on polarization
---------------------------
from NYC answerman:
If I may attempt to summarize: One should have faith, but not only
faith. A
certain amount of rational skepticism is also necessary. Is this
something you
agree with? I believe this is a modern way of thinking. I also think it is
where "creation science" comes from. Creationism is an attempt to
rationalize
mythology. It's an application of modern logic to ancient folklore.
The problem
lies with the belief of Biblical inerrancy and what that means. Most
creationists I debate with seem to think that to doubt the literacy of the
Bible is equal to doubting God and just as damning.
------------
his last line is a theme i have been seeing expressed commonly and
strongly on the websites and on the boards by YEC. i am calling it the
polarization technique. the YEC have so managed to confuse the issue
of salvation with the issue of a literal hermenutic as applied
particularly to gen1-2 that they fall prey to the problem of loosing
salvation if the literalness of gen is weakened. you have only to look
at an essay at
AiG:http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v22n3_templeton.asp
to see that the fervor and general emotionalism with which they carry
on the discussion is the result of the fear that if you relax the
literalness of genesis you will end up like templeton----an atheist...
this so front end loads the discussion that they can not listen or
change their minds on the topic because their eternal salvation is
tied up with the interpretation of 2 chapters in genesis....sad
by so polarizing the discussion that there exists in many conservative
churches just two positions: the YEC and the atheist. thus making the
transition to oec positions tantamount to a desertion of the faith.
what probably began as a debate technic-polarization, is ending up as
a serious "backing up into a wall with no where to go" for the YEC.
they have aligned all the scriptural options to their position with
the devil-extreme polarization- so that now any of the membership is
pushed by logic all the way down the slippery slope to unbelief.the
issue could be a simple one of the age of the earth now ends up as a
discussion of the entire faith.....
there needs to be a way to depolarize the discussion, so people can
see the multiplicity of views on the subject of the age of the world,
while still holding to a high view of scripture, and with no
neccessity of deserting the faith because you would rather accept the
scientific viewpoint of an old earth. the problem is with such extreme
polarization it is logical for young inquirying minds to challenge the
young earth doctrine and because of the tie to the entire faith, the
next logical position is radical skepticism of the entire faith. they
dont have built in stopping positions like oec to halt the skepticism
at.....
in this way the yec polarization ought to increase the numbers of
people completely leaving the faith rather than moving towards a more
liberal church. itself a reflection of "dog bite me once-shame on the
dog, dog allowed to bite me twice shame on me". where logic has people
deserting the faith because they see that their extreme fervor in
gen1-2 was misplaced. therefore no fervor is indicated, rather than an
analysis of fervor in what.
richard williams
Thursday, January 30, 2003
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 16:28:26 -0000
From: "richard williams"
Subject: a thank you to kurt
i wish to thank kurt for the discussions he has taken the time to
write here. for as i reflect on the last few weeks i realize than he
has taught me more faster than i could have learned had i spent the
time i did here, rather reading.
i learned something of my commitments in the heat of argument.
1-i have a commitment just to general niceness. i can get upset when
called names but it is nothing like the deep sadness that i feel if i
have hurt someone else. i will beause of the time spent reading your
writings pay closer attention to the tone and choice of my words. so i
will not hurt others with my writing. -=civility=-
2-being here as strengthened my resolve simply to listen. to pay
attention to words then to the underlying concerns. reading a printed
book is certainly some one's words but it is different here where
there is a person today, now behind those words. utimately i would
desire to understand that person by listening.-=listen=-
3-but most important i relearned the essential lesson of "willing
suspension of disbelief". the idea that in order to learn you must
quiet the responses inside that cloud the listening process. that to
be willing to listen and to understand means running the risk of
changing your posts. it is this attitude of desiring to understand
that i will continue to make a priority knowing that God made the
universe and if i truely seek His face that i risk changing wrong
concepts and holding on to the true. -=be prepared to change=-
4-dorothy day the founder of the catholic workers had a mentor in the
person of Peter Maurin. i chanced across his book-easy essays- years
ago while avoiding studying and walking the stacks at the university.
his mantra was -=clarify clarify clarify=-....
richard williams
______________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 16:28:26 -0000
From: "richard williams
Subject: a thank you to kurt
i wish to thank kurt for the discussions he has taken the time to
write here. for as i reflect on the last few weeks i realize than he
has taught me more faster than i could have learned had i spent the
time i did here, rather reading.
i learned something of my commitments in the heat of argument.
