YEC and Christianity

[Autodidact]

To me, the YEC and the atheist say and believe the same thing--that if God existed, we would be able to see specific evidence of that in the natural world. For example, evidence that there was a flood, evidence of creatures poofing into existence fully formed, evidence that the earth is 6000 years old, evidence of the tower of Babel, etc. There are two different ways to deal with the reality that there isn't any such evidence, and the evidence is to the contrary. One is to become atheist, and the other is to become a deluded and confused liar who denies what's right in front of him or her.

A third option is to adopt a theology that allows for the atual evidence. This means you have to reject the God literally and specifically described in the Bible (or other books) in favor of a true creator God, way beyond our understanding. This requires faith that God really did create the universe and everything in it, so that, for example, if ToE is correct (which it clearly is) then God must have set everything up so that ToE would work. Such a God is not threatened by science, because anything whatsoever that science could or has discovered would have been created and provided by God. I think this is the only theology that is remotely rational.

One problem with such a theology is that it doesn't let you go very far in controlling other people's lives. You can't say, "I know that God doesn't want you to..." because of course you don't know any such thing. Any such God would be so far beyond, or maybe before, our tiny understanding, that there is no way you could know any more about what such a God wants than I do. In fact, if you think you do, you're more wrong than I am.

For that reason, I consider such a God to be irrelevant to my existence, and so I am justified in treating Him as non-existent, in an Occam razorish kind of way. I don't have a problem with people who have faith that there is such a God, as long as they don't lie to me and tell me that they know that his name is Yahweh or Thor, that he had a baby boy named Jesus or Krishna, that they know what happens when we die, or any baloney of that sort.

 

[fantome profane]

People that claim to be so ? Sure .... MiddleTownBibleChurch (YEC btw) for example when it comes to christians or zahirites when it comes to muslims.

I realize that people make that claim, but I find that whenever you examine that claim it turns out to be false. Basically what I am saying that when it comes to the Bible there are two approaches, you can pick and choose and admit that you are picking and choosing, or you can pick and choose and deny that you are picking and choosing.

I think thats difficult to answer to.
Theoretically many things are possible including a strict adherence to the literal text disregarding anything but it. After all if people archieve it to believe in an earth of an age that is not even a second in context to what science says the age is ... then why should they not widen that thinking to other aspects of their belief ?

And that is specifically what I am saying is not possible. The Bible as it is written is not nearly clear or consistent enough to adhere to in a “literal” way without applying a considerable amount of personal interpretation. In other words even those who claim to adhere to a strict interpretation still must pick and choose which parts to emphasise and how to interpret it.

 

[Luminous]

this is true, meaning is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

I don't believe anymore that there is even such a thing as "true Christianity".

I can understand that idea. Basically it contradicts however what orthodox religious people have to believe ... that there is one true path to God and many false ones.

Mathematics is very different from religion. You can't change the fact that 2+2=4.

I would not so easily say that. If for you (not you personally) the claims in a religion are fact then it is comparable. And since addition (as all other operations in mathematics) are initially DEFINITIONS it is of course easy to change these. You only have to change the related rest. It was us humans that defined that the addition of a negative number is equal to a substraction. We didn't need to do this because of some fact, we defined it this way. We could also have said that it would not be ok to add negative numbers, just as we also state that a division by 0 is forbidden (instead of declaring it to be infinite for example).

When I say leaving things out, I am quite serious when I say it should be done with extensive review and critical analyzing. I don't think it's okay to leave something out just after a first reading and an initial disagreement. We have brains.

We do have brains but in my view far too many people use it to adapt a written text to some perceived reality in order to preserve the text and stay with their faith.
Nobody in former (ancient) times challanged Genesis. It was established "fact" at that time. Now everybody does. How cruel of God to mislead so many people in former times buy being so unclear

If you came upon a book telling you the earth stood atop of a turtle, standing on another turtle and so on endlessly.... would you then say "oh this is meant metaphorically, i must see some inner meaning in it ... " or would you just say "sorry this is crap". If you do the later then you actually would have to do the same with the bible, the quran and the torah. The only reason you might perhaps not do it (apart of being a believer in a particular faith) would be "tradition".

