PDA

View Full Version : Greg Laurie



whag
02-23-2016, 07:58 PM
When I drive, I tend to listen to conservative radio. I'm not sure why other than my CD player is broken and I find liberal talk radio a little more boring. I like to hear what's new in evangelical thought. Yesterday, I was tuned into pastor Greg Laurie, a popular Southern California evangelist who preaches at a huge annual evangelistic event called the Harvest Crusade.

In his sermon, Laurie mentioned Noah. Laurie said that the rain that caused the global deluge was actually the first rain that the earth experienced. He mentioned a water canopy. He was a crude literalist, IOW.

I was surprised that someone from the Southern California "Jesus movement" evangelistic tradition could really believe this. It reminded me that many Christian adults have a shallow faith and are vulnerable to doubt because they lack a sophisticated understanding of the real world and their own religion. I didn't see Laurie as a model of the Christian faith but, rather, someone to be pitied. I also felt a little bit of anger in contemplating the pedagogy of Laurie's crude evangelism at his Crusade. It occurred to me his ministry must hand out teleological resources to new believers that propagate bad ideas throughout the new Christian community. If Laurie's idea of teleology is taught to new believers, those believers are in danger of losing their newfound faith when they learn that YEC is false and biological evolution is true.

It's hard enough to believe without adding more burdens to it. If I was ever in the position to tell Laurie that, I would. I fear he'd be too entrenched in his literalism to understand what I meant.

I respectfully request that seer, shunyadragon, and Adrift not post in this thread.

rogue06
02-23-2016, 09:11 PM
The no rain prior to the flood is actually one that YEC groups such as AnswersinGenesis (AiG), Creation Minstries International (CMI) and the like have been actively discouraging. For example, CMI has a webpage called Arguments we think creationists should NOT use (http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use) where it is #2 in the "What arguments are doubtful, hence inadvisable to use?" section:


This is not a direct teaching of Scripture, so again there should be no dogmatism. Genesis 2:5–6 at face value teaches only that there was no rain at the time Adam was created. But it doesn’t rule out rain at any later time before the Flood, as great pre-uniformitarian commentators such as John Calvin pointed out. A related fallacy is that the rainbow covenant of Genesis 9:12–17 proves that there were no rainbows before the Flood. As Calvin pointed out, God frequently invested existing things with new meanings, e.g. the bread and wine at the Lord’s Supper.


Interestingly just above this is one concerning the water canopy:


This is not a direct teaching of Scripture, so there is no place for dogmatism. Also, no suitable model has been developed that holds sufficient water; but some creationists suggest a partial canopy may have been present. For CMI’s current opinion, see Noah’s Flood—Where did the water come from? (http://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter12.pdf).


I have to admit I'm not sure if the writer was showing a bit of wit or unintentional irony when he wrote "no suitable model has been developed that holds sufficient water." :smile:

whag
02-23-2016, 09:38 PM
The no rain prior to the flood is actually one that YEC groups such as AnswersinGenesis (AiG), Creation Minstries International (CMI) and the like have been actively discouraging. For example, CMI has a webpage called Arguments we think creationists should NOT use (http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use) where it is #2 in the "What arguments are doubtful, hence inadvisable to use?" section:


This is not a direct teaching of Scripture, so again there should be no dogmatism. Genesis 2:5–6 at face value teaches only that there was no rain at the time Adam was created. But it doesn’t rule out rain at any later time before the Flood, as great pre-uniformitarian commentators such as John Calvin pointed out. A related fallacy is that the rainbow covenant of Genesis 9:12–17 proves that there were no rainbows before the Flood. As Calvin pointed out, God frequently invested existing things with new meanings, e.g. the bread and wine at the Lord’s Supper.


Interestingly just above this is one concerning the water canopy:


This is not a direct teaching of Scripture, so there is no place for dogmatism. Also, no suitable model has been developed that holds sufficient water; but some creationists suggest a partial canopy may have been present. For CMI’s current opinion, see Noah’s Flood—Where did the water come from? (http://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter12.pdf).


I have to admit I'm not sure if the writer was showing a bit of wit or unintentional irony when he wrote "no suitable model has been developed that holds sufficient water." :smile:

I'm occasionally encouraged that AIG advises not to make some claims because there's no evidence for them. But then I realize ALL YEC arguments are "inadvisable."

