Posted on 07/30/2008 7:56:37 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
No, please clarify. I’m a lifelong Christian, lead worship at my church, and sit on the official board. Attended Christian schools my entire life (including college). Apparently though that qualifies me - in your mind - as a heathen.
I also like to use the mind and reasoning that God gifted us with, to go beyond simple ink. Fundamentally, I believe the Bible is NOT a science textbook, but a relationship manual telling about how we relate to Him, and how we are to relate to each other.
So please expound on how I am rejecting God because I accept the fact that the Bible is not to be taken as a literal work. Explain the problem. I see a timeline, and it’s quite specific! Day exists before the creation of the great light, the sun. Plants exist before the creation of the great light, the sun. If that is so, then the laws of physics - set up by God - are broken and recorded as such.
Or do you espouse that the Bible is just such a work? And as such, where is your indignation over all English and other translations?
How about OUR modern theocrats?
Try those in the USA that people are so worried are trying to take this country back into the Dark Ages?
What preachers? What televangelists?
What American religious leader has stated that he would like to live back in the Dark Ages and have the rest of us do so as well?
Still waiting for some links and sources.
Since nobody appears to have said anything about the "dark ages", you can just sit there and wait.
Or haven’t you read the OT?
As far as I know, the civil government in Israel is not run by clergy and their civil laws subject to ecclesiastic interpretation. Or haven't you looked at the definition of "theocracy"?
We revolted against that arrangement.
Still waiting for some links and sources.
Google "Dominionists" for a good start.
From Wiki (footnotes omitted):
Dominionism as a broader movementCheck the article. There's more.In the early 1990s, sociologist Sara Diamond and journalist Frederick Clarkson defined dominionism as a movement that, while including Dominion Theology and Reconstructionism as subsets, is much broader in scope, extending to much of the Christian Right. In his 1992 study of Dominion Theology and its influence on the Christian Right, Bruce Barron writes,
In the context of American evangelical efforts to penetrate and transform public life, the distinguishing mark of a dominionist is a commitment to defining and carrying out an approach to building society that is self-consciously defined as exclusively Christian, and dependent specifically on the work of Christians, rather than based on a broader consensus.
According to Diamond, the defining concept of dominionism is "that Christians alone are Biblically mandated to occupy all secular institutions until Christ returns". In 1989, Diamond declared that this concept "has become the central unifying ideology for the Christian Right" (p.138, emphasis in original). In 1995, she called it "prevalent on the Christian Right." Journalist Chip Berlet added in 1998 that, although they represent different theological and political ideas, dominionists assert a Christian duty to take "control of a sinful secular society."
In 2005, Clarkson enumerated the following characteristics shared by all forms of dominionism
1. Dominionists celebrate Christian nationalism, in that they believe that the United States once was, and should once again be, a Christian nation. In this way, they deny the Enlightenment roots of American democracy.
2. Dominionists promote religious supremacy, insofar as they generally do not respect the equality of other religions, or even other versions of Christianity.
3. Dominionists endorse theocratic visions, insofar as they believe that the Ten Commandments, or "biblical law," should be the foundation of American law, and that the U.S. Constitution should be seen as a vehicle for implementing Biblical principles.Other authors who stress the influence of Dominionist ideas on the Christian Right include Michelle Goldberg and Kevin Phillips.
Essayist Katherine Yurica began using the term dominionism in her articles in 2004, beginning with "The Despoiling of America," (February 11, 2004), Yurica has been followed in this usage by authors including journalist Chris Hedges, Marion Maddox, James Rudin, Sam Harris, and the group TheocracyWatch. This group of authors has applied the term to a broader spectrum of people than have Diamond, Clarkson, and Berlet.
No, the bible is not a science book - literally Thank God.
Science books have to change because they are wrong. The Word of God is not.
I’m not going to try to summarize or repeat the answers in genesis materials here, but the synopsis question is - what OTHER portions of scripture are you willing to “compromise” on?
Christ’s virgin birth? His Deity? His crucifixion and substitutional atonement? His resurrection?
No, you misunderstand. It’s not “evolution” of any kind at all, “directed” or not. There is no increase of genetic information, which is characteristic of evolution (despite what some say, that evolution is merely genetic “drift”). There is no “common ancestor.” And so on.
The “orchard model” speaks of drift, of a loss of genetic information over time, all the while the various “kinds” of creatures staying within their “kind.”
Maybe take another look at it.
Maybe take another look at it.
Why? Its nonsense. Its science twisted to fit a particular narrow religious view (created kinds).
The standard scientific model works just fine at explaining all of the data. "Created kinds," with everything staying within fixed boundaries, does not.
But if you think it does, then you need to answer just one question. What is the mechanism that prevents macroevolution? What mechanism prevents all of the small examples of microevolution from adding up to macroevolution over time? I have never had a creationist provide a satisfactory answer to this question.
We revolted against that arrangement.
Yes we did. James Madison:
During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.
James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments
20 June 1785Papers 8:298--304
--http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions43.html
Actually no. Is he a friend of yours?
perhaps the FLDS?
The "divine right of Kings", was a French innovation introduced by the Stuarts. It ended in 1689.
If you believe in god, why have you not read his word?
In it he tells us over 100 times that all creatures have reproduced after their own kind. Evolution would also remove Christ as our kinsman redeemer, since there would be no Adam. Are you ready to pay for your own sins?
On that we fully agree!
Science books have to change when they are wrong.
Fixed that for you... Math textbooks are rarely wrong, and most physics intro books are pretty darn solid. Likewise with most books dealing with Maxwell's equations, or Newton's laws of motion.
But see, that's the nice part of science - a change is made when the evidence shows it to be wrong. What's wrong with that? It's called learning.
The Word of God is not.
On issues of morality, relationship with God and man, and spiritual philosophy, I completely agree.
what OTHER portions of scripture are you willing to “compromise” on? Christ’s virgin birth? His Deity? His crucifixion and substitutional atonement? His resurrection?
None of them. And I know that is at odds with my stance about Genesis. However, I'm not holding it up as fact since it cannot be proven. This is where faith comes in.
The Bible is not meant to be a historical record, or a science book. It is a love story, of God and His people, and how we and He relate to each other, and how we should relate to each other.
If some parts are at odds with proven science, we either chalk it up to a miracle (meaning it is NOT scientific, but supernatural - only because of God), or that the story as presented in the Bible was told and written for the understanding of the original audience.
Demanding - or even claiming you have - proof leaves you little more than a doubting Thomas. Faith cannot exist in the presence of facts; the two are essentially at odds with each other.
Faith is belief in what exists beyond facts. I have no problem with that. And I will not demand that my faith be forced on to others, nor demand that it be presented as facts, or even a rigorous scientific body.
No, you are wrong here. The theory of evolution clearly depends upon genetic drift and does NOT require "increased genetic information".
There is no “common ancestor.” And so on.
Funny, all the diagrams show a common ancestor, and then diversity below it. Speciation, inherited characteristics.
To me, it looks like it's directed evolution where God intervened to create new "common ancestors" to start new branches.
And here is where we part company. The Bible self claims to be the Word of God. If the Word of God is fallible in Genesis, ie, it's wrong,
then you have nothing to hang your belief on in the new testament, because Jesus Himself (was He a liar or not a part of the trinity/deity?) affirms the validity of Genesis in multiple references.
Read some AnswersInGenesis. They have articulated it much better than some "decorated dust" on a message board.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.