Creationism, whether it is young earth or old earth, has the same thing in common that they reject science in favor of reading Genesis as scientifically and historically factual. Belief in God as Creator is not the thing that sets them apart. Rejection of the theory of evolution is.
I believe in God, but I reject the pseudoscientific claims of Creationism as viable alternatives to the science of evolution. I find it to be a misguided path for faith to follow for a number of reasons. It very much brings to mind for me what Jesus said to Saul on the road to Damascus, "It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks".
I believe there is some true historicity interlaced in the stories carried along by a variety of storytellers throughout the years, and later captured by "filmmakers" (scribes), with pen and paper as the medium of the day for recording them. But my comment about the gospels themselves being parables, is just that. They are designed to tell a message, through its weaving together of the stories of Jesus, as a vehicle for his teachings.
That doesn't mean that Jesus didn't die, or wasn't believed to be raised from death by his followers. The story is in there to tell a truth, even if the details of the narrative may not have occured literally as described. That was not the point of them. They are not written as historical documents. They are written as vehicles to tell a message of meaning instead.
BTW, this is where that reference about the gospels themselves as parables comes from: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0061875708/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1
If you see it enhancing it then are you doing the same thing as me, which is accepting evolution as solidly reliable science, and let your reading of scripture be informed by that? What is your takeaway from what we know now about how life has evolved on this planet when you read Genesis? If it enhances it for you, in what ways has it changed how you understand the nature of scripture and God?
But why? Because you take literally that God formed man from dust, like a clay figurine and breathed life into it? I think that is a poetic expression for some grand Mystery, that is beyond imagination. Evolution to me, is a peek into that magic, or miracle of how God did in fact, create man from the dust. We are just a couple pounds of inexpensive minerals, when you drain all the water out of us! From dust, to dust, is not only a great religious metaphor, it's actually science!ButI would still hold to the position that man, as we know him today, was created from the ground and not an evolutionary process. Other humanoid looking people? Yes... but not man
If you accept evolution for other animals, then there's no reason whatsoever to just arbitrarily pluck one species out of the tree and declare, "but not this one". That lacks a certain integrity of mind for me. That doesn't match the science in any way at all, so it fails to be meaningful to me.
Now you have me intrigued. What do you mean historical data but not in the sense most might believe? A timeless, eternal history? That would be most interesting if you are.
I agree that we should try to consider multiple perspectives, such as the scientific perspective and the religious perspective, in weighing and considering the whole. But not in doing science. Science is only 1/3 of what we need to gain a holistic picture of things as human beings.
I do not want the scientist to consult with an oracle from God about science. Same thing with consulting with scripture in doing science.That's not doing science. I need what science has to say from its perspective, without influences from culture and religion skewing perspective.
Then we also need the spiritual perspective. We cannot take the spiritual perspective and say ignore science. That too is equally as myopic as the science-only perspective. The key instead is to let each domain of knowledge be held in balance with the others, letting them inform perspectives, but not dictate truth to the others.
You cannot take what the eye of flesh says and throw it out, i.e., denying the science of evolution in order to say the eye of spirit knows the truth instead. Each set of eyes, sees a different aspect of that Reality. I'm interested in the whole picture, which is why I accept the science which says that evolution is how things are created on this planet.
We see reality through the eye of flesh (empiric analytic perspective), the eye of mind (interpersonal, hermeneutic, interpretive), and the eye of spirit (gnosis, or divine spirit to spirit knowledge). We don't check in with the pastor at the church whether or not scripture confirms science, and decide from there whether we should believe science or not.
That is a making a category error. Science is not the domain of religion, nor is religion the domain of science. The ideal pastor, is one who considers all perspectives and balances them, without ignoring or disparaging the other perspectives, errantly claiming they can't be true because of how one thinks of things religiously, or scientifically.
Yes, science can do that same 'domain absolutism' as the religionist may be prone to do. It's a human thing. But rather than saying religion is wrong, or saying science is wrong, the balanced and reasonable approach is to consider the truth that each is presenting, without artificially cherry picking what you want and deny what you don't, and then take each of those truths together to help form an overall perspective. What do all these truths say together? That's balanced, rational, and not hiding from truth in pursuit of knowledge.
Interesting. These are terms which people use in lots of different ways. For myself, I see the soul as that which is uniquely "us", but beyond the mind and emotions. When we strip away all the volatility of that mind system, of ego and thought, and emotions, and all of that, the essence of who we are, the essential goodness is what remains. The "authentic" being, behind all the masks.
As for spirit, I view that as the animating force that permeates everything, body, mind, and soul. I would use spirit with a small s to describe what it is to the individual life form, be that a human or any animate life form, but Spirit with a capital S to describe the Divine which creates, upholds, and sustains all of manifest reality. "He upholds all things by the power of his word", for instance, I see as Spirit, or the Spirit of God.
