No, see this isn’t more clear, it’s just the same stuff you said before, which I understood the first two times you wrote it. So let me make it even more clear.
The Bible and Christian theology speak clearly to the matter of rain is the direct result of God’s specific choices and acts; it rains when He makes it rain, and it stops raining when He makes it stop raining.
Given #1rain is a necessary result in God’s creation, it could not fail to appear.
On atheistic precipitation, rain is not the direct result of God’s specific choices and acts,.nor object and focus of anyone or anythings actions and definitely not in respect to salvation but rather an optional natural event that has appeared on the planet earth but did not need do so.
On 1-3 there is a direct conflict between the Bible and Christian theology and atheistic precipitation with respect to rain where the former has that rain as a necessary result of creation and the latter does not.
There are mutually exclusive to each other.
I don’t know what you can’t see about this obvious conflict nor why your persist with the disanalogy of evolution where neither the Bible nor Christian theology has it as a direct action of God nor of his choices, or a necessary result of God’s creation.
That is actually saying the opposite. Jesus’ whole point is “Be like God”, and by that he doesn’t mean “Create natural processes which randomly happen to pretty much everyone”, he means “Be good to everyone whoever they are, just like God is”. That indicates Jesus believed God is in some way responsible (whether as proximate or ultimate cause), for rain falling on the good and the wicked.
My comments are not made as points of disagreement but of explanation as to where I see an obvious conflict between mainstream science and Christian theology… and in saying this, not as a criticism of science because I understand the need for it to operate on MN which leads to things like ‘natural’ selection.
Sorry that’s just your interpretation. And you’re only interpreting it that way because you believe in the modern idea of Theistic Precipitation, which didn’t even exist until about the late medieval era. You are interpreting the Bible according to modern science.
Centuries of Christian and Jewish tradition understood the Bible perfectly clearly on this subject; rain is the direct result of God’s specific choices and acts, so it rains when He makes it rain, and it stops raining when He makes it stop raining. Please list all the Bible passages which say otherwise.
Okay, then I’m honestly confused. We actually seem to agree on the key point.
Perhaps it is a strategy difference? I’m content with the scientific account being largely correct, but incomplete, and then turning to theology to complete it. You seem to be arguing instead (strategically) for fundamental incompatibility, though I am not sure to what end.
Perhaps you are trying to argue against “scientism”, the false notion that science is the only path to truth? Well you have a friend in me, but isn’t the best strategy to argue that science is incomplete, rather than wrong?
Any how, it seems like we are arguing against each other, but I am not at all sure why. It seems like we agree on both the science and the theology. Though we disagree in some unclear way on how they interact?
There would be no point of disagreement between us if you accept that no Christian can or ought to accept the current theory of biological evolution, specifically on natural selection, since it conflicts with Christian theology.
On the contrary, I’m demonstrating the inconsistency in your hermeneutic. You haven’t even given one single reason for interpreting those passages about rain figuratively or symbolically or spiritually, or however you explain them away non-literally so they aren’t talking about something real. You are the one dodging by saying “Well I just interpret it like this, and the problem goes away”, without explaining the rationale for your interpretation, or its exegetical basis.
Remember this is not a theoretical issue. Previous Christian and Jewish expositors believed rain was the direct product of God’s choices and actions, and the concept of natural laws and processes emerged painfully slowly during the medieval era, being resisted by those who thought it was atheistic. This exposes the flaw in your approach to evolution.
See right there. that’s the case you have to actually substantiate.
Sorry, are you saying you don’t know of any? You’ve already seen one earlier in this thread, Matthew 5:45. Then there’s Genesis 2:5; 7:4, Exodus 9:18, Deuteronomy 11:14, 17; 28:12, 1 Samuel 12:17-18, 1 Kings 17:14, 2 Chronicles 7:13, Job 5:10; 36:27; 38:26, Psalm 65:9-10; 147:8, Jeremiah 10:13; 14:22, Amos 4:7, and Zechariah 10:1.
