On the reconciliation of scripture to science

[Adrift]

Though I opined Oximudd's duplicity in arguing in one thread about not having theological debates in this section and then starting one here exactly who are you all trying to fool? this sections if FILLED with commentary on theological issues about creation and you all regularly use this sub forum as a means to directly attack that theology and yes even on theological not scientific grounds. Even in your above amusing chest thumping about what you know as fact (which you don't and are just delusional) you are making claims to being even competent to determine what or who the Adam of genesis would be or look like when you aren't even remotely competent in the area to make a determination. Whether you like it or not or will admit it or not ANY view of genesis or adam is theological. You are making an interpretation to claim you know something or anything about a biblical issue - Thats theology

IF anything this thread and the complaint about theology just exposes a VAST hypocrisy in this sub forum among the regular participants - Its rarely a science forum. Its more a bash theist YEC's and even OECs and support theistic evolutionist forum and its deeply seated in theological discussions. Anyone honest enough to go and search this forum will see countless, what are in affect theological, statements being made in almost every thread.

The distinction for this area is a total sham

The main distinction I see, and the reason I made my point, is that ox is essentially addressing Christians on the subject of interpretation. He seems to assume in his OP that, while he and his readers may disagree over interpretation, that the Bible can be correctly interpreted within the Christian worldview.

Other threads are merely Christians of one ilk vs. Christians and non-Christians of another.

By the way, I amened your other post before you edited it because I felt it made a reasonable case, but your edit and your other posts are conveying a very aggressive, almost angry tone. Is that necessary do you think?

[Mikeenders]

By the way, I amened your other post before you edited it because I felt it made a reasonable case, but your edit and your other posts are conveying a very aggressive, almost angry tone. Is that necessary do you think?

I do so please feel free to remove your amen if you can or wish (I barely pay attention to such things). I'm not being aggressive but conveying my appraisal of the real situation in this sub forum. Whats aggressive? telling a truth people don't want to hear? You should read some of the slander against some kinds of believers in this sub forum. I'm obliged as a Christian to oppose it so if opposition is aggressive then its aggressive. I see nothing in my posts to amend or be apologetic for.

as for Oxxmuds post . You need to see it in a wider context. He posted it here because its the beginning of an apologetic for his other arguments regarding genesis being mythical which relates to many of his other posts in this section and a common theme in this subforum. It is hypocritical to claim theological discussions are off the table in this section because as I stated they are all over this forum

The main distinction I see, and the reason I made my point, is that ox is essentially addressing Christians on the subject of interpretation. He seems to assume in his OP that, while he and his readers may disagree over interpretation, that the Bible can be correctly interpreted within the Christian worldview.

I am not sure that objection makes any sense. Of course within a Christian worldview the Bible can be correctly interpreted. In skeptical world view perhaps not but in a Christian one thats most definite.

[klaus54]

You all may want to address why the Catholic churches (RC, EC, etc.) and mainstream Protestant denominations don't seem to have much if any trouble with this "reconciliation" (terrible term, BTW, since it more or less concedes that the "reconciled" view is not-as-good-as the "literal" view).

Ready for Stinky, Jorge, and "seer" to spew self-righteousness...

[Adrift]

I do so please feel free to remove your amen if you can or wish (I barely pay attention to such things). I'm not being aggressive but conveying my appraisal of the real situation in this sub forum. Whats aggressive? telling a truth people don't want to hear? You should read some of the slander against some kinds of believers in this sub forum. I'm obliged as a Christian to oppose it so if opposition is aggressive then its aggressive. I see nothing in my posts to amend or be apologetic for.

as for Oxxmuds post . You need to see it in a wider context. He posted it here because its the beginning of an apologetic for his other arguments regarding genesis being mythical which relates to many of his other posts in this section and a common theme in this subforum. It is hypocritical to claim theological discussions are off the table in this section because as I stated they are all over this forum

No, you can't remove amens. But anyways, my point is that you're more likely to get your own point across if you do so with a little bit of patience and longsuffering. The thread is young enough that we can just discuss these things and see if we come to at least some understanding, or some common ground.

