(July 22, 2013 at 6:49 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: This is so weird seeing this thread because I have heard atheists argue that Christians all must deny evolution to be consistent with their faith.

Some atheists on the forum have insisted that the bible can only be interpreted literally, in kind of a reverse fundamentalism.

It -can be- and -is- interpreted any which way one wishes.

However-once you begin to stroll away from a literal interpretation some linchpins of the faith begin to fall by the wayside. Try this....interpret this allegorically or metaphorically, for example.

"In the beginning, god created the heavens and earth"

Which parts of that should I feel comfortable straying away from literally? Are we entirely sure that we're willing to accept the ramifications of just how far I might stray? Want to go down the rabbit hole with me?

(July 22, 2013 at 4:58 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote:

(July 22, 2013 at 4:31 pm)Drich Wrote: Maybe I should try asking a question, how about: Why can't creation be a literal account?

I don't know. I keep an open mind, so maybe you should point us to an account that can't be proven false.

post number 22

That is en entirely falsifiable (and conveniently, falsified) hypothesis. If your intent was to create something that could not be disproven, you failed - for all of the reasons enumerated upon -the first moment you proposed it- in the jokethread associated.

Though, as an attempt to reconcile science with faith it was admirable- as it -did- stick to the rules of the system. Sadly, that's why it is a falsifiable hypothesis. Nothing that "cannot be disproven" can reconcile the two systems. Fundamental fail.

(July 21, 2013 at 8:36 am)whateverist Wrote: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-d...76345.html

Zen shared this with me on fb and I thought it would be of interest here. This is an example of mature Christian thought I'm always extolling but only rarely encountering anywhere. So Frodo, I think, is already on board. Chad I guess might be too. How about you Drich, Cat, GC, Ronadee, Consilius? Do you see any problem with this line of reasoning?

Quote:As someone raised evangelical, I realize anti-evolutionists believe they are defending the Christian tradition. But as a seminary graduate now training to be a medical scientist, I can say that, in reality, they've abandoned it.

...

In theory, if not always in practice, past Christian theologians valued science out of the belief that God created the world scientists study. Augustine castigated those who made the Bible teach bad science, John Calvin argued that Genesis reflects a commoner's view of the physical world, and the Belgic confession likened scripture and nature to two books written by the same author.

These beliefs encouraged past Christians to accept the best science of their day, and these beliefs persisted even into the evangelical tradition. As Princeton Seminary's Charles Hodge, widely considered the father of modern evangelical theology, put it in 1859: "Nature is as truly a revelation of God as the Bible; and we only interpret the Word of God by the Word of God when we interpret the Bible by science."

In this analysis, Christians must accept sound science, not because they don't believe God created the world, but precisely because they do.

...

.. no amount of talk about "worldviews" and "presuppositions" can change a simple fact: creationism has failed to provide an alternative explanation for the vast majority of evidence explained by evolution.

If Christianity can be made both internally consistent as well adaptable to any knowledges and discoveries outside the understanding of those yokels who originally propounded it, then it wouldn't have included in the first place any special claim to having special received truth, nor nailed itself to the ridiculous plank of shady god man who fucked his own mother to give himself birth, nor insulted all mankind by insinuating mankind needed "saving" by such as that.

(July 23, 2013 at 9:44 am)Rhythm Wrote: That is en entirely falsifiable (and conveniently, falsified) hypothesis. If your intent was to create something that could not be disproven, you failed - for all of the reasons enumerated upon -the first moment you proposed it- in the jokethread associated.

I did not post it in a Joke thread. I first posted it on AF.com and then in the Appologetics potion of CF.com and then 2 or 3 times here.

Quote:Though, as an attempt to reconcile science with faith it was admirable- as it -did- stick to the rules of the system. Sadly, that's why it is a falsifiable hypothesis. Nothing that "cannot be disproven" can reconcile the two systems. Fundamental fail.

So because the post meets the parameters of the challenge, it is automatically disqualified? Sounds as if your line of reasoning is what is flawed.

(July 23, 2013 at 9:31 am)Rhythm Wrote: It -can be- and -is- interpreted any which way one wishes.

In one sense you are correct two people can look at the same things and come to different conclusions. That does not mean that both conclusions have equal justification. If you find a term used consistently in various places you can reasonably believe they confer the same symbolic meaning. As it so happens "heaven" generally signifies the Divine Order as it is reflected in the inner human mind and "earth" is typically used to signify the spiritual community that receives it. But I know you, Mr. Rythym, do not care to seriously consider the spiritual significance of the text. You only want to see the surface, then you can justify your self-proclaimed hostility.

(July 23, 2013 at 9:31 am)Rhythm Wrote: If you're a moron, It -can be- and -is- interpreted any which way one wishes.

(July 24, 2013 at 2:55 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(July 23, 2013 at 9:31 am)Rhythm Wrote: If you're a moron, It -can be- and -is- interpreted any which way one wishes.

You realize you just called most of the Christians morons, right?

(July 24, 2013 at 4:13 am)genkaus Wrote:

(July 24, 2013 at 2:55 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

You realize you just called most of the Christians morons, right?

When Ryth says anyway he wishes it suggests that symbolic interpretations can only be the product of whimsy. So if, as Frodo says one is a moron, then you wouldn't undertake such a delicate task with the seriousness required and the results would be inconsistent and fruitless.

There is a difference between discerning an authors intent and imposing one's own meaning onto a text. Then again, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. While the certainty of biblical interpretation lacks the clarity of the physical sciences, it remains a useful area of study for people of faith.

As it relates the OP, historically the Scriptures serve as a source of knowledge about God's nature and as guide for practicing the faith. These uses pre-date the modern scientific method. As such, I, like many other Christians consider approaching the Bible as a scientific text about cosmology and biology a flawed approach.

Personally, I do not see much value in using the Bible to convince anyone of anything unless they are already inclined to receive the message. My motto is to preach the Gospel and sometimes use words.