tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post869742918435461471..comments2024-03-25T14:27:40.121-05:00Comments on Heart, Mind, Soul, and Strength: Genesis, Evolution, and Entrenched Battle-LinesWeekend Fisherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10425001168670801073noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-28166588856912261232020-01-21T19:30:41.073-06:002020-01-21T19:30:41.073-06:00Part 3:
All that said, and it was fun to say, I r...Part 3:<br /><br />All that said, and it was fun to say, I really like your aim here, Anne. I agree. We need to appeal to brothers, not tell people they refuse to learn. I am a Fundamentalist at heart, and always will be. I want my brothers to play in this field and see what they see, not submit to my new insights and fundamentals.Kevin Knoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16788817477327510023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-55418345159702513712020-01-21T19:28:45.245-06:002020-01-21T19:28:45.245-06:00Part 2:
The question is still whether God is tel...Part 2:<br /><br /><br />The question is still whether God is telling history or literature, and we don't know the answer. We just don't.<br /><br />We know what Eve gives us that Pandora doesn't, but we want to know which Eve it is. What "Eve as literature" gives us that "Eve as miracle" doesn't is curiosity. If the Fundamentalists are right, we have nothing to learn about God. It's all there in the sacred words. We already know everything there is to know. If the Fundamentalists are wrong, then we grow curious why God dealt with us differently than we've always imagined. <br /><br />Why do we know the words God said to Cain? Why did he wait several hundred years, or thousands, to talk to Abraham? Why were the pyramids 1,000 years old before Moses ever saw them? Why did God care about Nineveh? Why did he bless Nebuchadnezzar? Why does he profess affection for Egypt? If we know God was embedding a message in these texts beyond that his caprice is beyond questioning, a message humans can learn in human ways, then we dig. If we think the message is "God can do magic so quit with your questions and your learning", then we've not really come anywhere since 1516 AD.<br /><br />I'm curious.Kevin Knoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16788817477327510023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-79282354557860429882020-01-21T19:28:20.728-06:002020-01-21T19:28:20.728-06:00Hello Anne,
What does Eve have that Pandora doesn...Hello Anne,<br /><br />What does Eve have that Pandora doesn't?<br /><br />I'll play!<br /><br />Assumptions: Homo sapiens have been around for 70,000 years, and about 4,000 years ago YHWH spoke to Abraham. Every story told before that moment is myth. And then I'll add one fantasy. I'll assume the author of Genesis was familiar with the story of Pandora, because the author was certainly familiar with many, many creation myths of his day.<br /><br />Pandora teaches us men were immortal, happy, and pleased the gods, as well as being pleased by them. She teaches us women are the source of all that's wrong with the world, and by her very nature she destroys every good thing while being irresistible. She teaches us the gods need us to be pleasant.<br /><br />Any corrective to Pandora would teach us men and women were created as part of one perfect whole, that they each played their part in breaking everything, and that both still exist in a way that pleases God.<br /><br />Pandora is false; she never lived and her jar never spilled evil into the world. Her story teaches us to treat each other in a destructive way, and more so the more fully it's believed. That makes sense, because it's a lie. On the other hand, if we know what truly happened to bring evil into the world, it will guide us to doing things in a constructive way. Truth does that. But it can't be merely supposed truth. Us believing falsehood with all our hearts won't help us. Eve brings truth.<br /><br />Beyond a doubt, the people who wrote the story of Eve never knew her. They didn't have the ability to relate her history accurately from their own experience. The author is counting on God to tell him Eve's story, so we're in no wise wondering whether we have a first person history in front of us. We don't. We have a truth told by God through a man.<br /><br />The question before the house is whether God told a true story that gives accurate history or true literature that gives accurate lessons. That is a new question that only came before the house a couple hundred years ago. Historical facts came to light then that make it near-impossible for the book of Genesis to have been written by Moses, and because it's near-impossible for homo sapiens to have a history of less than 70,000 years, and because it's near-impossible for the universe to have a history of less than billions of years. The facts are too many, too diverse, and too consistent to ignore.