1-i have a commitment just to general niceness. i can get upset when
called names but it is nothing like the deep sadness that i feel if i
have hurt someone else. i will beause of the time spent reading your
writings pay closer attention to the tone and choice of my words. so i
will not hurt others with my writing. -=civility=-
2-being here as strengthened my resolve simply to listen. to pay
attention to words then to the underlying concerns. reading a printed
book is certainly some one's words but it is different here where
there is a person today, now behind those words. utimately i would
desire to understand that person by listening.-=listen=-
3-but most important i relearned the essential lesson of "willing
suspension of disbelief". the idea that in order to learn you must
quiet the responses inside that cloud the listening process. that to
be willing to listen and to understand means running the risk of
changing your posts. it is this attitude of desiring to understand
that i will continue to make a priority knowing that God made the
universe and if i truely seek His face that i risk changing wrong
concepts and holding on to the true. -=be prepared to change=-
4-dorothy day the founder of the catholic workers had a mentor in the
person of Peter Maurin. i chanced across his book-easy essays- years
ago while avoiding studying and walking the stacks at the university.
his mantra was -=clarify clarify clarify=-....
richard williams
______________________
Wednesday, January 29, 2003
i'm listening to chinese love songs on monte jade, part of the live365 network. my mind drifts off to beijing. walking with alma south of our hotel along the pedestrian shoping mall whether we stood and watched the huge rubber bands yank 3 people at at time 4 stories up into the air. (i hope they aren't chinese rubber bands was all of our first thought)
it was what was across the street that interests me now. the roman catholic cathedral where the chinese converts held off the boxers during the boxer rebellion.
it's a beautiful building, locked, alone, sterile.
a sad wonder of the position of christianity especial one tied so strongly to anything outside of china, inside a secular culture. a museum, a masoleum, where you display the dead of the past, to sorrow, tearup; but where there are certainly no living answers.
contrast that to the huge buddhist temple just north of the zoo and panda reserve, where we ate a vegetarian meal that justin managed to negotiate. it was alive, bursting with activity. with a huge beautifully trimmed tree to sit underneath. what a difference people, their activities and beliefs make, even to an outsider who can't ask anything important of them.
it was what was across the street that interests me now. the roman catholic cathedral where the chinese converts held off the boxers during the boxer rebellion.
it's a beautiful building, locked, alone, sterile.
a sad wonder of the position of christianity especial one tied so strongly to anything outside of china, inside a secular culture. a museum, a masoleum, where you display the dead of the past, to sorrow, tearup; but where there are certainly no living answers.
contrast that to the huge buddhist temple just north of the zoo and panda reserve, where we ate a vegetarian meal that justin managed to negotiate. it was alive, bursting with activity. with a huge beautifully trimmed tree to sit underneath. what a difference people, their activities and beliefs make, even to an outsider who can't ask anything important of them.
the slippery slope to modernity
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
something that has been made apparent to me during the conversations with YEC, is that their major concern is with the problem of the slippery slope.
they see things happening in the society around them that they dont like, at all. their response is like the claim of a precusor golden age, how did we fall so far as to....
they then try to grab onto certainities, absolutes like an absolute literalistic interpretation of scripture. in order to have a rock to hold on to emotional, to avoid being swept down this slippery slope towards where they are certain there is great evil.
because their fundamental problem is fear of the consequences of particular beliefs; whether evolution, pluralism, cultural relativity etc etc. talking to them about the issues is almost irrelevant. for it is not really about evolution as a scientific theory, it is about the consequences of evolutionary thinking, the slippery slope to morality, anthropology, inerrant scripture, politics...etc
modernity requires a real high tolerance for uncertainity and ambiguity. i can remember the problems i had trying to absorb elements of physics. it semed like i was forever investigating paradoxes and keept trying to get a concrete example in mind to work with....
so perhaps the best tactic in arguing is actually top down where you look at the big issues that are those of real concern to the YEC, for they are not interested in a bottom up argument or they would have been persuaded look ago that the universe is ancient and the chinese didnt have enough time to walk from eden *grin* before carving cow scapula that are 5K years old.
all this scientific talk is just muddying the waters for what is the big issue is a fear that modernity will cause them to loose their faith in a literal gen1-2. which from there is all downhill to.....US.
richard williams
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
something that has been made apparent to me during the conversations with YEC, is that their major concern is with the problem of the slippery slope.
they see things happening in the society around them that they dont like, at all. their response is like the claim of a precusor golden age, how did we fall so far as to....
