Mordy

Theistic evolutionist christians: is it an oxymoron? Are theistic evolutionists more decieved then fundamentalists? News at 11! This is the thread to discuss this.

What I want to get at now is How do christian evolutionists derive certain meaning from the source text (bible) and how do they determine authoratative christian doctrines if the whole bible is non-literal, non historical work and so are its characters? If TE's believe in god of the bible and believe they are going to live again, where did they get this information from, how did they determine its trustworthyness and how do they determine its authoritativeness?

Please if you take part: State your position on just what exactly in the bible is historical and what is not, and tell us your criteria on how you sort out what is history, what is doctrine, and what is not. How do you know something is to be read as written, or not?

someotherguy

If you're gonna ask that all participants in this thread answer the above question, don't you think it would be nice if you answered them as well? Quid pro quo.

I'm not even certain I have an opinion on all of them, but I will get back to you later. I need to take off for the moment.

Mordy

I approach the bible in as it's characters thought of it. Since without a historical jesus christianity falls flat, would you agree on this point? If jesus didn't exist, God can't be jesus or Jesus can't be God's son now can he? Jesus trusted the bible as a historical work (for the most part). I am not saying that the entire bible has to be 'literal' but there you have to justify this by comparing what the characters taught others and what they thought themselves in their writings.

Two major questions for TE's

1) What is sin? How do you determine its true definition? Are you certain? Do you believe in the authoratativeness of your definition of sin?
2) How did Sin come to exist in the world? Are the bibles characters teachings about sin Authoratative, yes or no?
3) Did physical death always exist? Or did physical death enter the world?
4) Was adam a real person?

anthrosciguy

"Read as written"? Do you mean "unquestioned"? If so, then nothing is to be "read as written".

(I also think that it's impossible for any human to be completely passive or objective in learning or reading, which I think you'd have to be to accept any work in a truly unquestioning "read as written" manner.)

Mordy

When the bible says "I am god there is none else" do you take that "questioningly" or unquestioningly?

When someone writes a message to save someone else, it is written to be clearly understood by the reader.

When you write something you intend it to mean what it says. i.e. when you go pull a novel off the shelf you don't question the definitions and meanings of authors words. It's taken as a given you've agreed upon a standard of discourse.

Stumpjumper

Again without getting into a history of the Canon, I can give you two examples of how the Bible does not have to be accepted literally. First, Jesus Himself reinterpretated the Bible in his time and showed the pharisees how their strict interpretaion was wrong and a disservice to man. So if Jesus interpreted the Bible in a less than literal context; I will not argue.

Second, early Christians debated whether to accept any Old Testament writing into the Canon. If they had not accepted Genesis would this discussion be under EVO/CRE?

SO, since your question pertains to what to accept from the Bible and what to reject. I will say that I reject nothing but interpret what I read from the point of view of what God would want me to read on March 17, 2005. You have no doctrine if you do not accept God. But if you accept God and the Bible to be the writings of inspired men of the past then there should not be a conflict.

PhilVaz

<< Theistic evolutionist christians: is it an oxymoron? Are theistic evolutionists more decieved then fundamentalists? >>

No they are less deceived. And I am one of those theistic evolutionists (or "evolutionary creationists"), becoming less deceived every day. Film at 11:30.

<< Please if you take part: State your position on just what exactly in the bible is historical and what is not, and tell us your criteria on how you sort out what is history, what is doctrine, and what is not. How do you know something is to be read as written, or not? >>

A little hard to do since its not spelled out in the biblical text what is historical and what is not. You'll have to pick a particular passage. Its mainly what scholars you read or which you want to believe. Its not that clear, although the Catholic Church has laid out some theological guidelines (the Catechism, papal encyclicals, etc).

But since you posted in the E/C forum, we can discuss that part. One can accept the science of evolution (modern biology, geology, etc) and still believe in God. God used evolution to create. That's your basic "theistic evolutionist" position. Science deals with the natural, religion the supernatural. The two intersect, but need not conflict. Stephen Jay Gould explained this with his NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria) principle in Rocks of Ages:

"....science gets the age of rocks, and religion the rock of ages; science studies how the heavens go, and religion how to go to heaven." And "I also do not understand why the two enterprises should experience any conflict. Science tries to document the factual character of the natural world, and to develop theories that coordinate and explain these facts. Religion, on the other hand, operates in the equally important, but utterly different, realm of human purposes, meanings, and values -- subjects that the factual domain of science might illuminate, but can never resolve." (Stephen Jay Gould, Rocks of Ages, page 6, 4)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (representing the other "magisterium") has similar ideas in paragraphs 159, 283-284, especially: "The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin...." (Catechism 159, 283-284).

There are plenty of theistic evolutionists around, read what they have to say. An excellent book is Perspectives on an Evolving Creation edited by Keith Miller, or the recent pro-evolution statement by Cardinal Ratzinger's International Theological Commission here (especially paragraphs 62-64, and 68 talks about God the primary cause using secondary natural causes to create). And of course, John Paul II, along with his 1996 pro-evolution statement, wrote this 20 years ago:

"Cosmogony and cosmology have always aroused great interest among peoples and religions. The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. The Sacred Book likewise wishes to tell men that the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as was taught by other cosmogonies and cosmologies, but was rather created for the service of man and the glory of God. Any other teaching about the origin and make-up of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven." (Pope John Paul II, 10/3/1981 to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, "Cosmology and Fundamental Physics")

There's a complete answer for you. Now pick it apart. :wave:

Phil P

Mordy

Ok so far you guys say this issue is so complex no one without a modern education can answer those questions. But that must mean that anyone claiming to be christian in the last 2000 years before modern science was well... not qualified to be christian.

Mordy

Why is getting into the history of the cannon necessary? If god guides and controls history (clockwinded and pre-calculated every move of everything in the uinverse) why wouldn't the bible be ready for consumption circa 2005? Is god not involved in the process of the transmission of his own message through time that we have to "go back" to what those people decided?

anthrosciguy

When I read a novel I don't assume it's a true depiction of actual events -- I'm pretty sure Harry Potter isn't biography and The Lord of the Rings isn't history. When I read a book of philosophy (like the Bible) I don't assume it's factually true either, and in fact neither do a great many if not most Christians. This makes sense since the Bible is internally contradictory on some facts, and just plain wrong on some facts about the world. People can, however, find spiritual or philosophical truths in books that aren't factually accurate -- in fact, that's a fairly common thing in books, even novels.