[_ Old Earth _] AIG: Why is humanism taking over society?

[Solo]

God does not lie, and when he makes an implication, it is obvious. When he makes a literal statement it is obvious. When God says that morning and night is equal to one day, then that is literal. When God says that it took him six days to create the heavens and the earth, that too is literal. Anything apart from that understanding is supposition and guesswork of the flesh.

Those who buy the lies of the devil are deceived on purpose so that they can place doubt on the Word of God. This has been the devil's strategy from the first temptation forward. The old, "Did God really mean that" is the first hint of deception. The devil is the father of lies, and those that believe him over God are deceived.

If you are born again, then you have the holy Spirit to guide and direct you into all truth. If you are not born again, then you are without spiritual direction, and are deceived.

Are you born again?

In answer to your question, Yes I am born again.

I find that the style of argument I see in your post is certainly not uncommon. It basically amount to simple claim of the correctness of the literal view and strongly implies that those who believe otherwise are the dupes of Satan.

One problem with your post is that it simply asserts that the literal interpretation is correct - there is no argument, no defence, nothing. I am mystified that you and others would consider this to be any kind of meaningful contribution to this debate about the creation story. Anybody can just claim something- real understanding and learning occurs when we analyze propositions and examine the evidence for and against them.

Your position seems to sidestep many of the principles that have served mankind well in his quest to figure out the world. One of these is the discipline of rational thinking - understanding how a substantial case is built, how conclusions can or cannot be justified, etc. This style of thinking is not "mankind's vain imagination" - it is a God-given faculty that works exceedingly well in the real world.

Another dimension of this problem is that of the empirical evidence - what do the findings of scientific inquiry tell us about the question of origins?

Finally, we need to be open to the richness of language, and in particular to literary devices like metaphor and allegory. These are used throughout the Scriptures. Because it is so clear that God has used metahpor in the Scriptures in some case, one cannot just assume that He has not done so in the case of the creation account.

Check with me in a couple of years after you have experienced God a little more, and we can have a Biblical discussion, instead of a human intellectual discussion.

BTW, what is your born again testimony?

 

[Drew]

Check with me in a couple of years after you have experienced God a little more, and we can have a Biblical discussion, instead of a human intellectual discussion.

BTW, what is your born again testimony?

Am I the only one who sees this point as being dismissive and condescending? I have been a Christian for almost 30 years and am almost 50 years old - how long before I am "qualified" to have such a discussion?

I doubt there is little chance that we can have any kind of a productive dialogue, anyway. I think that a third party reading our respective posts on this and other topics would say "that Drew and Solo will never see eye to eye on anything because they have such different ways of seeing the world". So be it. This is not the end of the world.

Anyhoo....regarding my testimony:

I became a Christian at the age of 19 while studying at university. I "fell in" among some Christians and, after a few months of Bible study and thinking, I became convinced of the truth of Jesus' claim to be "one with the Father". Looking back, I can confidently say that the Holy Spirit was indeed drawing me. I had pretty much always been open to a belief in God (in the general "creator" sense). I saw Jesus as both God's "sacrificial lamb" and as a great teacher of truths. Do not be deceived - this is not "code" for a lack of belief in Him in as the incarnation of the living God. I believe in the reality of the Holy Spirit and believe that He indwells me and enables me to have some kind of hope of seeing the world through Christ's eyes. I also believe in the necessity to bring the gospel to the lost. Is there anything else that you would like to know?

 

[Solo]

Check with me in a couple of years after you have experienced God a little more, and we can have a Biblical discussion, instead of a human intellectual discussion.

BTW, what is your born again testimony?

Am I the only one who sees this point as being dismissive and condescending? I have been a Christian for almost 30 years and am almost 50 years old - how long before I am "qualified" to have such a discussion?

I doubt there is little chance that we can have any kind of a productive dialogue, anyway. I think that a third party reading our respective posts on this and other topics would say "that Drew and Solo will never see eye to eye on anything because they have such different ways of seeing the world". So be it. This is not the end of the world.

