Can a "True Christian" Believe in the Water Cycle?

[DeepShadow]

From Christian Evolutionist Tyler Franke:

"The Bible is clear and consistent: Precipitation comes from God alone, not some messy, unguided process of “evaporation” and “condensation.” See Deuteronomy 28:12, Job 38:22-30 and Psalm 147:8 if your faith needs a booster shot.

Even Jesus said so. In Matthew 5:45, he said, “God sends the rain,” not “Undirected physical processes like evaporation and condensation send the rain.”

And, really, what empirical scientific evidence is there that the water cycle even exists? Have you ever seen water evaporate? Have you ever seen it condensate in the troposphere? Have scientists ever created a rainstorm in their laboratories? No? THEN WHY DO YOU BELIEVE IN IT?

I’m joking here, but seriously, what is the difference? Why in the world is theistic evolution “idolatry,” but theistic water cyclism is A-OK? What is so wrong with thinking that the same God who uses a natural process to send the rain upon the earth, would also use a natural process when he filled this planet with life?

I'll just restate that last bit with some extra emphasis: "What is so wrong with thinking that the same God who uses a natural process to send the rain upon the earth, would also use a natural process when he filled this planet with life?"

And that's my question to any YEC'ers around here. Because the real conflict is not between science and religion. There are plenty of us who have both in our lives, quite comfortably. And it's really us that you have to answer to, for insisting on a distortion of scripture that trumps science, and then representing that view to the world as Christianity.

 

[Skwim]

'll just restate that last bit with some extra emphasis: "What is so wrong with thinking that the same God who uses a natural process to send the rain upon the earth, would also use a natural process when he filled this planet with life?"

Because the water cycle phenomenon doesn't present the problems to Christian fundies that evolution does to their Noah's ark story. It's why creationism exists: to explain away how Noah could house, feed, and care for the 8.7 million species that now populate the world. They didn't exist as such before the flood, but rather as a much smaller and manageable number of "kinds," whatever that is.

 

[Man of Faith]

In order for a Bible believer to accept evolution, they either have to accept that the Bible isn't true, or one can't tell what is literal as opposed to metaphoric. I accept neither. The whole Bible backs up the Genesis account of creation and the flood. Take away Genesis and there is nothing. There is no Jesus because his lineage is traced all the way back to the garden of Eden, even through Noah. There is no salvation because salvation comes from the second Adam and if there is no first Adam, there can be no second. Bible believers are confused and bullied into accepting a false religion of science.

 

[Ouroboros]

And that's my question to any YEC'ers around here. Because the real conflict is not between science and religion.d There are plenty of us who have both in our lives, quite comfortably. And it's really us that you have to answer to, for insisting on a distortion of scripture that trumps science, and then representing that view to the world as Christianity.

Interesting.

Actually, the Bible suggests there that Nature and God are the same (pantheism supports this).

 

[Ouroboros]

but rather as a much smaller and manageable number of "kinds," whatever that is.

The strange thing is that the last couple of weeks when we've talked about the Biblical kind, lions, tigers, and so on are grouped under "cat-kind", and wolves, foxes, dogs under "dog-kind". So did only one pair of cat-kind and one pair of dog-kind go on the arc? Would all birds be under "bird-kind"? If that's true, then why were there different kinds of birds on the arc if they all were the same kind? There's no clear distinction there.

 

[Ouroboros]

In order for a Bible believer to accept evolution, they either have to accept that the Bible isn't true, or one can't tell what is literal as opposed to metaphoric. I accept neither. The whole Bible backs up the Genesis account of creation and the flood. Take away Genesis and there is nothing. There is no Jesus because his lineage is traced all the way back to the garden of Eden. There is no salvation because salvation comes from the second Adam and if there is no first Adam, there can be no second. Bible believers are confused and bullied into accepting a false religion of science.

Only if you have to read everything literal. In a sense, literalism is as flawed as the incessant reductionism in science. It's the attempt to extremely look at something only in one way and block oneself from the ability to view it in any other way.

You can just as easy believe that eating the fruit and the fall came with the first humans starting to learn and share wisdom about the world. Before the first stick was made. Before fire was made. Before first hand ax was made. Humans were innocent and without sin. But when we started to control our environment, that's when "knowledge of good and evil" came into existence. Jesus saved us by showing us the way to reach back to the source, God, Nature in its purity, harmony, etc. And that's how you're saved. By reconnecting with the source of life (re-ligio).

Paul promoted the literalist view more than a spiritual view. The literalist view is the hydrogenated fat version of Christianity. It misses the point.

 

[LuisDantas]

In order for a Bible believer to accept evolution, they either have to accept that the Bible isn't true, or one can't tell what is literal as opposed to metaphoric. I accept neither. The whole Bible backs up the Genesis account of creation and the flood. Take away Genesis and there is nothing. There is no Jesus because his lineage is traced all the way back to the garden of Eden. There is no salvation because salvation comes from the second Adam and if there is no first Adam, there can be no second. Bible believers are confused and bullied into accepting a false religion of science.

There seems to be a third, very healthy option: acknowledging that the Bible is not about biology or archeology and there is no good reason to obsess with every single detail of it as if we could never, ever learn better.


Among other benefits, that approach avoids the thorny question of how come God gives us both the means and the incentive for investigating reality if he disapproves of us actually doing it.