they then try to grab onto certainities, absolutes like an absolute literalistic interpretation of scripture. in order to have a rock to hold on to emotional, to avoid being swept down this slippery slope towards where they are certain there is great evil.
because their fundamental problem is fear of the consequences of particular beliefs; whether evolution, pluralism, cultural relativity etc etc. talking to them about the issues is almost irrelevant. for it is not really about evolution as a scientific theory, it is about the consequences of evolutionary thinking, the slippery slope to morality, anthropology, inerrant scripture, politics...etc
modernity requires a real high tolerance for uncertainity and ambiguity. i can remember the problems i had trying to absorb elements of physics. it semed like i was forever investigating paradoxes and keept trying to get a concrete example in mind to work with....
so perhaps the best tactic in arguing is actually top down where you look at the big issues that are those of real concern to the YEC, for they are not interested in a bottom up argument or they would have been persuaded look ago that the universe is ancient and the chinese didnt have enough time to walk from eden *grin* before carving cow scapula that are 5K years old.
all this scientific talk is just muddying the waters for what is the big issue is a fear that modernity will cause them to loose their faith in a literal gen1-2. which from there is all downhill to.....US.
richard williams
Tuesday, January 28, 2003
more on racism
gordon, my mom, my grandfather, were racists. i have on several occasions said things that reflected my upbringing and sounded racist. to those people that i hurt, i can onlysay i'm sorry.
i spent several hours reading the CI site
CI
i have an emotional matrix tied through my mom, years of waking up as a child and seeing the confederate flag over my head. i remember the goosebumps as an elementary school student and hearing dixie sung as the flag was raised. i'm a sucker for lost causes. after calvin my favorite theologian is robert dabney, whos book _defense of virginia_ is one of my favorite. and then there is gordon.
with all this emotional baggage, i approach the issue of racism and the issue behind it of slavery, like it is the minefield that will do me in.
the church in 1800 uniformally interpreted certain passages of scripture as supportive of slavery. the left wing that criticised this was primarily quaker. the interpretative principle is use literal, man-in-the-street understanding of a passage unless it is, for some good reason, not the right way to interpret it.
there are numerous places in the NT where paul speaks about slaves and slavery. he nowhere condemns it. therefore take those verses as defacto support of slavery.
but during the 1800's the church under pressure slowly admitted that it's stance on slavery was cultural, and in fact the church had no right to support slavery. the same thing occurred in the union of south africa over apartheid.
dabney defended the southern viewpoint, in particular the separation of the races from verses in genesis discussing the godly and the ungodly lines. where the rest of the church "lifted" the verses up to a different approach, dabney remained at the literal which supported his cultural determined view on slavery. i think this is dabney holding despite better principles in view, inconsistency.
but the CI folks are consistent. they continue to interpret verses as against what he terms Equalitarianism. a subset of their beliefs is the separation of the races. justification is the same verses as used to justify slavery, showing the supposed lower culture of the african races.
the issue is how to amend our hermenutic.
we start with the idea that the literal is to be preferred.
we kick it upstairs when we have to.
dabney didnt kick the issue of racism up stairs, but rather held onto it, using a literal hermenutic on the verses past its "pull by date"
culturally the CI, AiG, and many fundamentalist are direct heirs of dabney and southern culture. AiG consciously distances themselves from the CI and from the literal interpretation by reference to another set of verses that show the oneness of mankind. (i havent read kenhams books, this is just off the website)
the plain view of scripture is supportive of racism and of slavery, it is only by 'de-literalisation' or some other technic that we can understand these verses from a social mileui standpoint and say: i understand the scriptures appear to support slavery, but this is a cultural context not necessary for our time"
what we do is deny the applicability of these verses to our culture.
as a principle we all are "contaminated" by our culture. we read scriptures with eyes different than those to whom it was first written. the reason that slavery and racism is an issue as directed at AiG is that their literal hermenutic is not being applied consistently. they "pop up" the issues surrounding racism precisely for political social reasons.
they could not survive as a big spokesperson for the creationist if they were identified as racist. now i am not privy to any thinking at AiG, but the achilles heel of the fundamentalist movement as it grows out of the south is the incipid racism that it brings along. the pca is fighting it on several fronts as it grows out of the south into the west and northwest. people tend to be cut out of a whole piece of cloth, if we havent examined issues in particular we tend to assume them from our culture. race relations is an issue the the whole society has been aware of for 40 years, it is almost impossible not to take a stand somewhere on the issue.
