Stones for Bread, Snakes for Fish

[Jaecp]

When I say "on the long run" I'm referring to hundreds and thousands of years in the future. We've accomplished so much in a relatively short period of time. I don't have faith science will figure stuff out, I'm thinking more along the lines of Ray Kurzweil.

Though, I detect a little joshing here, dunno, its freaking hot right now and I'm having trouble thinking.

[Ansgar Seraph]

Yeah, nice to see how you've misrepresented their position and turned it into a big, fat straw man. What they're arguing against is the notion that the whole of the universe, its origins and mechanisms, can be explained in wholly naturalistic terms where the universe is a closed box and not subject to any external influence. In other words, they're saying that the idea that it's possible for the universe to exist without God is incompatible with Christian theology. But of course an honest assessment and presentation of their argument doesn't fit your agenda, does it?

Yeah, we can see what kind of "raw honesty" you bring to the table.

The first genleman flat-out says that "macro-evolution" is a "philosophical view" which is not compatible with the Bible or Science. The second (I don't know which is Sproul) says that the "dominant evolutionary model is pure naturalism and materialism" and that "evolution is not compatible with Christianity, period."

I fail to see how Pai misrepresents the video. They are either purposely or negligently misrepresenting evolutionary theory and conflating it with naturalism. For the one who was teaching a philosophical college course, this is absolutely inexcusable.

—Sam

[Mountain Man]

Strobel's "Objection #3: Evolution Explains LIfe, So God Isn't Needed" in "The Case for Faith" deserves denouncing. It's a series of characterizations, undeveloped portrayals of evolutionary theory and a big heaping of Intelligent Design.

O.K., so let's assume you're right that it deserves to be denounced. That still doesn't get Pai "Too dumb to be a Christian" Geacademe even close to first based because you'd need to show that not denouncing it is having a widespread and significant negative impact on Christianity, something that Apple Pai With Extra Nuttiness has completey failed to demonstrate. All he can do is say, "LOL! His books are selling really well!" which I'm sure you'll agree is not even close to being a compelling argument.

And what the heck is with people acting like jerks?

Sometimes you just gotta drop the hammer on idiots like Pai.

[Jaecp]

Didn't that recently necro'd thread, the one of... mpb1 or whatever... show an example of this? A guy raised up ABeka style who then said "screw this, I'm going home" in essence?

Do you think that christian apologists who are spreading falsehoods are not harming your cause? Do you think its right that people do not point out these falsehoods because of, essentially, political style reasons?

Gotta say, there were a number of people on my boat like this, the ones who disbelieved science because their pastor said so. Honestly, a small speech (which I extrapolated into my "its not FOR you ~ science and religion" threads second point) on the benefits of science and how it worked together (it helped, as an object lesson, that we lived on an aircraft carrier) and various other minor bits.

[Ansgar Seraph]

O.K., so let's assume you're right that it deserves to be denounced. That still doesn't get Pai "Too dumb to be a Christian" Geacademe even close to first based because you'd need to show that not denouncing it is having a widespread and significant negative impact on Christianity, something that Apple Pai With Extra Nuttiness has completel failed to demonstrate. All he can do is say, "LOL! His books are selling really well!" which I'm sure you'll agree is not even close to being a compelling argument.

In my experience (and if we took a poll of deconverted Christians would probably be statistically apparent), it is a large problem for the Church. People are not only being taught poor science by their religious leaders, they're being taught that "if the Bible isn't true in Genesis, it's not true in the Gospels". And by true, they mean historically and scientifically accurate. When a large number of these folks learn the true weight of good science, what choice do you propose they really have? If you get thrown off the boat with a 100 lb. weight attached, the chances that you can float are slim.

It's not a fatal flaw in Christianity; I don't see Pai coming from that direction. It is a problem.

Sometimes you just gotta drop the hammer on idiots like Pai.

Then drop one of the bad words and get it off your chest; I can't see any utility or gentleness arising from habitual name-calling.

—Sam

[Jaecp]

Especially when, well, Pai is right, and trying to be nice to boot.

[Pai Geacademe]

Yeah, nice to see how you've misrepresented their position and turned it into a big, fat straw man. What they're arguing against is the notion that the whole of the universe, its origins and mechanisms, can be explained in wholly naturalistic terms where the universe is a closed box and not subject to any external influence. In other words, they're saying that the idea that it's possible for the universe to exist without God is incompatible with Christian theology. But of course an honest assessment and presentation of their argument doesn't fit your agenda, does it?

Yeah, we can see what kind of "raw honesty" you bring to the table.