As far as helping you see which parts of your posts appear to be aggressive...if you really truly are unable to see how you come off that way, I'm not sure what to say. That's just a matter of having a bit of consideration and tact I suppose.

[Adrift]

I am not sure that objection makes any sense. Of course within a Christian worldview the Bible can be correctly interpreted. In skeptical world view perhaps not but in a Christian one thats most definite.

I think you're missing my point. My point is that in this thread the OP is assuming the Christian worldview. He's attempting to reach out to other Christians about a Christian matter. Other threads do not necessarily do that, and are far more open (subject-wise) to varying points of view.

[oxmixmudd]

Despite your claim to the contrary, it doesn't seem to me that this is the best subforum for this discussion. In an open forum like this you'll inevitably get white noise from those who are not Christian, and that's not going to be much help in selling your main point.

But to the point, it seems to me that you're sort of missing the bigger issue. Many literalists don't have a problem with differences in interpretation so much; What they have a problem with is an approach to scripture that they see as (in a way) denying any interpretation altogether.

So, using your example, it's not actually the case that spiritual death is a less literal interpretation. In fact it's a very literal interpretation. The narrative says they will die that day, and they do die that day. A spiritual death is just as literal a death as a physical death, and the interpretation assumes that the events actually happened as described. Many literalists don't reject that. What they reject is the idea that the whole narrative is mythical. The idea that God never really came to Adam and told him he would die if he ate the fruit. Or that there was any fruit at all. Or a garden. Or, perhaps, a man named Adam and a woman named Eve. Many Christian non-literalists see the entire narrative as something closer to something like a parable. It's a myth told to convey a greater truth, originally addressed to non-scientific people, without the need for any of it having actually happened. That's quite different, quite abstract from an interpretation that may need a little more explaining to understand the literal meaning, but in a spiritual sense.

No much time available during the day, but I did want to address the issue of appropriateness in Nat Sci.

In almost all threads that address the age of the universe, there is inevitably a sidebar where the more literal Christian participants will attack the less literal Christian participants, not over the science, but over the legitimacy of their faith, with it generally degrading into some kind of accusation of heresy or infidelity to scripture. The word 'distort' appears almost always, along with 'compromiser', 'wolf in sheeps clothing', plus a smattering of 'dishonest' or 'pretender' and so forth.

So first, a theological side discussion are almost always a part of a thread in Nat Sci.

But my main point here is to bring forward a defense of the non-literal position in the forum where these side debates occur. It might help draw off the intrusion of this specific debate into the other threads, but probably only for the typically short duration it is active. However, if it gets moved, then its 'proximity to the action' so to speak is lessoned. And since right now I personally have been attacked over this issue in just about every single post to the point it is virtually impossible for me to talk about science in this science forum, it seemed reasonable to give a defense of my position in that same forum (for proximity) but without cluttering up the other science related threads.

Jim

[Mikeenders]

No, you can't remove amens. But anyways, my point is that you're more likely to get your own point across if you do so with a little bit of patience and longsuffering. The thread is young enough that we can just discuss these things and see if we come to at least some understanding, or some common ground.

Besides you and maybe one or two other people I have had multiple interactions with all the posters in this thread. where we have common ground and where we don't has been marked out long ago

As far as helping you see which parts of your posts appear to be aggressive...if you really truly are unable to see how you come off that way, I'm not sure what to say

then don't say anything because helping to see is not a one way street - your not seeing my point either. besides its not a matter of seeing its a matter that we do not agree. I'm saying people are antagonist in this forum towards large group of Christians and I oppose that. You don't like that I oppose it thats its fine but its not something I need to see differently regardless if you have a differing opinion on that.

[Adrift]

Besides you and maybe one or two other people I have had multiple interactions with all the posters in this thread. where we have common ground and where we don't has been marked out long ago

What's the point of engaging then? Just to have a shouting match?

then don't say anything because helping to see is not a one way street - your not seeing my point either. besides its not a matter of seeing its a matter that we do not agree. I'm saying people are antagonist in this forum towards large group of Christians and I oppose that. You don't like that I oppose it thats its fine but its not something I need to see differently regardless if you have a differing opinion on that.

Ooookay then.