37818
02-24-2016, 06:09 AM
The interpretation is made that there was no rain on the earth before the flood is based on interpretation of two scriptures.

". . . And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. . . ." -- Genesis 2:5-6.

". . . And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth. And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud: And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh. And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth. . . ." --Genesis 9:12-17.

Along with arguments being made to justify this interpetation in the mind of those who hold the view.

whag
02-24-2016, 08:41 AM
The interpretation is made that there was no rain on the earth before the flood is based on interpretation of two scriptures.

". . . And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. . . ." -- Genesis 2:5-6.

". . . And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth. And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud: And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh. And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth. . . ." --Genesis 9:12-17.

Along with arguments being made to justify this interpetation in the mind of those who hold the view.


It's mind boggling to think that some people believe *weather* began existing after human beings came into existence. It doesn't get much more anthropocentric than that.

Cow Poke
02-24-2016, 11:51 AM
I respectfully request that seer, shunyadragon, and Adrift not post in this thread.

This is about me, isn't it? :sad:

37818
02-24-2016, 12:11 PM
It's mind boggling to think that some people believe *weather* began existing after human beings came into existence. It doesn't get much more anthropocentric than that.

:huh: So you think *weather* means only *rain*? At issue is that YEC believe there was no rainy weather before that flood.

whag
02-24-2016, 04:26 PM
:huh: So you think *weather* means only *rain*? At issue is that YEC believe there was no rainy weather before that flood.

Do you know where groundwater comes from? The water cycle starts with rain, so it's almost as absurd to disbelieve in pre-anthropic weather as it is to disbelieve in pre-anthropic precipitation.

Are you YEC?

whag
02-24-2016, 04:28 PM
This is about me, isn't it? :sad:

You're nowhere near as annoying, even at your worst.

rogue06
02-24-2016, 06:38 PM
You're nowhere near as annoying, even at your worst.
I'm sure that you've succeeded in now motivated him to try harder :glare:

Faber
02-24-2016, 08:48 PM
In his sermon, Laurie mentioned Noah. Laurie said that the rain that caused the global deluge was actually the first rain that the earth experienced. He mentioned a water canopy. He was a crude literalist, IOW.


Lot lifted up his eyes and saw all the valley of the Jordan, that it was well watered everywhere--this was before the LORD destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah--like the garden of the LORD, like the land of Egypt as you go to Zoar. (Gen 13:10, NASB)

The Jordan River, the Nile and the Tigris-Euphrates Rivers have something in common: They flow through deserts and have a high flood stage in the early spring, when snow melts and, except the Nile, are during the rainy season upstream. The floods carry with them fertile soil which is deposited as the floods subside, leaving a narrow strip of fertile land in an otherwise desert-like region.
13572
The Mesopotamian Valley gets only about five inches of rain annually, nearly all of it in the winter, or from November to April, and nothing during the summer, which would normally be the ideal time to grow crops. If we understand the Hebrew eretz to mean land, limited to the local region rather than the entire planet, it could probably be said of that region, as we read in Genesis 2:5, that no shrub grew on the land, because God had not sent rain, at least not in the growing season. If that is the case, then what Genesis 2:5-6 is describing is no different from the present-day climate of the Mesopotamian Valley.

In Genesis 2:6, the word ed, translated mist, is found elsewhere only in Job 36:27. According to Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, its derivation is uncertain, but possibly from the Assyrian edu, meaning flood or mass of water. Knowing the perennial flooding situation in the Mesopotamian valley, that derivation would make sense.

Bible scholar Franz Delitzsch even suggested that the word Eden may have been derived from the Sumerian edin, a watercourse whose clay was used to produce plaster.

The presence of rivers mentioned in Genesis 2:10 which flowed from four tributaries is proof that there had been rain. You can't have rivers without rain.

The command of God to Adam, to cultivate the land, in Genesis 2:15, could mean the necessity to build irrigation ditches and dikes to hold back the floodwaters after the flood subsided. If that was so, we can say that the world's oldest profession is civil engineering.

The notion that it never rained anywhere on the planet Earth cannot be supported, and the idea of a canopy of water in the stratosphere which acted as a global greenhouse is nonsense.

I have a lot of respect for Greg Laurie and the work he is doing in promoting the Gospel, and I feel sorrow for the loss of his son in a tragic accident several years ago. But some of the theological comments he makes are simply off the wall.

