statement is however, quite refreshing. Most TE proponents don't readily admit or at least don't start right here as you have, admitting that Theistic Evolution is Syncretism, just like Baihia, or Santa Ria, or Chislam. So at least you are honest.

It is one thing for Dawkins, Hawkings, Hitchens, crowd to say and do, as they do we expect that. Romans 1 tells us they suppress the truth in unrighteousness. But for supposed Christians to take and co-mingle the the thoughts of and studies of these unrepentant, militant unbelievers, with the Word of God and come up with some syncretic bastard child, is truly despicable and an affront to a holy and Righteous God. Might just as well cross yourself with a rabbits foot and sacrifice a chicken or pray a Juma Prayer in the name of Christ. Its pure disgusting, hateful, God dishonoring syncretism.

But knock yourself out, enjoy Romans 1.

[Lorie Hatcliff]

For me the matter is simple (and I've said it many times before)....

If we read a story about magic trees and talking snakes and, ultimately, hidden undiscoverable gardens anywhere else in human literature, regardless of time, location, or context.... we would automatically and without question read that story as fiction. We very well might think it was a good story, it might even have political, religious, or other positive ramifications and meanings. However, that story would absolutely not be seen as historical non-fiction. No way, no how.

We are able to offer no reason for the sudden change of attitude when this story appears in between the covers of our Bibles. I suggest, as I always have, we just quit with the attitude change and approach the Bible the same way. Stories about magical trees, talking snakes, and mystical hidden gardens are not historical accounts and represent a form of myth, one which the ancient Israelites used to communicate what they believed to be truth about who they were, who they believed God to be, and how their relationship with God worked. From there, I'm more than happy to say the divine hand was at work in this, and that these stories do communicate these truths as truth.

And if we read a story about talking donkeys, rivers being pushed back so people could cross, the sun standing still, a burning bush that doesn't burn up, a staff turning into a snake etc. anywhere else in human literature, regardless of time, location, or context.... we would automatically and without question read that story as fiction? I don't think so.

[James Diggs]

Again you say science is only on the evolutionists side, and not the creationists. Creation science isnt the head in the scientific sand that you may think.

Creation science? So there is scientific experimentation that can prove and demonstrate a Creator in a scientific way through repeatable, observable, testable, measurable way that includes having a control?

No, there is not. Again, creationist use scientific evidence in the same way an atheist might for philosophical point of view based on science, but once you start talking about God and a Creator it is no longer science because science is not capable of putting God under the conditions necessary to run an experiment.

[Jon Bemis]

After 58 years of study and deliberation I keep coming back to this - "There is a Creator, the Creator created, all creation has purpose." Beyond that I think we are all speculating to some degree.

[Jon Bemis]

And if we read a story about talking donkeys, rivers being pushed back so people could cross, the sun standing still, a burning bush that doesn't burn up, a staff turning into a snake etc. anywhere else in human literature, regardless of time, location, or context.... we would automatically and without question read that story as fiction? I don't think so.

Or . . . a virgin having a child or someone being raised from the dead. Aren't mysteries wonderful?

[James Diggs]

And if we read a story about talking donkeys, rivers being pushed back so people could cross, the sun standing still, a burning bush that doesn't burn up, a staff turning into a snake etc. anywhere else in human literature, regardless of time, location, or context.... we would automatically and without question read that story as fiction? I don't think so.

I don't think fiction is an accurate word in regards to Ben's point, I don't "fiction" was the same kind of category as "myth" to the ancient people these stories first belonged too. Even the word "myth" today has different meaning today, some because we look at myths in retrospect and some because we think "myths" are things to be "busted". For us to read the bible as "fiction" would be a mistake as we would fail to see God's hand at work on the people of God and the their inspired testimony in the scriptures of how God was present with them.

But still God was present with an ancient people and they recorded their testimony according to the ancient worldview they lived in. This combined with our faith that God can and does intervene in miraculous ways sometimes make it difficult to determine what is history, what is myth, and what is just figurative language that comes from an ancient perspective.