I do not deny that people can also learn something from specific passages of books if they want to interpret them accordingly. However i claim that this is no unique feature of the bible (or another book), nor does it have anything to do with it being "true" and the word of God.

If you claim it to be true and the word of God then you cant so simply start interpreting it in whichever way you want it to sound at a particluar time without being inconsistent and breaking the supposed final truth of it. There is no conclusive reasoning possible for such a thing.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

I realize that people make that claim, but I find that whenever you examine that claim it turns out to be false. Basically what I am saying that when it comes to the Bible there are two approaches, you can pick and choose and admit that you are picking and choosing, or you can pick and choose and deny that you are picking and choosing.


And that is specifically what I am saying is not possible. The Bible as it is written is not nearly clear or consistent enough to adhere to in a “literal” way without applying a considerable amount of personal interpretation. In other words even those who claim to adhere to a strict interpretation still must pick and choose which parts to emphasise and how to interpret it.

Let me answer a bit differently ...
If what you say above is true, then the Bible was man made and people are lying to themselves because there is obviously no reasonable and conclusive basis that defines ones belief.

In other words ...
if it is not clear enough to be taken as it is and not clear enough to determine which passages are meant in exactly what metaphorical way ... then nobody can actually follow this religion really. Which would mean that Gods supposed perfect work is so imperfect that no man could reasonably claim to be a believer.... which renders God an idiot...

 

[fantome profane]

Let me answer a bit differently ...
If what you say above is true, then the Bible was man made and people are lying to themselves because there is obviously no reasonable and conclusive basis that defines ones belief.

Some people are lying to themselves, some are not. As I said - “you can pick and choose and admit that you are picking and choosing, or you can pick and choose and deny that you are picking and choosing.”

In other words ...
if it is not clear enough to be taken as it is and not clear enough to determine which passages are meant in exactly what metaphorical way ... then nobody can actually follow this religion really. Which would mean that Gods supposed perfect work is so imperfect that no man could reasonably claim to be a believer.... which renders God an idiot...

Or you could conclude that the Bible is not “Gods supposedly perfect work” but it is the imperfect work of imperfect men, yet can still be useful in some respects. It is possible to make this conclusion and still be a Christian.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

Some people are lying to themselves, some are not. As I said - “you can pick and choose and admit that you are picking and choosing, or you can pick and choose and deny that you are picking and choosing.”

I think one lies to himself in both cases.
In the second one he lies by not admitting his actions to himself. In the first case he lies to himself by admitting it but not seeing the consequences... namely that his belief has no solid ground at all.

Or you could conclude that the Bible is not “Gods supposedly perfect work” but it is the imperfect work of imperfect men, yet can still be useful in some respects. It is possible to make this conclusion and still be a Christian.

So God is not perfect either as he made such a book possible instead of revealing his own words ? Interesting idea ... i doubt however that this fits into the theistic world.

Coming to usefullness...As I said i think most things on this earth can be usefull in some respects. but i wouldnt call myself a physician just because i find something usefull in a doctors book.
I wouldnt call myself a dancer just because i find joy in it.
Likewise i see no sense in calling oneself a christian while at the same time reducing the book to nothing more than a "usefull book" made by "imperfect men". If this is what christianity is all about then any christian could just as well call himself muslim, buddist, jew or whatever else. No book without some usefullness, no book from anything else but imperfect men.

What truly seperates "the" christian then from others ?

 

[Riverwolf]

If you came upon a book telling you the earth stood atop of a turtle, standing on another turtle and so on endlessly.... would you then say "oh this is meant metaphorically, i must see some inner meaning in it ... " or would you just say "sorry this is crap". If you do the later then you actually would have to do the same with the bible, the quran and the torah. The only reason you might perhaps not do it (apart of being a believer in a particular faith) would be "tradition".

Neither of those two. I'd continue reading it, not believing it, but neither thinking that it's just a bunch of junk. Why?

Because I happen to love stories, and have written a few creation myths of my own.

I do not deny that people can also learn something from specific passages of books if they want to interpret them accordingly. However i claim that this is no unique feature of the bible (or another book), nor does it have anything to do with it being "true" and the word of God.

