Do you think the "Clovis People" died in Noah's judgement?

Faith & Science Conversation
41

Tom, I can sympathize with you, although my situation is somewhat different than yours. I was raised as a Catholic, and, although we were not taught Biblical Inerrancy in parochial school, we were taught that it was wrong to question Church tradition and dogma. As an altar boy (acolyte) I enjoyed church ritual, and it made the sacraments more meaningful. Until I reached my teens, this was fine–I could ‘go with the flow’.

Upon entering a public high school at an early age (12) and choosing a science major, I wanted to develop any intellectual gifts I might have inherited, and began to read widely–including some books on the Church’s ‘Forbidden’ list (as I later learned). When I read about the heated debates between Pelagius and Augustine and between Erasmus and Luther, I formed a Worldview somewhat different than the orthodox Roman Catholic Church recommended with respect to Original Sin and Freedom of Will. Still, I could not bring myself to cast aside the Faith that got me that far in life and which provided such a fruitful guide for my Mom and other close relatives. Although labels often are misleading, I was, nevertheless, becoming a Christian Humanist–even though that term could be considered a oxymoron. (?) I certainly did not think I should try to act as “missionary” and convince my loved ones to accept my outlook on life. (When I told my Mom what I had learned in class about evolution, she replied [erroneously but effectively]: “You may have descended from a monkey, but I certainly did NOT.”]

When our paster (Rev. Don Webber) asked me and my wife (a convert to Catholicism) to become Eucharistic Ministers, I fully supported his choice for her, but I demurred, citing my current belief: Jesus’ presence in the host was purely spiritual, and that the term, ‘transubstantiation’ was misleading. I was quite surprised when he (with a Masters in Theology) said that was OK!

Tom, I can’t say if my experience has any relevance to your situation (the ‘identity crisis’ of reconciling Christian Humanist with BaptistChurch Elder), but if, after full disclosure, you are still accepted in that role by other church Elders, then go for it! I am pretty sure your congregation will not resent you for it. In my case, I am sure the parishioners that line up to receive the consecrated hosts from my hand have a somewhat different Faith than I do, but their simpler Faith (which I almost envy) does not seem to have been threatened by mine. And, the Good Lord knows, their Faith has buttressed mine throughout these last 40-some years.

May the good Lord continue to bless your search for a Truth that will enrich your life on this earth, and to those to whom you pass it on.
Al Leo

2 Likes
42

Wise words, Al, and thanks for sharing more of your story. I am afraid some Baptist churches may not be as accepting as your priest, but there is a broad spectrum of belief, so perhaps they will. I am a Baptist. deacon, and my pastor has no problem with me accepting EC, but Ikeep a low profile and do not address those issues unless asked.

1 Like
43

Thank you, Al. You have been an awesome encouragement.
Biologos is an true blessing.
Tom B.

1 Like
44

Yeah… inerrancy goes to far. It is too easy to shoot down. I think what we really want to say is that the Bible is trustworthy and that doesn’t require it to be without inconsequential errors – without errors which have nothing to do with what God is communicating to us. If you examine the letters of the Bible under the microscope then you find the lines are not straight, but does this change the letter? Of course not. So I suggest a step back even further to see the message rather than the details.

But that is failing to see the forest for the trees, because the people are just trees while the forest is God. Haven’t you ever had the experience when listening to someone (like in a sermon) and what they say speaks directly to what you have been struggling with? When they explain more, you realize they were talking about something entirely different. But does that really change anything. God uses all kinds of things and people to communicate to us and should we really let their flaws nor even their intentions get in God’s way? Or do we take the message that is for us because God is real.

Or the Bible is the word of God, written by God using people with flaws. The problem with the whole “inspired” route is the implication that it is so different from everything else, and I think that puts huge shackles on God. I think the inspiration from God pours down upon us in a torrent in a great many things. So saying the Bible is inspired seems like a rather weak claim to me. I think the Bible is more than that. It is the word of God. But no that doesn’t mean inerrant, but it does mean that nobody could have done it better and nobody should be altering the content to fix it. I would say that even the errors serve a purpose.

But not dictated… I agree there. This is not one person like Mohammed or Joseph Smith telling you he has a direct line to God. Instead what we see in the Bible is a collection of stories and writings by many different people over a long history with the voice of God Himself shining through. Thus it is not about having to believe any human being claiming to speak for God.

3 Likes
45

It’s an astounding claim. Being inspired (God-breathed) is what makes it the word of God.

46

What if what makes the Bible the Word is because it is objective? By what means do we differentiate between inspiration and our own personal spin on any topic?

I have nothing against theology, but even athiest can be theologians. So that may be one way to tell the difference. Can an atheist be objective when it comes to God?

47

That is nonsensical. Objective means the same for everyone. The Bible is anything but that, for people understand vastly different things when they read the Bible. Objectivity is an ideal to strive for and science achieves this ideal with written procedures which give the same result no matter what you believe.

No objective means to do that are generally available.