And on the subject of Noah, nowhere does Scripture say that he built that ark in a desert.

whag
02-25-2016, 07:42 AM
The Jordan River, the Nile and the Tigris-Euphrates Rivers have something in common: They flow through deserts and have a high flood stage in the early spring, when snow melts and, except the Nile, are during the rainy season upstream. The floods carry with them fertile soil which is deposited as the floods subside, leaving a narrow strip of fertile land in an otherwise desert-like region.
13572
The Mesopotamian Valley gets only about five inches of rain annually, nearly all of it in the winter, or from November to April, and nothing during the summer, which would normally be the ideal time to grow crops. If we understand the Hebrew eretz to mean land, limited to the local region rather than the entire planet, it could probably be said of that region, as we read in Genesis 2:5, that no shrub grew on the land, because God had not sent rain, at least not in the growing season. If that is the case, then what Genesis 2:5-6 is describing is no different from the present-day climate of the Mesopotamian Valley.

In Genesis 2:6, the word ed, translated mist, is found elsewhere only in Job 36:27. According to Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, its derivation is uncertain, but possibly from the Assyrian edu, meaning flood or mass of water. Knowing the perennial flooding situation in the Mesopotamian valley, that derivation would make sense.

Bible scholar Franz Delitzsch even suggested that the word Eden may have been derived from the Sumerian edin, a watercourse whose clay was used to produce plaster.

The presence of rivers mentioned in Genesis 2:10 which flowed from four tributaries is proof that there had been rain. You can't have rivers without rain.

The command of God to Adam, to cultivate the land, in Genesis 2:15, could mean the necessity to build irrigation ditches and dikes to hold back the floodwaters after the flood subsided. If that was so, we can say that the world's oldest profession is civil engineering.

The notion that it never rained anywhere on the planet Earth cannot be supported, and the idea of a canopy of water in the stratosphere which acted as a global greenhouse is nonsense.

I have a lot of respect for Greg Laurie and the work he is doing in promoting the Gospel, and I feel sorrow for the loss of his son in a tragic accident several years ago. But some of the theological comments he makes are simply off the wall.

And on the subject of Noah, nowhere does Scripture say that he built that ark in a desert.

I like Greg, too. I find him charming, funny, approachable, and charismatic. That's why this is so sad. All his efforts to woo people to Christianity are in vain when he exposes himself as a literalist. That's repellent, not attractive.

Cow Poke
02-25-2016, 08:00 AM
You're nowhere near as annoying, even at your worst.

I love ya, man! :hug:

rogue06
02-25-2016, 08:04 AM
I like Greg, too. I find him charming, funny, approachable, and charismatic. That's why this is so sad. All his efforts to woo people to Christianity are in vain when he exposes himself as a literalist. That's repellent, not attractive.
It is only "repellent" if he were to insist that if you were to disagree with him on this then you aren't a Christian.

whag
02-25-2016, 08:58 AM
It is only "repellent" if he were to insist that if you were to disagree with him on this then you aren't a Christian.

There are lesser degrees of shaming a Christian other than saying "you aren't a Christian if you disagree with me." Even the worst of the anti-evos, like Ray Comfort, don't say that. That's why it's so pernicious.

It's a more subtle shaming than the cartoonish way you expressed it. No one really says that.

rogue06
02-25-2016, 09:03 AM
There are lesser degrees of shaming a Christian other than saying "you aren't a Christian if you disagree with me." Even the worst of the anti-evos, like Ray Comfort, don't say that. That's why it's so pernicious.

It's a more subtle shaming than the cartoonish way you expressed it. No one really says that.
I thought you've read some of Jorge's posts.

whag
02-25-2016, 09:08 AM
I thought you've read some of Jorge's posts.

Touché.

37818
02-25-2016, 12:20 PM
Do you know where groundwater comes from? There is a flood view of geology that holds there was large amounts of water in the pre-flood earth's crust.



The water cycle starts with rain, so it's almost as absurd to disbelieve in pre-anthropic weather as it is to disbelieve in pre-anthropic precipitation.OK.


Are you YEC?No.
From being a new Christian my view would be best described as OEC. In about 1968 I was persuaded to hold a globle flood view, which I have held for about 47 years. YEC influence. Yet I find find YEC on the whole untenable.

whag
02-25-2016, 01:12 PM
There is a flood view of geology that holds there was large amounts of water in the pre-flood earth's crust.

