Christians Believing Badly

[firstfloor]

I also very much like Frank Schaeffer.

Thanks for the heads up. Have you seen this one?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBRXbsHs2LI
Atheish – that’s new!
“One reason I like going to (Greek Orthodox) church is that sometimes you fall into these spaces where you see something.”
firstfloor (ver. 15th Jan 2015) disavows all previous versions.

[Adrift]

Yes ‘evolution’ IS incompatible with a literalist interpretation of Christianity

No. That is not necessarily the case. There are several literalist interpretations that are compatible with evolution. Whether one finds those interpretations feasible or convincing is another matter, but they do exist.

[Christianbookworm]

Yeah! I don't think anyone thinks God created horses, zebras, and donkeys separately! Or created dogs, wolves, and coyotes separately!

[Adrift]

Yeah! I don't think anyone thinks God created horses, zebras, and donkeys separately! Or created dogs, wolves, and coyotes separately!

I think you're referring to some sort of "microevolution". There are some old earth creationist interpretations like the ruin-reconstruction theory (aka the gap theory), the day-age view, the analogical days interpretation, historical creationism, the cosmic time view, and others that hold to a literal reading of the Biblical text yet still account for the millions of years that would require "macroevolution" (if you will). People are generally only familiar with the standard YEC take as the only literalist view, but...it isn't. Again, whether these other views and interpretations are tenable is another matter, but they do exist.

[Christianbookworm]

Don't think it's wise to be dogmatic about stuff in prehistory either way. We can ask later. In person?

[Adrift]

Don't think it's wise to be dogmatic about stuff in prehistory either way. We can ask later. In person?

I suppose that depends on how important ones feels the divine scriptures ought to accord with the perceived evidence.

[Christianbookworm]

I suppose that depends on how important ones feels the divine scriptures ought to accord with the perceived evidence.

Primary vs secondary doctrine. Making YEC a primary seems silly.

[Adrift]

Primary vs secondary doctrine. Making YEC a primary seems silly.

I agree.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Primary vs secondary doctrine. Making YEC a primary seems silly.

I realize this is starting to move slightly off-topic, now, but would you consider Biblical Inerrancy a primary or secondary doctrine? Though I know he's not representative of Christians as a whole, Ken Ham believes that Inerrancy is a primary doctrine, and he believes that anyone who isn't YEC does violence to that doctrine.

[whag]

No. That is not necessarily the case. There are several literalist interpretations that are compatible with evolution. Whether one finds those interpretations feasible or convincing is another matter, but they do exist.

The people who hold those views would be quasi-literalists, then. As soon as you dig into the text, metaphor comes into play.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

The people who hold those views would be quasi-literalists, then. As soon as you dig into the text, metaphor comes into play.

I don't think there are any readers of the Bible who wouldn't qualify as "quasi-literalists," on that definition. For example, even Ken Ham doesn't believe that the sky is a solid dome, as described in Genesis 1:6-7, or that God has a physical head and face, as described in Psalm 34:15-16.

[Christianbookworm]

I realize this is starting to move slightly off-topic, now, but would you consider Biblical Inerrancy a primary or secondary doctrine? Though I know he's not representative of Christians as a whole, Ken Ham believes that Inerrancy is a primary doctrine, and he believes that anyone who isn't YEC does violence to that doctrine.

Probably different definitions of primary doctrine. I'm using it to refer to things you have to believe to be saved/Christian. Like the Resurrection. Under that definition, Biblical inerrancy isn't a primary. And one has to define inerrancy. Because the translations and copies do have typos so to speak.

[Adrift]

The people who hold those views would be quasi-literalists, then. As soon as you dig into the text, metaphor comes into play.

I don't know any literalist view of scripture that is so wooden that there isn't some room for metaphor or figure of speech. Even your most staunch hyper-literalist like King James Onlyists don't believe that God is a hen, or a rock, or that the trees of the field literally clap their hands.

[Christianbookworm]

I don't think there are any readers of the Bible who wouldn't qualify as "quasi-literalists," on that definition. For example, even Ken Ham doesn't believe that the sky is a solid dome, as described in Genesis 1:6-7, or that God has a physical head and face, as described in Psalm 34:15-16.

Psalms are poetry. It would be goofy to interpret them woodenly. Though some do. Every time some one uses wisdom literature to form doctrine... .

[Christianbookworm]

I don't know any literalist view of scripture that is so wooden that there isn't some room for metaphor or figure of speech. Even your most staunch hyper-literalist like King James Onlyists don't believe that God is a hen, or a rock, or that the trees of the field literally clap their hands.

fify
It would be funny if someone really believed that.