<br /><br />The higher criticism movement grabbed these new facts and with them tried to destroy faith. In the Fundamentalists' fight-back, we threw out the facts with the lies. We needed to fight back, but we needed to keep the facts. If the Fundamentalists can convince me they accept facts, and don't just go all-in on just so stories, I'll show an interest again. For now, I see them saying faith means believing any fact that doesn't align with their faith is not a fact. That doesn't work for me.<br /><br />The creation account makes the most sense as a carefully crafted rebuttal of all known, local creation myths. They believed chaos gave birth to the gods. God said he calmed the chaos and tickled the worst monsters. They believed the gods themselves were limited and limited each other. God said he was God alone. They believed the gods were abusive masters of unwilling slaves. God said he created humans for love and wished to enrich people for their own sake. There's no question, the account does counter-balance all the existing myths. We know this. It's not a blank history. It's a slanted history absorbing all the local beliefs and overturning them with prejudice.Kevin Knoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16788817477327510023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-82218306062008765282020-01-20T12:22:05.833-06:002020-01-20T12:22:05.833-06:00"People don't generally change their view..."People don't generally change their views unless they see a better one, and better is defined by what matters to them."Martin LaBarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14629053725732957599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-66605034259859769732020-01-19T10:56:38.681-06:002020-01-19T10:56:38.681-06:00"I've seen some people say that you can s..."I've seen some people say that you can still get all that from Genesis even if you think it's a myth. But that's not a convincing thing to say; claiming it's true doesn't make it plausible. There are unanswered questions about willingly embracing a myth, and those are part of the work that needs to be done to persuade people that it's a better view.Once you classify something as "myth", what is the rationale for taking it seriously?"<br /><br /><b>YECs are still going by the antiquated notion of myth. myth = lie. Once we abandon that that understand myth //=lie then they can start rethinking what it does mean. Creationists allow Sunday school to dominate their thinking. We have to tech them the rudiments of science.<br /><br />It's not about being more effective in reaching out to atheism it;s not about reaching YECs it;s about truth, we want to reflect truth not live in a world of imposed Sunday school fantasy.<br /><br />When they see opinion leads pushing evolutionary thinking they will pick it up. Apologists are pinon leads.</b><br /> <br />"Once you classify something as "myth", doesn't integrity demand an intellectual separation of sorts, an arm's-length dissociation from whether we let it inform our viewpoint?<br /><br /><b>Need to discuss what myth is. Accepting that Genesis creation story is myth does not mean accepting it on some other level it means understanding the the theological issues apart from the false history</b><br /><br />What makes the Hebrew myth cycle a better basis for a worldview than the Greek or Norse ones? <br /><br /><b>It's based upon theological views about the true God.</b><br /><br />To what extent can we be convinced that those worldview-points (above) are true in the sense of "related to the real world" if the genre is myth? <br /><br /><br /><b>Because myth does not mean lie. The underpinning theology is echoed through out the Bible and takes us to Christ </b><br /><br /><br />Do we believe that God was involved in the development of the myth? <br />These are not arguing-questions or rhetorical questions; I see them as to-do-list questions of things that need to be articulated well, clearly, convincingly before Christianity can regain a more widespread consensus. Right now the consensus of the pro-evolution side hasn't taken those questions seriously because those questions haven't really mattered to the pro-evolution side. But they do matter to the other side.<br /><br /><b>Those are answered throughout modern theology</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-8766523186925968392020-01-19T10:19:55.343-06:002020-01-19T10:19:55.343-06:00You are sort of approaching it like a public relat...<br />You are sort of approaching it like a public relations issue. I am not concerned with convincing YEC's. I guess feel like they are hopelessly committed to not thinking,<br /><br /><br />"There's a point that I want to ensure doesn't get lost: for many YEC's, the debate in their heads is often not between YEC and a retooled Christianity; it's between YEC and atheism."<br /><br /><br /><b>They are reinforcing atheism. They are conniving atheists that they are right,</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.com