Is that your view?




From being a new Christian my view would be best described as OEC. In about 1968 I was persuaded to hold a globle flood view, which I have held for about 47 years. YEC influence. Yet I find find YEC on the whole untenable.

So you believe the whole world was once covered in water as high as Mt. Everest?

37818
02-25-2016, 02:00 PM
Is that your view?It has been. How do I prove that was never true?


So you believe the whole world was once covered in water as high as Mt. Everest?Not my view. But it is commonly believed 400 million years ago what is now its top was underwater.

Ï

whag
02-25-2016, 02:09 PM
It has been. How do I prove that was never true?

Read about aquifer geology.


Not my view. But it is commonly believed 400 million years ago what is now its top was underwater.


Mt. Everest is about 70 million years old, so it's not commonly believed that its peak was underwater hundreds of millions of years ago.

37818
02-25-2016, 08:56 PM
Mt. Everest is about 70 million years old, so it's not commonly believed that its peak was underwater hundreds of millions of years ago.http://climbing.about.com/od/Mount-Everest/a/Geology-Of-Mount-Everest.htm

And it is claimed the fossils found are from 400 million years ago. In any case, what was underwater is now found on top of that mountain.

whag
02-25-2016, 11:15 PM
http://climbing.about.com/od/Mount-Everest/a/Geology-Of-Mount-Everest.htm

And it is claimed the fossils found are from 400 million years ago. In any case, what was underwater is now found on top of that mountain.

Yes, what is now the peak of Everest was once a seafloor. But I wanted to know if you believed a global flood occured that covered the earth's tallest peaks.

37818
02-26-2016, 05:45 AM
Yes, what is now the peak of Everest was once a seafloor. But I wanted to know if you believed a global flood occured that covered the earth's tallest peaks.

When holding the global flood view, as part of that view, mountains as we now know them did not yet exist. Many Christians hold the flood was universal, not global.

whag
02-26-2016, 06:09 AM
When holding the global flood view, as part of that view, mountains as we now know them did not yet exist. Many Christians hold the flood was universal, not global.

Yes, it's often overlooked that the flood was an intense period of geological activity, not just a releasing of waters. Still, the evidence for that upheaval does not exist. The geology we see is best explained by short bursts of intense activity (landslides, volcanism, earthquakes) combined with long periods of erosion and tectonic movement. It's best to accept the best explanation, not ones fashioned by men to accord with their particular religious belief system.

Sparko
02-26-2016, 08:52 AM
Is that your view?Not such a ridiculous view. http://www.livescience.com/1312-huge-ocean-discovered-earth.html

37818
02-26-2016, 09:00 AM
Yes, it's often overlooked that the flood was an intense period of geological activity, not just a releasing of waters. Still, the evidence for that upheaval does not exist. The geology we see is best explained by short bursts of intense activity (landslides, volcanism, earthquakes) combined with long periods of erosion and tectonic movement. It's best to accept the best explanation, not ones fashioned by men to accord with their particular religious belief system.Yes. Supposing that this would rule out that universal flood, it not really needing to have been global to really have taken place, even as some have interpreted to it be global.

whag
02-26-2016, 09:07 AM
Not such a ridiculous view. http://www.livescience.com/1312-huge-ocean-discovered-earth.html

The ridiculousness of the view isn't that subsurface water exists but that it a) antedated precipitation and b) flooded the entire earth at least to the depth of the planet's tallest peaks.

ETA: much more has been discovered about subsurface water since 2007. You'll discover it's not in an oceanic state but rather locked up in rocks.

Sparko
02-26-2016, 09:38 AM
The ridiculousness of the view isn't that subsurface water exists but that it a) antedated precipitation and b) flooded the entire earth at least to the depth of the planet's tallest peaks.

ETA: much more has been discovered about subsurface water since 2007. You'll discover it's not in an oceanic state but rather locked up in rocks.And your problem is you are forgetting that God is all powerful and can do whatever the heck he likes. Objecting to miracles because they don't fit with your conception of physics is pretty ridiculous in itself.

Adam
02-26-2016, 09:41 AM
I don't recall that that is what Whag said.

Sparko
02-26-2016, 09:45 AM
I don't recall that that is what Whag said.It would help if you would quote what you are responding to.

whag
02-26-2016, 10:12 AM
And your problem is you are forgetting that God is all powerful and can do whatever the heck he likes. Objecting to miracles because they don't fit with your conception of physics is pretty ridiculous in itself.