Science is based on objective observation, but life requires subjective participation. God is wholly in the latter category.

48

A good question, Tim. One we should ask more often. There is a lot of grey area in other related topics also. What about different translations? There is a lot of variation. How do you minimize the presumptions and and bias of the translators? What about textual variants? What do you do when scholarship defines the meaning of an ancient word differently? I think we have to get comfortable not knowing everything, and knowing some of what we think is right may be wrong.

1 Like
49

Thank you, Beaglelady.
People tell me I am throwing out the baby with the bath water. Jesus told the Apostles that they would be his witnesses, not write some infallible account of events and his teachings.

1 Like
50

Being a scientist, I always find myself “kicking at the poke”. It is good that you are thinking. Would it be better that you took a blue pill and could comfortably go back to thinking everything is fine? If we don’t look at ourselves, and how we affect our world, we don’t get better. I don’t think Jesus wants us to hide in a cave and block out the truth. But if you look at how Jesus typically responds to people who know what it is like to be handed the dirty end of the stick, you know that it is generally with some compassion.

The OT tells of the history of a people who God reached down to. We don’t see a lot of what the individuals did as good, not Abraham, not Jacob, etc. How much less the nation? Admittedly, Joshua and Judges and Kings cannot be all explained away so easily – God did apparently order these things. It leaves me uncomfortable too. However, these were also ancient times where there were no prisoners of war, no Geneva conventions (even in principle), and I am not even clear what level of a concept of mercy people had. That they appear maybe even boastful of their exploits is troubling. How much of it was God, and how much of it was them, I don’t really know. Nevertheless, regardless, we should not think that the concepts and conventions of war and ethical relations between races we have come to accept was similarly understood by people of that time, including (and especially) those who opposed Israel.

If any of it was really ordered by God, God is the only one who can explain it. At any rate, try to reconcile it also with the Jesus of the New Testament. The Bible is a history of the evolution of understanding about God. The God people follow in the Exodus is not the same one that is preached by Jeremiah, Isaiah, Amos, Ezekiel, etc. It is not the same exact God that was preached by Jesus. This reflects an evolution in our understanding of God, not the other way around. I think it continues to this day.

An unexamined faith is not really faith at all. If the truth didn’t matter to you, you would be far worse off. I hope you find your way through this and you come to a richer understanding of Christ and how he has suffered and died for the sins of the world that are manifold and unfathomable. He has taught us to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. I think it is the way to making the world better. I hope you will choose to follow him even in this journey through the valley of the shadow of death.

by Grace we proceed

2 Likes
51

Wow, humans are really conditioned to see their current state of affairs better than the past generations. The Roman Empire was the Empire of PEACE.

God is and will always be the same. It is how humans view themselves that evolves. I have not checked, but I hazard a guess that more humans have been killed in the name of God in the history of the US than the Hebrews faced in 1000 years. We have even gotten to the point where we sacrifice our offspring on the alter of expediency.

To say that we have figured out how to live in peace, and that there is no longer a spiritual battle between God and Satan is worse than sticking our head in the sand.

I am by no means perfect, but the reality of war is the same today as it always has been.

1 Like
52

The Bible is an expose of the (past and present) human condition with all her struggles; psychological and physical. It is interpreted as the Word of God because the people who’s spoken words were recorded for posterity believed the knowledge they had acquired was given to them by God. God being the source of all Knowledge. This is also meant by eating from the Tree of Knowledge.

53

I doubt they just believed. Unless one is an atheist or agnostic, then they experienced something. Not every one had contact with God, and the historical Jesus claimed to be God in the flesh, not that he just felt, believed, or guessed.

Since one cannot prove or disprove the atheist or agnostic position, it is more a hunch, than knowledge. While the burden of proof would be on Jesus and those who did experience God, you cannot just call it a belief. We can only accept they had an experience we have not had.

54

Of course it would be blunt to state all 'ancient knowledge was considered ‘Divine’ knowledge. But I would contend a great deal of it was considered so.

55

If we can get a better picture of the state before the Flood, it would help. If you compare eaeth with tbe rest of the violence in the universe, earth is rather tame. For instsnce, how long would humans last on the sun? Humans are so insignificant that there is a narrow state of existance they would even fit into. Thinking that humans could mess up their own environment does not follow since there are other factors beyond our control that could do more harm.

It is only in the way we behave that makes life difficult. Not what with do with or how we handle the resources we have. Even the earth can bounce back on it’s own without any human help whatsoever. Humans are just too proud to admit it is in the way they think and behave that is the problem. Has nothing to do with knowledge, education, or technology.

Before the Flood the majority of humans had direct contact with God, but yet humans as a group wanted nothing to do with God. The Flood changed all that and we had to start over with both agriculture and hunter gathering. Which one; was not a human decision. It was the geographical location that chose what humans had to do to survive. Religion should be humans relating to other humans in a heplful way, not a way back to God.

56

South American peoples have a rich set of myths of ancient cosmic impacts:

57

Short answer, no…