Meanwhile you haven’t provided any passages at all.
Within science, don’t you accept natural selection? It seems like you are just arguing that, outside of strictly scientific inquiry, natural selection can’t be the whole story. That appears to be the BioLogos position too. Looks like common ground to me.
I don’t concur that any of these passage make rain a necessary result of God’s creation nor the object and focus of his creation especially in relation to salvation. The human species is and on science that is not the case. Your whole line of argument is an irrelevance and deflection to the obvious conflict between biological evolution as proposed in mainstream science and Christian theology.
Yes, of course I concur that on its methodology - in science - it is right that they speak of natural selection.
However, I see nowhere where natural selection is explained with such qualifying remarks and, indeed, think it wouldn’t be too diffcult to come up with examples where scientists take what is true on their methodology and apply it as if it held as the case outside of that methodology e.g. Dawkins and how Darwinian allowed one to be a fulfilled atheist (my paraphrase).
Also, I don’t see anything improper about seeking to do science with a limiting MN where MN is put to the side iff the evidence dictates it doesn’t hold.
Finally, MN ought not to be used as a measure of what is ‘science’ and what is ‘not science’ since it is but an assumption as a way of working. I believe, if memory serves me right it was indeed used that way (in part) in the Dover trial on ID.
No, my whole line of argument is demonstrating to you that your hermeneutic is completely inconsistent. Like many other Christians you take for granted the fact that the earth is round (not flat), the “sky” is an optical illusion (not a solid firmament), the earth moves around the sun (not the sun around the earth), and that rain is a product of blind, purposeless natural forces (not the result of God’s specific choices and actions).
Like many other Christians you simply slide over the passages which say otherwise, and interpret them non-literally, and you do so virtually subconsciously because you’ve been raised to read those passages in harmony with the modern science you were taught at school. You’re on the end of quite a long continuum, though you think you’re actually right at the start.
Virtually every argument you make against evolution, was made previously by Christians against scientific discoveries which were resisted by Christians as unScriptural, but which you accept completely happily today, for no other reason than creeping normalcy.
Why? Because none of the passages you cited makes rain a direct and necessary result of God creation nor does any Christian theology make claim to it being so.
I earlier gave argument for that conflict which was but responded to by a disanologous argument.
In everything you say in the last part of your response there are far too many presumptions about me and my life and Christianity to make it worthwhile making response.
Please limit your comments to what you know and can evidence and avoid such speculations.
Please limit your comments to what you know and can evidence and avoid such speculations. As I have already pointed out, previous Jewish and Christian expositors understood those passages in precisely the way you claim they should not be understood. The only difference between them and you is that you gloss over them in order to reconcile them with modern science.
[quote=“Rational_Theist_Matt, post:227, topic:5673”]
Please limit your comments to what you know…[/quote]
I’m dong exactly that. If you think you’re unique, you need to be aware of 2,000 years of Christian history which came before you. I will say it again. Virtually every argument you make against evolution, was made previously by Christians against scientific discoveries which were resisted by Christians as unScriptural, but which you accept completely happily today. You’ve simply arrived very late on the end of a very long spectrum.
I think you are just being contrarian. Nothing at all that you have presented has dealt with the obvious conflict between Christian theology and biological evolution in its theory as presented today by mainstream science. Feel free to have the last word.
No I am patiently demonstrating your blind spot. You’re not the only one in this position, many people have gone through this. That’s why we can see it when you can’t.
I don’t think you can expect Scientists to do much more than say: looking for God in natural processes is not a scientific investigation.
If they have a grudge, they say “we can find no God in natural processes”.
And on the flip side of the coin, there’s those who have clearly drunk deeply the proffered Kool-Aid !: “I have investigated and I found God at work making rain drops!”
I have no expectation for scientists to involve themselves in issues outside of their field of study or to make declarations from their field of study as if they apply factually to reality. Unfortunately some of them do