If God liberated water molecules from subterranean rocks to flood the earth past the planet's tallest peaks, evidence of that would be found in the natural history record. If you're saying God has the right to erase that evidence, then we have nothing to talk about; everything is thus explained by goddidit, which is no basis for an epistemological discussion.

Sparko
02-26-2016, 11:14 AM
If God liberated water molecules from subterranean rocks to flood the earth past the planet's tallest peaks, evidence of that would be found in the natural history record. If you're saying God has the right to erase that evidence, then we have nothing to talk about; everything is thus explained by goddidit, which is no basis for an epistemological discussion.

Who said that is what he did? You are still trying to say God has to work through the laws of physics. The laws he created. As if God, once he created the universe is limited to acting within the limits he put on the universe. derp.

Sure, it is "goddidit" - we are talking about God DOING IT - Him creating a flood, or whatever he does in the bible. Miracles. The very definition of "God did it" - sheesh. :doh:

It is like arguing that God couldn't raise Lazarus from the dead because he would have decayed too much by the time God revived him and his brain would have been mush. Or that Jesus couldn't turn water into wine because water doesn't contain the correct molecules to create wine. derp.

whag
02-26-2016, 11:46 AM
Who said that is what he did? You are still trying to say God has to work through the laws of physics. The laws he created. As if God, once he created the universe is limited to acting within the limits he put on the universe. derp.

No matter how it happened, a global flood necessarily involves an inundation that would leave a physical imprint on the earth. Since that imprint is missing, you're essentially saying that God caused a flood by some mysterious means and then erased the evidence because God can do whatever he wants. That's as inarguable as claiming Allah split the moon in twain but the evidence of that division was erased because Allah can do whatever he wants. Derp.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina40928p14.htm




Sure, it is "goddidit" - we are talking about God DOING IT - Him creating a flood, or whatever he does in the bible. Miracles. The very definition of "God did it" - sheesh.

It is like arguing that God couldn't raise Lazarus from the dead because he would have decayed too much by the time God revived him and his brain would have been mush. Or that Jesus couldn't turn water into wine because water doesn't contain the correct molecules to create wine. derp.


The flood is described as being generated climatologically and geologically. That's physical and not the same as a miracle. Moreover, the issue here is trace evidence of the physical deluge on an entire planet, as opposed to miracles, such as a resurrection and one-time alchemical conversion, that we wouldn't expect to leave behind evidence. Derp.

Catholicity
02-26-2016, 11:48 AM
I like Greg, too. I find him charming, funny, approachable, and charismatic. That's why this is so sad. All his efforts to woo people to Christianity are in vain when he exposes himself as a literalist. That's repellent, not attractive.

Whag, I like Greg Laurie's preaching not because of his literalism (I vehemently am not a literalist and got into a nice short debate with someone whom I really admire as a friend earlier on this forum about it) but because of his sound ability to be faithful to Christ, open and honest. If I dismissed people because I disagreed with every little thought they had about non essential portions of scripture then I would have a real problem. You'll find quickly that Christianity is not about our belief in interpretations of ideas such as Noah's flood, but about Jesus.

Sparko
02-26-2016, 12:19 PM
No matter how it happened, a global flood necessarily involves an inundation that would leave a physical imprint on the earth. Since that imprint is missing, you're essentially saying that God caused a flood by some mysterious means and then erased the evidence because God can do whatever he wants. That's as inarguable as claiming Allah split the moon in twain but the evidence of that division was erased because Allah can do whatever he wants. Derp.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina40928p14.htm





The flood is described as being generated climatologically and geologically. That's physical and not the same as a miracle. Moreover, the issue here is trace evidence of the physical deluge on an entire planet, as opposed to miracles, such as a resurrection and one-time alchemical conversion, that we wouldn't expect to leave behind evidence. Derp.
Many YECs do argue that there is evidence for the flood. But I thought you were complaining about water being trapped underground?