From that Sproul article:

"For most of my teaching career, I considered the framework hypothesis to be a possibility. But I have now changed my mind. I now hold to a literal six-day creation, the fourth alternative and the traditional one. Genesis says that God created the universe and everything in it in six twenty-four–hour periods. According to the Reformation hermeneutic, the first option is to follow the plain sense of the text. One must do a great deal of hermeneutical gymnastics to escape the plain meaning of Genesis 1–2. The confession makes it a point of faith that God created the world in the space of six days. [emphasis in original, indicating these words are part of the Confession] (pp. 127–128)"

Theistic evolutionists like Craig should, of course, be appalled that Sproul accuses him, and all Christian theistic evolutionists, of playing "hermeneutical gymnastics." Dogmatists like Sproul must be directly challenged in public forums for Christianity to salvage its epistemological integrity. If it does not, it will continue to lose all respect.

Perhaps Craig chooses to turn the other cheek in the name of fraternal loyalty. Meanwhile millions of kids are being inculcated to believe this garbage. Doesn't he care about them? It appears that he doesn't.

Any way you look at it, it's a horrible game plan.

[Mountain Man]

The first genleman flat-out says that "macro-evolution" is a "philosophical view" which is not compatible with the Bible or Science. The second (I don't know which is Sproul) says that the "dominant evolutionary model is pure naturalism and materialism" and that "evolution is not compatible with Christianity, period."

Yes, like I said, they were obviously arguing against the point of view that it's possible for the universe to exist without God, which actually is incompatible with Christianity.

I fail to see how Pai misrepresents the video.

I fail to see how he hasn't. He twisted a few qualified statements and presented it as an anti-science rant.

[TheologicalDisc]

Then drop one of the bad words and get it off your chest; I can't see any utility or gentleness arising from habitual name-calling.

—Sam

would you tell Christ the same thing?

[Ansgar Seraph]

would you tell Christ the same thing?

If He were acting like this and I'd like to see the behavior modded, yes.

—Sam

[Ansgar Seraph]

Yes, like I said, they were obviously arguing against the point of view that it's possible for the universe to exist without God, which actually is incompatible with Christianity.

I fail to see how he hasn't. He twisted a few qualified statements and presented it as an anti-science rant.

No, they were conflating the issues for an uncritical audience. Zacharias' discourse about Intelligent Design was just icing on the cake. They unequivocally conflated evolution with naturalism and didn't give the slightest hint that there are ideas like theistic evolution, which would've taken two seconds to even give lip service to.

These men were not speaking in qualified terminology.

—Sam

[TheologicalDisc]

If He were acting like this and I'd like to see the behavior modded, yes.

—Sam

So you're saying that if you saw Christ call someone names you would correct Him? Are you aware the implications of this?

[Pai Geacademe]

No, they were conflating the issues for an uncritical audience. Zacharias' discourse about Intelligent Design was just icing on the cake. They unequivocally conflated evolution with naturalism and didn't give the slightest hint that there are ideas like theistic evolution, which would've taken two seconds to even give lip service to.

These men were not speaking in qualified terminology.

—Sam

The video is called:

Is Evolution Compatible with Christianity?

And the answer Ravi and RC gave was:

No, evolution isn't compatible with Christianity.

[Ansgar Seraph]

So you're saying that if you saw Christ call someone names you would correct Him? Are you aware the implications of this?

Think carefully about when and to whom Christ pulled out the vicious language; it's the people who were supposed to be caring for the law and the dwelling of God who incited His anger. That's my guide for who gets called a stinky-pants.

—Sam

[Mountain Man]

In my experience (and if we took a poll of deconverted Christians would probably be statistically apparent), it is a large problem for the Church.

And in my experience it's not. Isn't this a fun game.

Seriously though, every apostate I've come across has abandoned Christianity for emotional rather than rational reasons. I have never met one who conducted a sincere study of difficult questions and then deconverted because of it. It's always the case that the doubts and emotional turmoil come first -- usually because of some petty personal issue in the church -- and then any study they do from that point on is simply done for validation. Basically, they've already become apostates. They're just trying to muster up the courage to openly embrace it.

Look, if people are so rigid and inflexible in their thinking that something like scientific questions could cause them to become apostates then it was just a matter of time anyway, and if not that then it'd be something else, like maybe learning that the apostles didn't compose their gospels in the King's English.

It's not a fatal flaw in Christianity; I don't see Pai coming from that direction. It is a problem.

Well, that's your assumption at any rate.

Then drop one of the bad words and get it off your chest; I can't see any utility or gentleness arising from habitual name-calling.

Who says I'm trying to be gentle?