You really would make a good YEC. Secular science, secular evolution, secular meteorology, secular cosmology, secular plumbing, secular cosmetology…
Why are they and you unable to make the distinction between science and faith, methodological naturalism vs. philosophical naturalism? Actually, we know why they can’t – they think they are being faithful to the ‘plain reading’ of Genesis, their eisegesis that ignores the ancient meanings entailed in preference for their superficial understanding, not to mention that they have to ignore the facts of physical reality. You, on the other hand, don’t have that excuse.
Exactly. Just like we remove his influence from the science of meteorology. (Do you?) It is too bad you do not know how to include God’s providence in your thinking, speaking of inclusion. It is very real and understandable to faith (think of Maggie’s wonderful sequence) as is his M.O. to anyone willing to admit the facts, but it is undetectable to science (way more than vague, to say the least ; - )!
Philosophical naturalism asserts that the natural world, as perceived by the five senses of mankind, is all there is
You are claiming that the supernatural controls nature (completely) although it is not visible (to anyone including science)
Your Divine Providence is the most extreme version of it to include control over every natural thing. And, no i do not subscribe to it. it is tantermount to Calvinistic predestination which I abhor.
I do not see God as havint the need to do what you claim. neither do I see it necessary for His providence. He has provoded a world He does not need to control its minutia.
Your friend was subject to special providence (individual attention).which, by definition is not “normal”
So, yes I understand your theology and I reject it.
I don’t understand… Why do Theistic evolutionists need to reconcile Einstein’s opinions with with anything? Since when has theistic evolution attributed any authority to Einstein over its beliefs?
One of the great things about science is that your beliefs do not matter. So there are great scientists who are Muslim, Hindu, Shinto, Taoist, and atheist as well as Christian. Why would that mean we need to reconcile the beliefs of these scientists with theistic evolution? It makes no sense at all.
Methodological naturalism does not require subscribing. It’s about methods, not philosophies, unless you have to ‘subscribe’ to following instructions. The words themselves should give you a clue. It’s about what words mean.
I’m sorry you do not believe in the God of providence – his M.O. is very cool, sometimes fun and good always results. It’s also too bad you don’t believe Proverbs 16:33.
Who says that I do not? I only reject your brand of it.
Quoting Scripture is irrelevant. We all know that Judaism supports your views and Proverbs is Jewish wisdom.
Your problem is that reality does not support your view. I have shown you that chance exists complete with scientific support. (Sceince ws enough to convince you of evolution).
Your view is only providential for the favoured few. Shame about the people dying because there is never enough rain, or in tsunamii, or hurricane or any other “natural” disaster.
If you actually read up on your view it would confirm that God has “allowed” Satan to reign and therefore relinquished the hold you claim. Now if you want to believe that Satan controls the weather, that would make more sense.
Scripture confirms Satan’s reign. Do I need to cite it?
That’s funny too, but more wryly. You have shown nothing except, yet again, that you do not understand the difference between science and faith. Yes, of course chance and randomness exist – scientifically. But not scripturally.
Yu cannot have your cake and eat it. Either chance exists or it doesn’t . And either science is right or it isn’t. You claim science for evolution. I claim science for chance.
I also showed you Scripture where chance exsted, but perhaps you “forgot” that.
We are not Jews. We do not follow Judaism. tennets. Claimiing Scrioture is no better than the YEC claims (but yu cannot, or will not see that) Paul endorses slavery, do you? (the Jews did, tempered by the Jubilee)
At what point do we change Biblical theology to bring it in line with modern culture? Is that right? Slavery is one, divorce is another, Gnederism and gay rights. Women not only speaking but in ordained office. Scripture has a great deal to say on all these. Perhaps you agree with it there as well?
You cannot hide behind Scripture. The understanding of Scripture is not defined enough or rigid enough. You are abusing it for your own benefit and self-righteousness.
Given that the YEC view rests on a total failure to treat the Creation accounts with respect by acknowledging that they are ancient literature using literary types quite alien to us and instead demanding that GOd have conformed to modern worldviews addressing science rather than recognizing that they are religious literature, this is humorous
Richard is indulging in his total ignoring what people have written here and making an assertion that is contrary to fact . . . again.
So he keeps coming up with “thorny questions” that aren’t to anyone but him.
Bravo!
If it weren’t for his regular denial that he holds to YEC, all the evidence would suggest he is.
That was the point of my question.
I included YEC because TEism seems to claim that secular science and God can coexist in theology…as Einstein and many other well know scientists all agree, it cannot and that is because theology falls apart the minute one attempts to turn significant parts of the Bible into what are essentially, fairytales (allegories of the Mosaic writings)
On the topic of SDA, not all SDAs are YEC. However, my understanding is that fundamentally, the SDA church is YEC. It would be very difficult theologically for a Sabbath keeping denomination not to be YEC.
YECism denies that God’s creation contains truth that ‘secular’ science can understand. Truth comes from reality – the reality of the data in the Bible AND the reality of the data revealed in nature. The two cannot conflict – if they appear to, then your interpretation of one or the other or both is error.
What does misinterpreting the scriptures have to do with science? I know YEC misinterprets the scriptures because they treat them like they’re supposed to be like an old-time almanac filled with accurate information about all sorts of things, but why would being a scientists require anyone to regard the scriptures as fairy tales?
I took many, many hours of science courses in university, and I never encountered any such thing as “secular science”, I just encountered science and it was taught the same by Agnostic, Atheist, Buddhist, Christian, Jew, or Muslim – as a human endeavor to learn and understand what the human intellect and senses (augmented in various ways) can discern about how the universe works.