What kind of evidence are you expecting? I know that parts of the USA (around Arizona, New mexico) were once part of an inland sea, but the only evidence we have of it are some odd erosions and fossils. If there were a world wide flood, it was very short term and would not have left any fossils or any erosion, so what kind of evidence are you wanting?

whag
02-26-2016, 12:26 PM
Whag, I like Greg Laurie's preaching not because of his literalism (I vehemently am not a literalist and got into a nice short debate with someone whom I really admire as a friend earlier on this forum about it) but because of his sound ability to be faithful to Christ, open and honest. If I dismissed people because I disagreed with every little thought they had about non essential portions of scripture then I would have a real problem. You'll find quickly that Christianity is not about our belief in interpretations of ideas such as Noah's flood, but about Jesus.

I think you misunderstand me, so I beg your indulgence here. I'm not saying that Greg prevents conversions because he holds a few weirdo views. Rather, I'm saying that his careless apprehension of reality reflects on his entire grasp of knowledge theory. It's my understanding that a theologian or any faith representative must be equipped with a sophisticated understanding of how things are known, so they can responsibly guide people to the kingdom with the least amount of friction. Basic belief being hard enough, that's his primary responsibility as a shepherd.

His inability to process reality is repellent to any smart skeptic. Imagine one of Laurie's impressionable congregants who might, after church, confidently repeat her pastor's climatological belief during an evangelistic conversation with a skeptic. Education would preempt that opportunity for the skeptic to embarrass her, possibly introducing a nagging doubt. For whatever reason, Laurie hasn't considered this.

It's irresponsible, especially given the low cost of educating oneself, which he's literally had decades to do.

psstein
02-26-2016, 12:30 PM
Regardless of what YECs want to argue, the flood is not really caused by rain in the sense we think of it.

The author of the flood narrative would've conceived of a multi-tiered universe, something like this diagram:

http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/308/OTcosmos.jpg

The flood was the "opening" of the heavens and the waters coming down out of it.

whag
02-26-2016, 12:47 PM
Regardless of what YECs want to argue, the flood is not really caused by rain in the sense we think of it.

The author of the flood narrative would've conceived of a multi-tiered universe, something like this diagram:

http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/308/OTcosmos.jpg

The flood was the "opening" of the heavens and the waters coming down out of it.

Surely they'd also have experience of torrential downpours (that cause flash floods) and also wellsprings. I don't think it's as simplistic as saying they distinguished the opening of the heavens from God using nature to inundate the world.

Jedidiah
02-26-2016, 01:06 PM
The author of the flood narrative would've conceived of a multi-tiered universe, something like this diagram:

http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/308/OTcosmos.jpg

Since the author was the creator, it makes no sense to claim that the ignorance of humans at the time means anything. Unless, of course, you discount the revelatory nature of scripture all together.

Jedidiah
02-26-2016, 01:09 PM
Nothing in the Biblical account says that this was a recognizably unusual rain.
Surely they'd also have experience of torrential downpours (that cause flash floods) and also wellsprings. I don't think it's as simplistic as saying they distinguished they opening of the heavens from God using nature to inundate the world.

whag
02-26-2016, 01:54 PM
Nothing in the Biblical account says that this was a recognizably unusual rain.

Except that it was worldwide and lasted 40 days.

Catholicity
02-26-2016, 03:03 PM
I think you misunderstand me, so I beg your indulgence here. I'm not saying that Greg prevents conversions because he holds a few weirdo views. Rather, I'm saying that his careless apprehension of reality reflects on his entire grasp of knowledge theory. It's my understanding that a theologian or any faith representative must be equipped with a sophisticated understanding of how things are known, so they can responsibly guide people to the kingdom with the least amount of friction. Basic belief being hard enough, that's his primary responsibility as a shepherd.

His inability to process reality is repellent to any smart skeptic. Imagine one of Laurie's impressionable congregants who might, after church, confidently repeat her pastor's climatological belief during an evangelistic conversation with a skeptic. Education would preempt that opportunity for the skeptic to embarrass her, possibly introducing a nagging doubt. For whatever reason, Laurie hasn't considered this.

It's irresponsible, especially given the low cost of educating oneself, which he's literally had decades to do.