Did God make the sun stand still? The bible says so, but this made scientist heretics at one point in history as they discovered the sun always stands still and it only looks like it is moving because we are moving. Did God lie to us? To say no, the had to either reject the science or read the scripture differently than they had before. For a while most rejected the science, but eventually more and more just started reading this passage different and so do most of us today.

Still, there are other things we hold onto as miracles, bread from heaven, virgin birth, raising from the dead. But we don't even try to prove these with science because they are miracles.

[Hans Deventer]

Its pure disgusting, hateful, God dishonoring syncretism.

Yeah, creating an image of a disgusting, hateful God is terrible.

[George Wallace]

Yeah, creating an image of a disgusting, hateful God is terrible.

Amen!

[Paul DeBaufer]

Again you say science is only on the evolutionists side, and not the creationists. Creation science isnt the head in the scientific sand that you may think.

He's not saying that at all. He is rightly saying the Creation "science" is not science, but is in fact philosophy/theology. He is saying science is neutral as far as God goes. He stated clearly that the atheists who use science to "prove" their position have stepped outside of science and into philosophy. When we use the evidence provided by science to support God, or to deny God we step out of the realm of science and into philosophy.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Ah but, subject seems to be, have creationists science behind them? Having read a lot, I find they also have scientific arguments.

Or did you mean this? (Everyone knows Dawkin's views on God so check out the Q & A starting at the 3:11 mark)

I can't watch video so I don't know. I am talking about the Miller-Urey experiment of 1953 at the University of Chicago as described Here and Here and reported Here

[Paul DeBaufer]

This statement is however, quite refreshing. Most TE proponents don't readily admit or at least don't start right here as you have, admitting that Theistic Evolution is Syncretism, just like Baihia, or Santa Ria, or Chislam. So at least you are honest.

It is one thing for Dawkins, Hawkings, Hitchens, crowd to say and do, as they do we expect that. Romans 1 tells us they suppress the truth in unrighteousness. But for supposed Christians to take and co-mingle the the thoughts of and studies of these unrepentant, militant unbelievers, with the Word of God and come up with some syncretic bastard child, is truly despicable and an affront to a holy and Righteous God. Might just as well cross yourself with a rabbits foot and sacrifice a chicken or Thank a Juma Prayer in the name of Christ. Its pure disgusting, hateful, God dishonoring syncretism.

But knock yourself out, enjoy Romans 1.

Thank you George for intentionally twisting things yet again.

[Benjamin Burch]

This statement is however, quite refreshing. Most TE proponents don't readily admit or at least don't start right here as you have, admitting that Theistic Evolution is Syncretism, just like Baihia, or Santa Ria, or Chislam. So at least you are honest.

It is one thing for Dawkins, Hawkings, Hitchens, crowd to say and do, as they do we expect that. Romans 1 tells us they suppress the truth in unrighteousness. But for supposed Christians to take and co-mingle the the thoughts of and studies of these unrepentant, militant unbelievers, with the Word of God and come up with some syncretic bastard child, is truly despicable and an affront to a holy and Righteous God. Might just as well cross yourself with a rabbits foot and sacrifice a chicken or pray a Juma Prayer in the name of Christ. Its pure disgusting, hateful, God dishonoring syncretism.

But knock yourself out, enjoy Romans 1.

Theistic evolution has nothing to do with what the militant morons say. Your post has no substance to it, George. But nice fluffy rhetoric anyhow.

[Benjamin Burch]

And if we read a story about talking donkeys, rivers being pushed back so people could cross, the sun standing still, a burning bush that doesn't burn up, a staff turning into a snake etc. anywhere else in human literature, regardless of time, location, or context.... we would automatically and without question read that story as fiction? I don't think so.

Yep. We'd definitely read those as myth, and I suggest we do so. It is wonderful. There is no reason to read any of those literally.

A burning bush can easily be a vision with nothing to do with the physical world and I have always read it that way. Ever since I was a child I never really read that as a literal description.