 

[Tumah]

There seems to be a third, very healthy option: acknowledging that the Bible is not about biology or archeology and there is no good reason to obsess with every single detail of it as if we could never, ever learn better.


Among other benefits, that approach avoids the thorny question of how come God gives us both the means and the incentive for investigating reality if he disapproves of us actually doing it.

Although I do not agree with the OP whatsoever, I also don't agree with you. Your approach is answerable as illustration of another example of another "tree" one shouldn't "eat" from.

 

[Ouroboros]

Although I do not agree with the OP whatsoever, I also don't agree with you. Your approach is answerable as illustration of another example of another "tree" one shouldn't "eat" from.

Luis is right that there's a third way. You might not agree with the third way of thinking, but he's not wrong that there is a third way of thinking.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

From Christian Evolutionist Tyler Franke:



I'll just restate that last bit with some extra emphasis: "What is so wrong with thinking that the same God who uses a natural process to send the rain upon the earth, would also use a natural process when he filled this planet with life?"

And that's my question to any YEC'ers around here. Because the real conflict is not between science and religion. There are plenty of us who have both in our lives, quite comfortably. And it's really us that you have to answer to, for insisting on a distortion of scripture that trumps science, and then representing that view to the world as Christianity.

Fantastic OP!!!! :clap

 

[Tumah]

Luis is right that there's a third way. You might not agree with the third way of thinking, but he's not wrong that there is a third way of thinking.

I realize I was totally not clear there. I meant I don't mean that I don't agree that there might be an alternative way of thinking. I meant I don't agree with that his thorny problem is that thorny.

 

[LuisDantas]

So, Tumah, is it your understanding that God does not want us (or at least Orthodox Jews) to investigate certain things?

 

[Tumah]

So, Tumah, is it your understanding that God does not want us (or at least Orthodox Jews) to investigate certain things?

No, I wrote in the post write above you that I was really unclear. What I meant to say is that I don't agree with you that Scriptures doesn't have scientific information in it although I can't prove that. And also, even for the OP the thorny problem you present is not necessarily a problem for him as it can be explained away. But I don't agree with him either.

I didn't mean to say that G-d doesn't want us to investigate certain things. Although it could be that G-d does not in fact want us (OJ's) to investigate certain things. I just wasn't commenting on that. Sorry for being unclear.

 

[Ouroboros]

I realize I was totally not clear there. I meant I don't mean that I don't agree that there might be an alternative way of thinking. I meant I don't agree with that his thorny problem is that thorny.

Ah. Fair enough.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Interesting.

Actually, the Bible suggests there that Nature and God are the same (pantheism supports this).

So, when God created Nature (the heavens and the earth, animals, man, stars), he was what? Playing with himself?

Oh, and using pantheism to bolster such an argument is...not an argument. It's like saying "Modern scientific knowledge suggests God doesn't exist, and atheism supports this". Using one definition of God to provide evidence of the nature of God is just not an argument.

 

[Ouroboros]

So, when God created Nature (the heavens and the earth, animals, man, stars), he was what? Playing with himself?

LOL.

Oh, and using pantheism to bolster such an argument is...not an argument. It's like saying "Modern scientific knowledge suggests God doesn't exist, and atheism supports this". Using one definition of God to provide evidence of the nature of God is just not an argument.

Uhm... Okay.

You're probably right. I just can see what you mean right now. I'll think about it.

 

[McBell]

In order for a Bible believer to accept evolution, they either have to accept that the Bible isn't true, or one can't tell what is literal as opposed to metaphoric. I accept neither. The whole Bible backs up the Genesis account of creation and the flood. Take away Genesis and there is nothing. There is no Jesus because his lineage is traced all the way back to the garden of Eden, even through Noah. There is no salvation because salvation comes from the second Adam and if there is no first Adam, there can be no second. Bible believers are confused and bullied into accepting a false religion of science.

A No True Scotsman's fallacy supported with a false dichotomy held up on a slippery slope...

Is this the best you got?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

A No True Scotsman's fallacy supported with a false dichotomy held up on a slippery slope...

Is this the best you got?

It's even worst because Judaism works perfectly fine without those assumptions....

 

[Parsimony]

In order for a Bible believer to accept evolution, they either have to accept that the Bible isn't true, or one can't tell what is literal as opposed to metaphoric. I accept neither. The whole Bible backs up the Genesis account of creation and the flood. Take away Genesis and there is nothing. There is no Jesus because his lineage is traced all the way back to the garden of Eden, even through Noah. There is no salvation because salvation comes from the second Adam and if there is no first Adam, there can be no second. Bible believers are confused and bullied into accepting a false religion of science.

Argument from adverse consequences

 

[Falvlun]

In order for a Bible believer to accept evolution, they either have to accept that the Bible isn't true, or one can't tell what is literal as opposed to metaphoric. I accept neither. The whole Bible backs up the Genesis account of creation and the flood. Take away Genesis and there is nothing. There is no Jesus because his lineage is traced all the way back to the garden of Eden, even through Noah. There is no salvation because salvation comes from the second Adam and if there is no first Adam, there can be no second. Bible believers are confused and bullied into accepting a false religion of science.

Just wondering what your response is to the OP. Sure, accepting the water cycle doesn't necessarily effect the whole salvation narrative, as you believe accepting evolution would, but it still would be inaccurate according to the Bible. It would require taking a less literal approach to passages of the Bible which claim that God just sends the rain. Are you fine with that?