Whag, I have indulged you now please indulge me. Please step out of the closed thinking you have and think about psychological schema development, and throw in a bit of Piaget and add the stages of Moral Development. Realize that not everyone reaches the most flexible stages for many reasons, and it can be brain functions, genetics, thought process, use of the brain etc. (I just had a refresher on development here too) for whatever reason Greg Laurie has understood this portion of scripture currently to the best of his ability. It could be that later in his life his own schema will expand and he will accomodate and assimilate the new data and be able to expand his moral and religious development to be more flexible. But most humans are black and white. For now this is the best he can do. Perhaps you could expand your own thinking and appreciate that this is where he is, Its not a lack of refusal to educate but part of the limitations of the human mind then. You don't know why, and neither do I. Rather than dismiss it as "on purpose" Tell yourself that "Mr. Laurie understands this to the best of his ability," and appreciate what you
like about him, as opposed to being critical of what you believe is the deficit. If Laurie's view of the flood doesn't fit for you then there are plenty on this forum who will be happy to give you a fresh non literal perspective on a non global flood Myself Rogue, Oxmixmudd etc. who are still Christians though I can appreciate myself the difficulty in encountering questions on the literalness of the Bible

Jedidiah
02-26-2016, 07:37 PM
Except that it was worldwide and lasted 40 days.

They could not know that it was world wide (I do not think it was world wide in any case - not as we would think world wide today.), nor could they know how long it would last.

Wildflower
02-26-2016, 09:22 PM
Whag, I have indulged you now please indulge me. Please step out of the closed thinking you have and think about psychological schema development, and throw in a bit of Piaget and add the stages of Moral Development. Realize that not everyone reaches the most flexible stages for many reasons, and it can be brain functions, genetics, thought process, use of the brain etc. (I just had a refresher on development here too) for whatever reason Greg Laurie has understood this portion of scripture currently to the best of his ability. It could be that later in his life his own schema will expand and he will accomodate and assimilate the new data and be able to expand his moral and religious development to be more flexible. But most humans are black and white. For now this is the best he can do. Perhaps you could expand your own thinking and appreciate that this is where he is, Its not a lack of refusal to educate but part of the limitations of the human mind then. You don't know why, and neither do I. Rather than dismiss it as "on purpose" Tell yourself that "Mr. Laurie understands this to the best of his ability," and appreciate what you
like about him, as opposed to being critical of what you believe is the deficit. If Laurie's view of the flood doesn't fit for you then there are plenty on this forum who will be happy to give you a fresh non literal perspective on a non global flood Myself Rogue, Oxmixmudd etc. who are still Christians though I can appreciate myself the difficulty in encountering questions on the literalness of the Bible

I remember what Whag said in the OP: "If Laurie's idea of teleology is taught to new believers, those believers are in danger of losing their newfound faith when they learn that YEC is false and biological evolution is true."

It's not a matter of a personal preference of ideas...its a matter of teaching something potentially disastrous to the faith. I know first hand the truth of what Whag is saying.

whag
02-26-2016, 10:42 PM
Whag, I have indulged you now please indulge me. Please step out of the closed thinking you have and think about psychological schema development, and throw in a bit of Piaget and add the stages of Moral Development. Realize that not everyone reaches the most flexible stages for many reasons, and it can be brain functions, genetics, thought process, use of the brain etc. (I just had a refresher on development here too) for whatever reason Greg Laurie has understood this portion of scripture currently to the best of his ability.

Maybe it's okay that everyone's cognitively wired differently. Granting that, why not also extend unbelievers the same latitude for not being able to process the stories in the Bible?



It could be that later in his life his own schema will expand and he will accomodate and assimilate the new data and be able to expand his moral and religious development to be more flexible. But most humans are black and white. For now this is the best he can do.

You're assuming that, but, like you said, we don't really know. Maybe he could do better and just doesn't try. It's entirely possible that he never tried to challenge himself and grow, which could help the people he tries to convert in his crusades. It's entirely possible he fears what his Christian peers (like John MacArthur) will think of him if he accepts the truth of cosmic and biological evolution.




Perhaps you could expand your own thinking and appreciate that this is where he is, Its not a lack of refusal to educate but part of the limitations of the human mind then.

Again, do you attribute people's disbelief of religion to the limitations of the human mind? I peg you as the sort of person who's more understanding of people's skepticism, knowing that not everyone has the mind for religious belief.



