I am not saying I approve.
if you read my Bio you would see that i tend to “balloon Debate” whereby you take something to the nth degree whether you agree (approve) or not.
It becomes a matter of principle and I object to your tone with me.
Richard
No, I think you are the one with the simplistic view of human nature as exemplified by your false belief that education is the solution to all human problems.
Incorrect. I would very much prefer to educate or rehabilitate people even when they are not innocent. BUT…
- I am not willing to slaughter innocents for such a reason. But when we are talking about innocents who would rather be dead considering their circumstances, then if we cannot rescue them, death might be morally preferable to leaving them to such inhumane treatment.
- I would still call it genocide when you kill everyone except newborn babies.
- I think the idea that education is the solution to all problems is both naïve and demonstrably incorrect.
Your willingness to call people sociopaths/psychopaths simply because they disagree with you exemplifies the gross ignorance of ideologues.
3 Likes
I have never stated, suggested or implied any such thing.
I think you did. AND I not only didn’t say or imply the things you claimed, BUT I specifically explained that I did not believe any such things and explained why it was not implied by what I said either.
For just a second there I thought you were talking about liberals. LOL I found it very funny. But of course that was not what you meant. Instead I think you were speaking of a group of people who behave like sociopaths to other groups of people because of ideology (with a well known historical example we are not allowed to mention). It is not quite what I had in mind when I was speaking of a race of sociopaths/psychopaths, but you make a good point. Ideology can be quite evil and immune to education. And then I am reminded of the re-education efforts of communist countries, which show us that just calling it education doesn’t necessarily make it better or moral.
3 Likes
@mitchellmckain and @Roy - I know it’s a bit late to intrude in here and ask this now, but can you both draw back from attacking each other, and direct your ire at ideas and ideologies instead? Whenever this stuff becomes a pissing contest over who said or didn’t say what, it becomes irrelevant and meritless content for any other readers. I know there are others around here (probably including me) that have been much worse culprits than you two, but we need to encourage each other to do better.
5 Likes
A few complications on the genocidal-sounding commands of the OT:
The Amalekites seem to have basically been a band of desert bandits. There is some justification in pursuing them, but collateral damage is always a challenge in such a situation.
Some Jewish tradition sees the law generally as prescribing a maximum penalty. In particular, conversion was generally an alternative to extermination. Similarly, total extermination was a component of standard hyperbole.
Also, the OT rather strongly emphasizes that Israel is subject to the same rules and liable to similar judgement. Modern genocide typically comes from an attitude of superiority.
However, we should remember to treat our evil inclinations mercilessly. (Not to be confused with lack of mercy for the sinner.) The theological application is the focus.
4 Likes
This is one of those areas where it would seem that “liberal” postures towards biblical literalism could actually perform a useful service … as in … so maybe the genocide wasn’t nearly so extensive as ancient Hebrew writers actually postured it in their records. The same hyperbole that is such a dirty word for some inerrantists actually ameliorates (doesn’t eliminate) the problem. And there would still be the problem of why were they bragging about doing such things even if they didn’t do them quite so fully as advertised. One thing is for sure - they weren’t trying to make themselves or their God sound bad. To them it was actually bragging about what their God could do in ways that resonated with those times. For some weird reason, they weren’t being self-conscious about what it all might sound like to certain western cultures several thousand years in their future. But all these considerations are lost on the fundamentalist thought of today which is stuck trying to defend all the pre-Jesus attitudes and expressions. And then there are the rest of us who like to imagine that, you know, Jesus did make some difference and actually taught us to know God’s ways more fully and more deeply than those before.
2 Likes
I understand what you were indicating in your diagram. Thank you.
The YEC you have in mind here makes a difference. Someone making money or gaining power from “selling” YEC, or who claims credentials of “scientist” deserves this hot criticism.
However, the average Joe or Jane in the pew, who worries about their eternal salvation or even sanctification being connected to a “biblical” (fundamentalist) view of creation is likely not deserving of the condemnation you express here. And their clinging to YEC is not a matter of ideology, but faith. No matter how wrong they are.
Most people are risk averse. Who wants to gamble with their soul? They would likely wonder how science could be of any real importance, if it causes one to believe wrongly and be damned.
Do you have a way to counter the weight of that belief? What consolation can you give to the person who risks embracing accurate science and ends up fearing damnation as a consequence?
These very people see you the same way.
Yes. That’s true.
If one must decide between one’s soul or some version of science that could damage the soul’s future, you can’t blame people for prefering their souls. And arguing about the validity of the scientific method won’t really work, will it? Because the scientific method doesn’t save. Jesus does.
Until people are convinced that their soul is safe in spite of holding certain views of science, you are addressing the wrong problem by arguing about science.
4 Likes
I think that the problem is with the way Christianity has been taught in emphasising belief or thoughts. Why should accepting science affect our salvation? They are not in the least bit connected.
Science only becoms a problem when we impose it onto scripture, and that is only a problem if we insist on a certain understanding of that scripture.
It would appear to be intollerance in Christianity that is the problem, not science.
Richard
1 Like
Then quote the words where you think I said it. The words which you could, and should, have included in your post.
Make sure you include the part which states, suggests or implies I was referring to all human problems, as well as the part where I stated, suggested or implied that the actual solution (rather than a possible solution) was education by itself.
I’ll try, but I find it difficult not to criticise those who claim genocide is a moral option.
1 Like
Yes.
But those are not problems to the one who is convinced of a certain understanding of Scripture. As we see regularly here, such a one is concerned about things of more personal weight than science.
If one is convinced that science is in conflict with Scripture, even seems to negate it, and believes that Scripture is the way one knows what one needs to know about God and life and death, then it’s reasonable for one to do what YECs are doing.
Even if its wrong.