Now if you have an instrument for detecting and perhaps measuring divine activity, then the term “secular science” would have validity as a label for those who reject the point of such an instrument, but apart from having one the term says more about the ones who use it than aboiut science.
LOL
The rabbis I knew at St. Louis University were most definitely “Sabbath-keeping”, and not a one of them would qualify as remotely YEC.
YEC does not misinterprete scripture…that is a scholarly proven fallacy. You will find almost no credible biblical scholars who agree with that claim…the reason why next:
When one interpretes the bible, one must start with the overall theme of the bible (why do we have the narrative in the first place)
What is the point of the crucifixion? Jesus died physically on the cross for a very specific reason…to save us from our sins.
Why is salvation from sin so important in the bible? The answer is really simple and its perfectly summed up in one text “For the wages of Sin is death” Romans 6:23.One cannot support the claim that this is only a spiritual death biblically. The reason why is absolutely obvious…Christ was incarnate, lived and died physically for the wages of our sins!
If we turn Mosaic writings into an allegory, we absolutely give credibility to the atheist view that the bible is full of fairytales. Might i also highlight at this point that the sanctuary service given to the Israelites was a reminder of the promise God made to Eve in Genesis ch 3:
15And I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your seed and her seed.
He will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel.c”
There is not a credible scholar on the planet who would attempt to claim Genesis 3:15 is not directly prophesying the Messiah!
It is false to claim that the sacrificial system only came into existence at Sinai…the narrative of Cain and Able proves that claim completely wrong! Might i also add at this point, one of the really important reasons for mankind having to sacrifice was also to remind them that the first record of death in this world was of God killing an animal (probably a sheep) in order to clothe Adam and Eve’s nakedness!
Genesis 3: 21And the LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and He clothed them.
This is a very important event as it illustrates very specifically that a separation from God causes nakedness and that in order to cover that nakedness, physical death occurs…in this case, the death of an animal. Hence the wages of sin is death also affects the rest of creation, not just mankind!
The 4th commandment is in direct conflict with TEism. It very specifically tells us God created the world in 7 days! By denying this, you are throwing out the commandments…that basically means you do not believe in the Bible.
I could go on with lots more resources citing the reason why YEC is paramount to the theology of the bible, however, unless you truly understand the overall world view of the bible, stay consistent to that theme, and then work inwards, you will simply never understand the issues TEism faces theologically. It is 100% untennable.
It’s actually difficult to find biblical scholars who agree with YEC, so I don’t know where you’re getting your information from. Or are you just operating from confirmation bias and only counting scholars who agree with you?
YEC is totally contrary to the ancient literature that the first Genesis Creation account is, either the “royal chronicle” or the “temple inauguration” – and when interpreting a piece of ancient literature you have to begin with what kind of literature it is; in the case of the opening Creation account in Genesis the first thing that is evident is that neither in the royal chronicle literary type nor in the temple inauguration literary type or for that matter in the powerful polemic that the account is, are the details meant literally.
And the polemical purpose raises a serious question: were the ancient Egyptians really that close to having it right?
I’m not interested in TEism, I’m interested in the text – and the text is not compatible with YEC!
Do you even know where YEC comes from? It certainly doesn’t come from scripture! Historically, YEC arose due to the rise of scientific materialism with its claim that in order to be true, a thing has to be 100% scientifically correct. It was that concept about truth that resulted in the claims that everything in the scriptures has to be 100% scientifically correct; this was just another instance of human philosophy being set above the scriptures, a habit that Christians have had down the centuries that has given rise to false teaching just about every time it has been done. All the great heresies came from trying to make the scriptures conform to some human philosophy, and many false teachings that don’t rise to the level of heresy. So YEC is in very bad company.
Yeah, both excrementum tauri and hevel havelim: this statement proceeds from total ignorance of how people in the ancient world thought.
Genesis 1 opens with a setting in the divine realm, turning Egyptian mythology/theology on its head by using the same elements the Egyptian story used and changing the meaning. There is nothing in the text that moves things away from the divine realm until possibly day four when the sun and moon – purposely not named! – are set in place, so the first three days would have been understood by every ancient listener as divine days. And given the literary type of temple inauguration, they would have continued being seen as divine days right up until humans were created.
No ancient listener would have had a problem with the idea that earthly days experienced by humans should take on the same rhythm as the divine days from the beginning of everything – that problem is an invention of modern humans who have failed to actually study the text and so have imposed a worldview from after the beginning of the industrial revolution.
So your false accusation fails: adhering to the Creation account as ancient literature is being faithful to the scriptures.
Talk about being provincial. And credible to whom?
That answers it nicely.
Sure, depending on what scholars (noting again that ‘credible’ is pretty subjective). But, speaking of sure, it sure doesn’t look like you noticed it was using metaphorical (as in allegorical ; - ) language. Oh no! Allegorical language! It must be a fairytale!
And you are still incapable of dealing with girdled rocks. There’s a reason.
I wonder how he deals with manganese nodules on the ocean floor – Their growth rate is on the order of a millimeter every hundred thousand years, so if “flood geology” is correct there shouldn’t be any larger than a tenth of a millimeter, yet nodules ten centimeters in diameter are common.
Even within generally evangelical approaches to hermeneutics, YEC willfully misinterprets some key scriptural passages.
There is no support for the idea of “kinds” as some sort of progenitors of species. The identification of Behemoth and Leviathan with dinosaurs does not stand up when taken in context. And the OT speaks much more of the Earth being flat than it does being young.
There are so many legitimate elapsed time clocks built in to the reality of the cosmos that God created it’s amazing the contortions YECs have to go to in their attempts to deny them. And then there are the ones they simply (double entendre intended ; - ) ignore. Have you ever heard of girdled rocks?