As far as rivers being pushed back? Meh, as far as we can tell, most of the evidence suggests Israel's history included no conquest of Canaan and probably no crossing of the Red Sea. Yes, I also read the parting of the Sea of Reeds as a mythical allusion to God parting the waters in Genesis 1. It's a creation story about Israel.

[Ian Gentles]

Our God is a God of miracles, He dosent need myths.

[Benjamin Burch]

Our God is a God of miracles, He dosent need myths.

And we don't need any miracles other than God becoming human and resurrection from the dead. Those are the only two miracles that ever saved us. I don't know why we fight for others, especially when the stories don't even read as literal stories the way that the Gospels do. That's the thing, they read much smoother as myths.

[Paul DeBaufer]

The following quotes were compiled by Bill Moyers concerning the concept of Myth for his series On Faith and Reason and found Here

"These bits of information from ancient times [myths], which have to do with the themes that have supported man's life, built civilizations, informed religions over the millennia, have to do with deep inner problems, inner mysteries, inner thresholds of passage. And if you don't know what the guide signs are along the way you have to work it out yourself."

ARE MYTHS TRUE?

Nearly every culture on earth possesses its own set of mythic tales concerning the creation of the world and man's place in it. But why, in this age of science and reason, when the factual basis of most myths has been debunked, do these stories persist, continue to grow and evolve?

The author Tim O'Brien once wrote: "A thing may happen and be a total lie; another thing may not happen and be truer than the truth." While most would not interpret myths as literal truth, those who study them tend to see in them a weighty metaphorical, archetypal truth, a truth about the unseen, ineffable dimensions of existence that lie outside the bounds of science and reason.

Jeanette Winterson: "In many ways … rationality, this dependency on logic and reason, has freed us from many cruel superstitions, many nameless terrors … But it's not sufficient. There is a mythic truth, which is an imaginative truth, an emotional truth, a way of understanding the world which is not about the facts and the figures, but which is nevertheless valid. And we need to have kind of a balance."

"We love to have things in polar opposition, don't we?" she says. "Black, white; good, evil; male, female. And reason, myth. And somewhere there has to be a way of bringing them together again. And [the solution] is probably if you accept both as genuine ways at arriving at truth but you don't privilege one above the other." Bill Moyers [in conversation with Margaret Atwood]: "In church on Sunday, we sang an old hymn … with some contemporary words. And the words go, 'God, you spin the whirling planets, fill the seas and spread the plain, mold the mountains, fashion blossoms, call for the sunshine, wind, and rain.' Now, the scientists wouldn't have put it that way. The scientists would have said there is an explanation for why the planets whirl, for why the rain falls, for why the seas rise, for why the mountains form. But knowledge isn't enough for us. It's not enough to know why and how these things happen. We need the poetry, don't we?"

Richard Rodriguez: "Reason has a sister. She's very beautiful, but, she has a very ugly name. Her name is Unreason. And she's a friend of writers. She's been a friend of writers since the very beginning."

Joseph Campbell: "Mythology is not a lie. Mythology is poetry, it is metaphorical. It has been well said that mythology is the penultimate truth — penultimate because the ultimate cannot be put into words. It is beyond words, beyond images. Mythology pitches the mind beyond that rim, to what can be known but not told."[/QUPOARE MYTHS TRUE?

Nearly every culture on earth possesses its own set of mythic tales concerning the creation of the world and man's place in it. But why, in this age of science and reason, when the factual basis of most myths has been debunked, do these stories persist, continue to grow and evolve?

The author Tim O'Brien once wrote: "A thing may happen and be a total lie; another thing may not happen and be truer than the truth." While most would not interpret myths as literal truth, those who study them tend to see in them a weighty metaphorical, archetypal truth, a truth about the unseen, ineffable dimensions of existence that lie outside the bounds of science and reason.

Jeanette Winterson: "In many ways … rationality, this dependency on logic and reason, has freed us from many cruel superstitions, many nameless terrors … But it's not sufficient. There is a mythic truth, which is an imaginative truth, an emotional truth, a way of understanding the world which is not about the facts and the figures, but which is nevertheless valid. And we need to have kind of a balance."