You don't know why, and neither do I. Rather than dismiss it as "on purpose" Tell yourself that "Mr. Laurie understands this to the best of his ability," and appreciate what you like about him, as opposed to being critical of what you believe is the deficit. If Laurie's view of the flood doesn't fit for you then there are plenty on this forum who will be happy to give you a fresh non literal perspective on a non global flood Myself Rogue, Oxmixmudd etc. who are still Christians though I can appreciate myself the difficulty in encountering questions on the literalness of the Bible

"If Laurie's view of the flood doesn't fit for you"

It's not about that. I'm not looking for Laurie to be better model for me. I dismissed his and others' infantile approach to teleology a long time ago. Rather, I'm observing the effect that his sloppy evangelism has on new believers he purports to care about. I don't think there's an excuse for his reckless statements given the cost of doubt. Doubt is costly, yes? He's not protecting his flock by repeating Ken Ham's comical view of the world and should be called out for it. I get the sense that he himself is protected from real criticism because he's kind of a charming celebrity-type figure within the evangelical world.

Anyhoo, we don't have to keep going back and forth on this. I understand you a bit more, and I think you understand me more, too. Surely you know I'm not advocating the guy's lynching.

whag
02-26-2016, 10:46 PM
I remember what Whag said in the OP: "If Laurie's idea of teleology is taught to new believers, those believers are in danger of losing their newfound faith when they learn that YEC is false and biological evolution is true."

It's not a matter of a personal preference of ideas...its a matter of teaching something potentially disastrous to the faith. I know first hand the truth of what Whag is saying.

Thank you. I have lots of secondhand experience with it. It's a real problem, and I know there are many other Christians who are annoyed that these ideas have permeated so deeply and perniciously.

Catholicity
02-27-2016, 05:42 AM
I remember what Whag said in the OP: "If Laurie's idea of teleology is taught to new believers, those believers are in danger of losing their newfound faith when they learn that YEC is false and biological evolution is true."

It's not a matter of a personal preference of ideas...its a matter of teaching something potentially disastrous to the faith. I know first hand the truth of what Whag is saying.
That's a completely fair observation. I have left more than one church and deliberately chosen not to be a part of several because I thought that their teachings would be disastrous to not just the faithful but to people who were seeking out the truth and raising their Children to be believers.

Maybe it's okay that everyone's cognitively wired differently. Granting that, why not also extend unbelievers the same latitude for not being able to process the stories in the Bible?
I would like to think that I try, :wink: May God grant me the patience that He has with all of his children.




You're assuming that, but, like you said, we don't really know. Maybe he could do better and just doesn't try. It's entirely possible that he never tried to challenge himself and grow, which could help the people he tries to convert in his crusades. It's entirely possible he fears what his Christian peers (like John MacArthur) will think of him if he accepts the truth of cosmic and biological evolution.Again, do you attribute people's disbelief of religion to the limitations of the human mind? I peg you as the sort of person who's more understanding of people's skepticism, knowing that not everyone has the mind for religious belief. That's possible too. I think there are a large number of reasons that people think and or believe the way they do, and I try hard not to judge. As to your last statement, I don't like to think of anyone as "lost" or "unchangeable" but either a bit "stubborn" or more "flexible" at least I hope not. :tongue: But I do understand that the reasons for a person being religious or areligious run very deep.








"If Laurie's view of the flood doesn't fit for you"

It's not about that. I'm not looking for Laurie to be better model for me. I dismissed his and others' infantile approach to teleology a long time ago. Rather, I'm observing the effect that his sloppy evangelism has on new believers he purports to care about. I don't think there's an excuse for his reckless statements given the cost of doubt. Doubt is costly, yes? He's not protecting his flock by repeating Ken Ham's comical view of the world and should be called out for it. I get the sense that he himself is protected from real criticism because he's kind of a charming celebrity-type figure within the evangelical world.

Anyhoo, we don't have to keep going back and forth on this. I understand you a bit more, and I think you understand me more, too. Surely you know I'm not advocating the guy's lynching.
I truly appreciate what you have to offer here. And I think we do agree. You are right in that protection of oneself does tend to be very important, and while its easy to criticize its even harder to reserve judgement. Personally I hope I don't make the call until I know more about Laurie from a personal standpoint


Thank you. I have lots of secondhand experience with it. It's a real problem, and I know there are many other Christians who are annoyed that these ideas have permeated so deeply and perniciously.
Agree here see above about my picky church choices.

psstein
02-27-2016, 03:18 PM
Since the author was the creator, it makes no sense to claim that the ignorance of humans at the time means anything. Unless, of course, you discount the revelatory nature of scripture all together.

Revelation was in language that people of the time could understand. Hence why Jesus' references to a literal Adam and Eve don't cause an issue.