Arguing that science is right, good, a better grasp of reality does no good, because for the fundamentalist the argument never gets to the core issue: “if science and the Bible are in conflict, science could lead me as well as others astray;”
Haranging the YEC person in the pew, as I read @Mervin_Bitikofer to be doing, is fruitless. To the YEC person it’s like being accosted by the devil, who promises a better understanding of reality.
The underlying concerns are real, and the fight, in their eyes, is not with flesh amd blood. Those must be addressed.
3 Likes
How do you confront a person who sees science as the Devil’s misdirection?
If you are going to claim that fossils are not genuine creatures, and so dinosaurs never existed there is no argument against it. It is literally a “he said, she said argument” one view against the other with no resolution because the “proof” is not valid.
I have talked with Flat Earthers, as well as YECs, they will not accept what they see with their own eyes other than Scripture. Everything else is a deception f the Devil. It is that simple. You should see the convoluted way a plane going around the globe is converted into a plane being drawn around the edge of a disc. It is an impossible argument to refute. Even the picture of pylons shrinking over a horizon is viewed as a deception, or optical illusion.
You cannot argue with blind faith. By definition the eyes cannot be trusted. If Scripture says something then that must be correct.
Richard.
Precisely.
…
- Spring-boarding off the term “risk averse”, with no certainty that this is relevant, What do pigeons have in common with problem gamblers?
We have tended to concentrate on the shortcomings of faith when confronted with science but perhaps there come a point where science can fail?
The spiritual battle between good and evil tends to be played down, especially the idea of demons or even the Devil himself. The influence of evil can be just as intangible as the influence or existence of God, and although many scientists are prepared to concede or even accept the existence of God, the flip side of evil beings is more difficult. More than one person here has expressed misgivings about the reality (need) of the supernatural
It has always been claimed that the Devil’s greatest weapon is to go unnoticed.
Perhaps the modern reliance on science and technology has dulled our senses to the spiritual outside our physical vision and perception?
Richard
Please flag me when you see me doing that. I need to be held accountable.
-Merv
3 Likes
Indeed. I think the key is not confrontation, but rather conversation, and entering into a loving relationship. There is a place for confrontation when the positions held do real harm to others, but often we can focus on our common beliefs and ignore those issues that really are just academic until our relationship is strong enough to discuss without taking offense.
4 Likes
a couple of responses to this (in reverse order):
- Im am not a “young believer”
- I have been involved in Christianity for about 43 years
- I have been trained theologically at academic level in biblical theology
- my own father is a theologian who has been academically trained at university in theology and the languages of the bible
I am not aware that you have any of the above training, so your “young believer” experience, it doesn’t surprise me at all that you have gone down this pathway given that its highly likely that whoever parroted their theology to you did a really poor job of it in that they clearly had a poor understanding themselves!
- You, like many others here, do not seem to be able to get past the fallacy of the notion of “modern human interpretation”.
- The bible comprehensively deals with this over and over again and yet you continue to revert to wives tales without actually checking it out for yourself. The bible teaches that men have already interpretated Gods revelation to us…he used men (those who wrote the Bible) to do this. Given they have already interpreted, what is it that you are trying to achieve here…making a square wheel in the hope it will work despite being shown emphatically that it will not?
- the aim of scholarship these days is not to change the meaning of the Bible…it seeks to get back to the original. Its very clear that we have the original…so any notion that one day we will miraculously stumble upon an “original” Old Age Earth theology biblical codex…that is complete nonsense and i can assure you, it will never happen. the reason it will never happen is because the bible cannon was established over a long period of time beginning in 393 (council of Hippo) and ending in 1546 at the council of Trent.
- Ancient scholars spent more than 1,000 years commencing shortly after the last of the apostles had died brining together all of the New Testament writings…the Old Testament they already had…given they did not change the Old Testament cannon, its clear they agreed with its writings.
Let me provide some additional referencing about “prophets” at this point…
Now if you note…one of the criteria above is to provide instructions, commands, or plans for humanitys future
How you can believe that God can tell the future but deny He also knows the past better than anyone here does, and that He describes that past in the Bible?
Also, lets not forget this…
Only a theological delusion can ignore those dilemma so if you think that i am YEC because of an immature “young Christian” delusion…you are very much mistaken there amigo. I have this view because of an overwhelming volume of theological, rathional, and scientific evidence that consistenly supports the view. I would argue i have a far more consistent and better supported religious and scientific claim to my view than you do…the fact i can cite so much biblical, theological, and scientific support is proof of that.
Heres an interesting illustration found here on these forums that i can use as an example:
a “Christian” poster here on these forums wrote that he believes that “many of the New Testament Gospel writings are made up” and that Christs prophecy about the Second Coming is a “failed prophecy”. He also says he doesnt believe in the incarnation.
Do you not see the issue in the above example? This individual has been completely mislead into thinking he is Christian and yet he quite obviously here hasnt a clue what the gospel actually is or means and quite obviously demonstrates a view that salvation in the Second Coming of Christ isnt real! Nothing YEC teach would ever lead an individual into such theological errors regarding the Gospel and Salvation.
what has happened there is an innability to reconcile reality with theology. The problem is, even i face the impossibility of a man appearing in the clouds of “the big sky” and im YEC! Science presents dilemmas for both of us there, however, i dont go throwing out the parts of the bible that are inconvenient!
Israel was made up of humans.
And why would God want to turn them all into wimps?
It most definitely is – listen to Dr. Michael Heiser and others on the matter of which peoples were to be wiped out and which just defeated.
This assumes that education or rehabilitation are actual options.
The difference being that YEC drives people away from Christ in droves.
“IF”. And that’s where I make the case that the Bible doesn’t care about science – science isn’t part of its worldview.
1 Like