Anyhoo....regarding my testimony:

I became a Christian at the age of 19 while studying at university. I "fell in" among some Christians and, after a few months of Bible study and thinking, I became convinced of the truth of Jesus' claim to be "one with the Father". Looking back, I can confidently say that the Holy Spirit was indeed drawing me. I had pretty much always been open to a belief in God (in the general "creator" sense). I saw Jesus as both God's "sacrificial lamb" and as a great teacher of truths. Do not be deceived - this is not "code" for a lack of belief in Him in as the incarnation of the living God. I believe in the reality of the Holy Spirit and believe that He indwells me and enables me to have some kind of hope of seeing the world through Christ's eyes. I also believe in the necessity to bring the gospel to the lost. Is there anything else that you would like to know?

Thank you for your testimony. I am assuming that you recognized that you were a sinner and needed a Savior, that being that Jesus Christ took your place in death and resurrected whereby you also could be resurrected after the demise of your corruptible, mortal being. If you recognize the literal portion of this scripture, why is it that you lack seeing the literal revelation of the creation? Also what part does evolution play in your currect position on this dear planet that we are called strangers to?

 

[Khristeeanos]

I don't see how questioning the bible is necessarily a bad thing. If it is the truth, wouldn't questioning it only prove you are right?

There is a difference between questioning the Bible and not believing large parts of it.

Anybody who believes in evolution cannot believe the Bible literally.

This is indeed correct. A person who believe in evolution does not take the following verses literally:

Psalm 98:8
"Let the rivers clap their hands,
Let the mountains sing together for joy;

Isaiah 55:12
"You will go out in joy
and be led forth in peace;
the mountains and hills
will burst into song before you,
and all the trees of the field
will clap their hands.

I am one such person - I freely admit that I do not take these verses literally.

Seriously folks, sometimes the Scriptures employ metaphor and allegory in order to achieve their purposes - the Bible is not a technical manual.

Now, we can certainly discuss whether the creation account in Genesis is to be taken as literal or as a myth intended to convey certain important truths about the nature of God and man.

The issue is, of course, not whether we take the Bible "literally", but whether our interpretation is in accord with the intent of the writer. Sometimes that intent is literal and sometimes it is not (as per the example texts above).

The text to which I was referring was correctly pointed out by Solo.

Genesis 1-11, specifically chapters 1 & 2

Nobody wants to accept a literal intrepretation of certain parts of Revelation, but does that mean that the last two chapters aren't meant to be taken literally?

Is God literally going to defeat Satan and evil and literally take believers into heaven for eternity?

Or is that just allegory or metaphorical?

 

[ArtGuy]

Am I the only one who sees this point as being dismissive and condescending? I have been a Christian for almost 30 years and am almost 50 years old - how long before I am "qualified" to have such a discussion?

No, I see it as that way, as well. I'm familiar with this particular debating technique. You will presumably be qualified to have such a discussion when you agree with him, and not before.

I believe that asserting such a dismissive certainty of the precise interpretation of what is, at the end of the day, scriptural minutae is extremely rude. I hold an interpretation of Creation that is in line with the scientific evidence pointing to a universe that is billions of years old. Could I be wrong? Sure, because I'm only human. I'm only human. It's not uncommon to dismiss scientific findings as being the product of human falliability. But by that same token, an interpretation of the Bible that demands a 6000 year old universe is also the product of falliable humans. Any interpretation is the product of falliable humans, because it is these humans who have been translating the Bible, and creating various versions, and coming up with views on what each passage means. Some passages are clear. Others aren't. And frankly, I don't have the gall to tell someone that I'm so certain of my position that it's not even worth granting him the courtesy of an explanation.

 

[bladed-truth]

The literal intrepretation is always the correct one unless the context is obviously not meant to be taken literally.

Well, that's where it all gets a little tricky doesn't it, who decides when it's contextual? Does it become contextual if it is proven wrong? or seems unjust?