"We love to have things in polar opposition, don't we?" she says. "Black, white; good, evil; male, female. And reason, myth. And somewhere there has to be a way of bringing them together again. And [the solution] is probably if you accept both as genuine ways at arriving at truth but you don't privilege one above the other." Bill Moyers [in conversation with Margaret Atwood]: "In church on Sunday, we sang an old hymn … with some contemporary words. And the words go, 'God, you spin the whirling planets, fill the seas and spread the plain, mold the mountains, fashion blossoms, call for the sunshine, wind, and rain.' Now, the scientists wouldn't have put it that way. The scientists would have said there is an explanation for why the planets whirl, for why the rain falls, for why the seas rise, for why the mountains form. But knowledge isn't enough for us. It's not enough to know why and how these things happen. We need the poetry, don't we?"

Richard Rodriguez: "Reason has a sister. She's very beautiful, but, she has a very ugly name. Her name is Unreason. And she's a friend of writers. She's been a friend of writers since the very beginning."

Joseph Campbell: "Mythology is not a lie. Mythology is poetry, it is metaphorical. It has been well said that mythology is the penultimate truth — penultimate because the ultimate cannot be put into words. It is beyond words, beyond images. Mythology pitches the mind beyond that rim, to what can be known but not told."

I provide these to try to say that just because a story has been deemed "myth" doesn't mean it is a pure contrivance devoid of truth. Sometimes myth is the only way to get to the greater truths. Some myths do have a factual basis.

[Paul DeBaufer]

And we don't need any miracles other than God becoming human and resurrection from the dead. Those are the only two miracles that ever saved us. I don't know why we fight for others, especially when the stories don't even read as literal stories the way that the Gospels do. That's the thing, they read much smoother as myths.

I would add that as myth rather than literal they can communicate a greater truth, aid in a greater understanding of God.

[George Wallace]

I can't watch video so I don't know. I am talking about the Miller-Urey experiment of 1953 at the University of Chicago as described Here and Here and reported Here

I can't watch video so I don't know. I am talking about the Miller-Urey experiment of 1953 at the University of Chicago as described Here and Here and reported Here

Yes, seems to be the same experiment/incident. If video becomes an option (or for those with limited time) the Miller experiment is described between :55 second mark and the 1:25 second mark Ending with the statement that few if any scientists today believe this works is a viable option.

Stein then goes on to interview another prominent Darwinist. His answer or theory is that life formed upon the back of crystals, as the crystals replicated so did the "stuff" on the backs of crystals.

Dawkins in this clip above actually admits that earth-life may have been the result of intelligent design. His idea is that aliens from another planet that evolved first and further than we have came and "seeded" the planet. Short hand ...ID is possible as long as it is attributable to "little green men' from "other worlds" which too have been subject to evolution and not any Creator-God.

Next Q, how did those "Little Green Men" get there start?

So this is the kind of stuff, and the type of science you synthesize and syncretically blend with your "Christianity?

And this works for you?

[George Wallace]

Thank you George for intentionally twisting things yet again.

Who is twisting? You said:

The iterations of TE provide the best synthesis of God as Creator and the scientific evidence.

So you synthesize God as Creator and scientific evidence. That sycretism. And that's what you said.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Yes, seems to be the same experiment/incident. If video becomes an option (or for those with limited time) the Miller experiment is described between :55 second mark and the 1:25 second mark Ending with the statement that few if any scientists today believe this works is a viable option.

Stein then goes on to interview another prominent Darwinist. His answer or theory is that life formed upon the back of crystals, as the crystals replicated so did the "stuff" on the backs of crystals.

Dawkins in this clip above actually admits that earth-life may have been the result of intelligent design. His idea is that aliens from another planet that evolved first and further than we have came and "seeded" the planet. Short hand ...ID is possible as long as it is attributable to "little green men' from "other worlds" which too have been subject to evolution and not any Creator-God.

Next Q, how did those "Little Green Men" get there start?