[Mikeenders]

No much time available during the day, but I did want to address the issue of appropriateness in Nat Sci.

In almost all threads that address the age of the universe, there is inevitably a sidebar where the more literal Christian participants will attack the less literal Christian participants, not over the science, but over the legitimacy of their faith, with it generally degrading into some kind of accusation of heresy or infidelity to scripture. The word 'distort' appears almost always, along with 'compromiser', 'wolf in sheeps clothing', plus a smattering of 'dishonest' or 'pretender' and so forth.

Thats a rather convenient if less than honest characterization. In many threads the main bar (not side bar) is to bash Christians who don't adhere to your mythical Genesis viewpoint. How many anti YEC or even anti -OEC (like myself but a Bible literalist ) posts and threads are there in this forum - Legion. You are antagonistic, insulting and given to name calling of a large group of believers. You wish to create monikers like IDIots (and ID has little to do with the age of the earth), Fundies, callthen stupid, ignorant, small minded etc etc but you cry and whine when they accuse you rightfully of compromising verses and distorting them. Why does your group get to take a large swipe at millions of believers but get to whine and cry unfair when they respond?

answer you don't when there are some around to defend the literal positions and lets not play coy here. You started this thread to try and fudge your way around objections by two literalist and me in particular. thats rather obvious and that after having no hesitance to accuse me of idolatry either. SO lets get real here and have a real discussion without trying to hide and fudge the underlying issues.

[Mikeenders]

What's the point of engaging then? Just to have a shouting match?

Whats the point of your engaging me on my viewpoint rather than back up your own. Just to assume your positions is the right one apparently. Now if you re ready to get off the soap box and address and listen to everyone viewpoint and not assume you are some herald of the right one we can discuss the issues. seems fair enough to me unless you are not longsuffering and patient enough to do that.

Ooookay then.

ooookay so we got the cleared up.

[HMS_Beagle]

I'm saying people are antagonist in this forum towards large group of Christians and I oppose that.

Sorry Stinky but no one in this forum has been antagonistic towards a large group of Christians. People have been antagonistic towards loud-mouthed vulgar know-it-alls like yourself and Clucky who add nothing to any scientific discussions but that's something very different. It has nothing to do with your Christianity and everything to do with your behavior.

Watching you create a strawman enemy so you can fantasize about being the Brave Christian Knight savior is very interesting from a psychology angle though.

[Mikeenders]

Sorry Stinky but no one in this forum has been antagonistic towards a large group of Christians.

ROFL............................

HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

so there are no posts and threads about YEC's (who are christians) and no name calling of IDiots LOOOOONG before I was here???

Pinocchio DUCK! you got competition. The liar liars pants is on fire. Call 911

Beagle boy when you lie you sure do lie

You must break a computer screen a week

Pure bared face lying right there

[HMS_Beagle]

ROFL

HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

so there are no posts and threads about YEC's (who are christians) and no name calling of IDiots LOOOOONG before I was here???

Pinocchio DUCK! you got competition. The liar liars pants is on fire. Call 911

Beagle boy when you lie you sure do lie

You must break a computer screen a week

Pure bared face lying right there

Thanks Stinky for demonstrating my point with every post.

[Mikeenders]

Thanks Stinky for demonstrating my point with every post.

If you think thats going to stop me laughing at your bare face lying skills you got another guess coming kid.. That one was quite the whammy. If Sam harris was anywhere giving a lecture on how atheists can be moral and honest he just slammed down his papers, muttered to himself and walked off the stage after hearing about your lie

[Adrift]

Whats the point of your engaging me on my viewpoint rather than back up your own. Just to assume your positions is the right one apparently. Now if you re ready to get off the soap box and address and listen to everyone viewpoint and not assume you are some herald of the right one we can discuss the issues. seems fair enough to me unless you are not longsuffering and patient enough to do that.

I assumed from the start that we shared the same viewpoint...that's the reason I upvoted you. My current engagement with you on tone was in hopes that we could come to an understanding on how best to engage the OP. I see now that that was in vain. Having never really interacted with you before I thought you could be reasoned with, but it appears you're not that type of poster.

ooookay so we got the cleared up.

It would appear so.