If you claim it to be true and the word of God then you cant so simply start interpreting it in whichever way you want it to sound at a particluar time without being inconsistent and breaking the supposed final truth of it. There is no conclusive reasoning possible for such a thing.

Okay, here's what I believe: it's not at all important what the author intended, but what the reader finds in it. I don't really care much that ancient readers of Genesis believed it to be a fact. I still read it because I think the stories contained in it are fun to read. I read it the same way I read any other creation myth, either ancient or modern.

 

[fantome profane]

I think one lies to himself in both cases.
In the second one he lies by not admitting his actions to himself. In the first case he lies to himself by admitting it but not seeing the consequences... namely that his belief has no solid ground at all.

Just because it is not based on what you think it should be based on does not mean that it has no foundation at all. You are only looking for what you expect to see. Try looking for what is actually there.

So God is not perfect either as he made such a book possible instead of revealing his own words ? Interesting idea ... i doubt however that this fits into the theistic world.

I think the “theistic world” is much bigger that the narrow viewpoint that you would have believe that it is limited to.

What truly seperates "the" christian then from others ?

That is a good questions, I do have some thoughts on the matter. But ultimately it is not up to me do decide who has the right to call themselves a Christian and who does not. And it is not up to you either.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

Neither of those two. I'd continue reading it, not believing it, but neither thinking that it's just a bunch of junk. Why?

Because I happen to love stories, and have written a few creation myths of my own.

Okay, here's what I believe: it's not at all important what the author intended, but what the reader finds in it. I don't really care much that ancient readers of Genesis believed it to be a fact. I still read it because I think the stories contained in it are fun to read. I read it the same way I read any other creation myth, either ancient or modern.

I understand your reasoning.
Of course there is nothing against a good fictional book. On can take whatever he likes and find wisdom in whatever he wants. After all even a 1999 hollywood film named matrix offered some spiritual guidance to those who wanted to see it.

Unfortunately some people claim about their books that they are not "fictional" but should be taken for real ...
Some don't only claim it, they demand from others to do that or to respect their ideas.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

Just because it is not based on what you think it should be based on does not mean that it has no foundation at all. You are only looking for what you expect to see. Try looking for what is actually there.
I think the “theistic world” is much bigger that the narrow viewpoint that you would have believe that it is limited to.
That is a good questions, I do have some thoughts on the matter. But ultimately it is not up to me do decide who has the right to call themselves a Christian and who does not. And it is not up to you either.

Of course i have no right to decide that. Neither have you to decide what I can decide I have the right to express my opinion, which I do, just as you of course. Now as for the rest i think you make concessions here that you wouldnt make in any other field of "knowledge".
If I were to follow the "bigger" world picture then frankly each and every person that believes in "some" teachings of "some guy named jesus" regardless of whether he really existed or not could call himself "christian". This of course would include even muslims.
And if that still is too narrow we just increase the christians definition to all those that "in spirit" follow some teachings of supposed jesus even if they didnt believe he existed up to even your average nonspiritual atheist who might find one or two statements in the bible or some other source ascribed to jesus which he finds worth following... and on we go ...
We end in an all encompassing religion called christianity without limits.

And when we look at history we find more or less exactly that evolutional trail of christian religion. The more man knew about the world, the more enlightenment came the wider the definition of each religion became throughout society.
What was once literal became metaphorical.
What once was the undisputed canon (well those that disputed it were killed anyway) suddenly becomes a "historical document" ....

I claim that in no field except religion would such a way have been followed instead of simply disarding the teaching alltogether.

Which brings me back to my mentioned opinion....

One may call himself what one wants ... doesn't make one what one calls himself.

 

[Riverwolf]

I understand your reasoning.
Of course there is nothing against a good fictional book. On can take whatever he likes and find wisdom in whatever he wants. After all even a 1999 hollywood film named matrix offered some spiritual guidance to those who wanted to see it.

Unfortunately some people claim about their books that they are not "fictional" but should be taken for real ...
Some don't only claim it, they demand from others to do that or to respect their ideas.

I just ignore them.

It's why I don't usually read commentaries, because I want to draw my own conclusions not polluted by someone else's. THEN I read their view.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

I just ignore them.

This is a luxury that not everybody can affort to have