So this is the kind of stuff, and the type of science you synthesize and syncretically blend with your "Christianity?

And this works for you?

If you remember my post included the caveat that this experiment ONLY tells us what happens within the conditions of the experiment. As such it can only tell us what might have happened, not what did happen. The problem with laboratory experiments is that while they may be able to give some support to theories about nature they really tell us nothing about nature. We can only know how things react within the conditions of the experiment. Had a boss that would say that our organism behaved a certain way in nature and that my experimental results were reverse of that, yet no one had ever observed how this organism behaved in nature only in the lab.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Who is twisting? You said:



So you synthesize God as Creator and scientific evidence. That sycretism. And that's what you said.

Does not change the nature of God, not in the slightest. Might do damage to someones conceptions of God, but out thoughts about God are NOT God, neither is the Bible. The Bible says God IS Creator. TE says God is creator while allowing for the sciences to look at the mechanisms of how He worked. That is most definitely NOT syncretism.

Also you need to cease immediately from casting judgement on who is Christian and who is not. You have done that twice already this week, to Diane and now to me. Maybe that is really a reaction formation. Yeah, that's how I will take it.

[Lorie Hatcliff]

Yep. We'd definitely read those as myth, and I suggest we do so. It is wonderful. There is no reason to read any of those literally.

A burning bush can easily be a vision with nothing to do with the physical world and I have always read it that way. Ever since I was a child I never really read that as a literal description.

As far as rivers being pushed back? Meh, as far as we can tell, most of the evidence suggests Israel's history included no conquest of Canaan and probably no crossing of the Red Sea. Yes, I also read the parting of the Sea of Reeds as a mythical allusion to God parting the waters in Genesis 1. It's a creation story about Israel.

I'm not surprised at this answer.

I do wonder where in the Bible you start believing things to be actual accounts. I'm assuming it's the New Testament. I'm wondering if you believe Jesus to be a shoot from the root of Jesse? Did Esther and Ruth actually live and were real people who played a big part in the history of the Israelites? Your thinking is very bizarre to me.

[Benjamin Burch]

I'm not surprised at this answer.

I do wonder where in the Bible you start believing things to be actual accounts. I'm assuming it's the New Testament. I'm wondering if you believe Jesus to be a shoot from the root of Jesse? Did Esther and Ruth actually live and were real people who played a big part in the history of the Israelites? Your thinking is very bizarre to me.

I realize some may find it bizarre, billy there is nothing bizarre about it.

(1) it often provides a better explanation for the literature and style (I.e. the sea of reeds is a creation story alluding to genesis 1)

(2) it works better with reason. It is more bizarre and unreasonable to posit mystical missing gardens. You know what I find humorous about it? You don't think God actually walked in the garden and you think God knew where Adam was hiding/why. But the story doesn't say that. Let us not pretend you are not subject to your own critique. The difference is that mine flows from both the literature and the historical evidence. Yours comes from prior theological presuppositions not provided by the text.

Lastly, I see no reason to doubt Ruth or Esther's historicity. Likewise, whether Jesus had Davidic lineage or not is impossible to determine historically. Every bit of evidence we have suggest he did.

[Lorie Hatcliff]

You don't think God actually walked in the garden?

yes, I think He did walk in the Garden with them in some way. They "heard" Him walking, so yeah, I'd say he took some kind of form that had legs or allowed for movement and was walking.

and you think God knew where Adam was hiding/why. But the story doesn't say that. Let us not pretend you are not subject to your own critique. The difference is that mine flows from both the literature and the historical evidence. Yours comes from prior theological presuppositions not provided by the text

Here we go again, yes, I believe God asked the question because He was asking the question, just like I ask my own kids a question I know the answer to. I believe that because I believe the omniscience of God as seen throughout the Bible. As Hank Hanegraaff says, "We should read the Scriptures in light of other Scripture."

