Greg Laurie

[whag]

Whag, I have indulged you now please indulge me. Please step out of the closed thinking you have and think about psychological schema development, and throw in a bit of Piaget and add the stages of Moral Development. Realize that not everyone reaches the most flexible stages for many reasons, and it can be brain functions, genetics, thought process, use of the brain etc. (I just had a refresher on development here too) for whatever reason Greg Laurie has understood this portion of scripture currently to the best of his ability.

Maybe it's okay that everyone's cognitively wired differently. Granting that, why not also extend unbelievers the same latitude for not being able to process the stories in the Bible?

It could be that later in his life his own schema will expand and he will accomodate and assimilate the new data and be able to expand his moral and religious development to be more flexible. But most humans are black and white. For now this is the best he can do.

You're assuming that, but, like you said, we don't really know. Maybe he could do better and just doesn't try. It's entirely possible that he never tried to challenge himself and grow, which could help the people he tries to convert in his crusades. It's entirely possible he fears what his Christian peers (like John MacArthur) will think of him if he accepts the truth of cosmic and biological evolution.

Perhaps you could expand your own thinking and appreciate that this is where he is, Its not a lack of refusal to educate but part of the limitations of the human mind then.

Again, do you attribute people's disbelief of religion to the limitations of the human mind? I peg you as the sort of person who's more understanding of people's skepticism, knowing that not everyone has the mind for religious belief.

You don't know why, and neither do I. Rather than dismiss it as "on purpose" Tell yourself that "Mr. Laurie understands this to the best of his ability," and appreciate what you like about him, as opposed to being critical of what you believe is the deficit. If Laurie's view of the flood doesn't fit for you then there are plenty on this forum who will be happy to give you a fresh non literal perspective on a non global flood Myself Rogue, Oxmixmudd etc. who are still Christians though I can appreciate myself the difficulty in encountering questions on the literalness of the Bible

"If Laurie's view of the flood doesn't fit for you"

It's not about that. I'm not looking for Laurie to be better model for me. I dismissed his and others' infantile approach to teleology a long time ago. Rather, I'm observing the effect that his sloppy evangelism has on new believers he purports to care about. I don't think there's an excuse for his reckless statements given the cost of doubt. Doubt is costly, yes? He's not protecting his flock by repeating Ken Ham's comical view of the world and should be called out for it. I get the sense that he himself is protected from real criticism because he's kind of a charming celebrity-type figure within the evangelical world.

Anyhoo, we don't have to keep going back and forth on this. I understand you a bit more, and I think you understand me more, too. Surely you know I'm not advocating the guy's lynching.

[whag]

I remember what Whag said in the OP: "If Laurie's idea of teleology is taught to new believers, those believers are in danger of losing their newfound faith when they learn that YEC is false and biological evolution is true."

It's not a matter of a personal preference of ideas...its a matter of teaching something potentially disastrous to the faith. I know first hand the truth of what Whag is saying.

Thank you. I have lots of secondhand experience with it. It's a real problem, and I know there are many other Christians who are annoyed that these ideas have permeated so deeply and perniciously.

[Catholicity]

I remember what Whag said in the OP: "If Laurie's idea of teleology is taught to new believers, those believers are in danger of losing their newfound faith when they learn that YEC is false and biological evolution is true."

It's not a matter of a personal preference of ideas...its a matter of teaching something potentially disastrous to the faith. I know first hand the truth of what Whag is saying.

That's a completely fair observation. I have left more than one church and deliberately chosen not to be a part of several because I thought that their teachings would be disastrous to not just the faithful but to people who were seeking out the truth and raising their Children to be believers.

Maybe it's okay that everyone's cognitively wired differently. Granting that, why not also extend unbelievers the same latitude for not being able to process the stories in the Bible?

I would like to think that I try, May God grant me the patience that He has with all of his children.

You're assuming that, but, like you said, we don't really know. Maybe he could do better and just doesn't try. It's entirely possible that he never tried to challenge himself and grow, which could help the people he tries to convert in his crusades. It's entirely possible he fears what his Christian peers (like John MacArthur) will think of him if he accepts the truth of cosmic and biological evolution.Again, do you attribute people's disbelief of religion to the limitations of the human mind? I peg you as the sort of person who's more understanding of people's skepticism, knowing that not everyone has the mind for religious belief.

That's possible too. I think there are a large number of reasons that people think and or believe the way they do, and I try hard not to judge. As to your last statement, I don't like to think of anyone as "lost" or "unchangeable" but either a bit "stubborn" or more "flexible" at least I hope not. But I do understand that the reasons for a person being religious or areligious run very deep.

"If Laurie's view of the flood doesn't fit for you"

It's not about that. I'm not looking for Laurie to be better model for me. I dismissed his and others' infantile approach to teleology a long time ago. Rather, I'm observing the effect that his sloppy evangelism has on new believers he purports to care about. I don't think there's an excuse for his reckless statements given the cost of doubt. Doubt is costly, yes? He's not protecting his flock by repeating Ken Ham's comical view of the world and should be called out for it. I get the sense that he himself is protected from real criticism because he's kind of a charming celebrity-type figure within the evangelical world.

Anyhoo, we don't have to keep going back and forth on this. I understand you a bit more, and I think you understand me more, too. Surely you know I'm not advocating the guy's lynching.

I truly appreciate what you have to offer here. And I think we do agree. You are right in that protection of oneself does tend to be very important, and while its easy to criticize its even harder to reserve judgement. Personally I hope I don't make the call until I know more about Laurie from a personal standpoint

Thank you. I have lots of secondhand experience with it. It's a real problem, and I know there are many other Christians who are annoyed that these ideas have permeated so deeply and perniciously.

Agree here see above about my picky church choices.

[psstein]

Since the author was the creator, it makes no sense to claim that the ignorance of humans at the time means anything. Unless, of course, you discount the revelatory nature of scripture all together.

Revelation was in language that people of the time could understand. Hence why Jesus' references to a literal Adam and Eve don't cause an issue.