[Benjamin Burch]

yes, I think He did walk in the Garden with them in some way. They "heard" Him walking, so yeah, I'd say he took some kind of form that had legs or allowed for movement and was walking.

and you think God knew where Adam was hiding/why. But the story doesn't say that. Let us not pretend you are not subject to your own critique. The difference is that mine flows from both the literature and the historical evidence. Yours comes from prior theological presuppositions not provided by the text

Here we go again, yes, I believe God asked the question because He was asking the question, just like I ask my own kids a question I know the answer to. I believe that because I believe the omniscience of God as seen throughout the Bible. As Hank Hanegraaff says, "We should read the Scriptures in light of other Scripture."

This just isn't how the literature works and tere are also many places throughout the Bible where God is not omniscient. That is my point. My reading flows more naturally in light of other scripture than does yours. I am all for reading the Bible in light of other Scriptures. However, each separate narrative must be treated as its own.

Genesis 3 is about Israel.

God creates a people
God puts these people in a special land
God gives the people a law
God gives blessings and curses along with that law
The people break God's law
God sends the people out of the land into exile
God follows the people into exile.

[Lorie Hatcliff]

This just isn't how the literature works and tere are also many places throughout the Bible where God is not omniscient. That is my point. My reading flows more naturally in light of other scripture than does yours. I am all for reading the Bible in light of other Scriptures. However, each separate narrative must be treated as its own.

Genesis 3 is about Israel.

God creates a people
God puts these people in a special land
God gives the people a law
God gives blessings and curses along with that law
The people break God's law
God sends the people out of the land into exile
God follows the people into exile.

So God turns his omniscience on and off?

[Paul DeBaufer]

So God turns his omniscience on and off?

Maybe omniscience is a neoPlatonic idea that we attribute to God. Or maybe God does know all that is knowable but not everything is knowable.

[Hans Deventer]

I wonder why we ever discuss evolution. Because no discussion is ever about evolution, it is solely about hermeneutics.

[Hans Deventer]

But, there is also a lot of confusion about myth. J.R.R. Tolkien had a lot to say on that subject:

Tolkien preserved his mother's legacy and kept the faith, not only in his life but also in his work. In particular, and crucially, Tolkien's encounter with the depths of Christian mysticism and his understanding of the truths of orthodox theology enabled him to unravel the philosophy of myth that inspired not only the "magic" of his books but also the conversion of his friend C.S. Lewis to Christianity.

Myths, Lewis told Tolkien, were "lies and therefore worthless, even though breathed through silver."

"No," Tolkien replied. "They are not lies." Far from being lies they were the best way — sometimes the only way — of conveying truths that would otherwise remain inexpressible. We have come from God, Tolkien argued, and inevitably the myths woven by us, though they contain error, reflect a splintered fragment of the true light, the eternal truth that is with God. Myths may be misguided, but they steer however shakily toward the true harbor, whereas materialistic "progress" leads only to the abyss and the power of evil.

"In expounding this belief in the inherent truth of mythology," wrote Tolkien's biographer, Humphrey Carpenter, "Tolkien had laid bare the center of his philosophy as a writer, the creed that is at the heart of The Silmarillion." It is also the creed at the heart of all his other work. His short novel, Tree and Leaf, is essentially an allegory on the concept of true myth, and his poem, "Mythopoeia," is an exposition in verse of the same concept.

Building on this philosophy of myth, Tolkien explained to Lewis that the story of Christ was the true myth at the very heart of history and at the very root of reality. Whereas the pagan myths were manifestations of God expressing Himself through the minds of poets, using the images of their "mythopoeia" to reveal fragments of His eternal truth, the true myth of Christ was a manifestation of God expressing Himself through Himself, with Himself, and in Himself. God, in the Incarnation, had revealed Himself as the ultimate poet who was creating reality, the true poem or true myth, in His own image. Thus, in a divinely inspired paradox, myth was revealed as the ultimate realism.

Such a revelation changed Lewis' whole conception of Christianity, precipitating his conversion.

(Joseph Pearce. "J.R.R. Tolkien: Truth and Myth." Lay Witness (September 2001). http://catholiceducation.org/articles/arts/al0107.html