AiG has because of their strong stand against racism distanced themselves from the CI folks and for that matter most of the pca people i know. they can only do so by changing their hermenutically principle to raise the plain meaning of certain verses into another plane.
this is exactly the same process the oec use to understand the creation week and similiar passages. the denial that the literal plain man in the pew technic works on these verses.
so this is the point.
dabney failed to change his literal interpretive principles.
CI consciously follow dabney and continue to hold to separation of the races, several verses in genesis are classic focus. AiG holds to the same hermenutical principles as does CI but they differ on this issue. they do so by changing interpretative principles.
but the hold issue on evolution and creation from the AiG is that this is accommodationist, capitulation to an unbelieving world. this process of theologizing is to be done without input from the world. scripture interprets scripture. science is not to influence theological principles.
but they, inconsistently as compared to CI, have modified their principles as applied to these verses. under political and social pressures that would destroy their ministry if they were branded as racist.
therefore racism as slavery before it is an issue where the world pushed the church into changing its interpretative principles, at least with respect to a few verses( i believe it was bigger than that but that is another discussion).
since AiG has modified the body of theology it is heir to, in particular, in order to be successful in the world. it has no right to insist that the verses in genesis for a 6 24 hour day be interpreted literally, since it is science not theology demanding the change.
there is another interesting issue here. is fundamentalism as we see it today, AiG in particular the heirs of dabney theologically? i need to look into that one, since my readings would have me believe that the fundamental theology is not reformed but arminian, not postmil but dispensationalist. i think of the pca as the successor of dabney and the theology of the old south. looking at the papers where the pca has stuggled with the issues of evolution and creation makes me believe that there are different hermenutically principles involved. the problem comes with the CI folks who are reformed, at least the several sites that i make reference to. there were others but their theology turned me off and i didnt continue to study them.
gordon, my mom, my grandfather, were racists. i have on several occasions said things that reflected my upbringing and sounded racist. to those people that i hurt, i can onlysay i'm sorry.
i spent several hours reading the CI site
CI
i have an emotional matrix tied through my mom, years of waking up as a child and seeing the confederate flag over my head. i remember the goosebumps as an elementary school student and hearing dixie sung as the flag was raised. i'm a sucker for lost causes. after calvin my favorite theologian is robert dabney, whos book _defense of virginia_ is one of my favorite. and then there is gordon.
with all this emotional baggage, i approach the issue of racism and the issue behind it of slavery, like it is the minefield that will do me in.
the church in 1800 uniformally interpreted certain passages of scripture as supportive of slavery. the left wing that criticised this was primarily quaker. the interpretative principle is use literal, man-in-the-street understanding of a passage unless it is, for some good reason, not the right way to interpret it.
there are numerous places in the NT where paul speaks about slaves and slavery. he nowhere condemns it. therefore take those verses as defacto support of slavery.
but during the 1800's the church under pressure slowly admitted that it's stance on slavery was cultural, and in fact the church had no right to support slavery. the same thing occurred in the union of south africa over apartheid.
dabney defended the southern viewpoint, in particular the separation of the races from verses in genesis discussing the godly and the ungodly lines. where the rest of the church "lifted" the verses up to a different approach, dabney remained at the literal which supported his cultural determined view on slavery. i think this is dabney holding despite better principles in view, inconsistency.
but the CI folks are consistent. they continue to interpret verses as against what he terms Equalitarianism. a subset of their beliefs is the separation of the races. justification is the same verses as used to justify slavery, showing the supposed lower culture of the african races.
the issue is how to amend our hermenutic.
we start with the idea that the literal is to be preferred.
we kick it upstairs when we have to.
dabney didnt kick the issue of racism up stairs, but rather held onto it, using a literal hermenutic on the verses past its "pull by date"
culturally the CI, AiG, and many fundamentalist are direct heirs of dabney and southern culture. AiG consciously distances themselves from the CI and from the literal interpretation by reference to another set of verses that show the oneness of mankind. (i havent read kenhams books, this is just off the website)
the plain view of scripture is supportive of racism and of slavery, it is only by 'de-literalisation' or some other technic that we can understand these verses from a social mileui standpoint and say: i understand the scriptures appear to support slavery, but this is a cultural context not necessary for our time"
what we do is deny the applicability of these verses to our culture.
as a principle we all are "contaminated" by our culture. we read scriptures with eyes different than those to whom it was first written. the reason that slavery and racism is an issue as directed at AiG is that their literal hermenutic is not being applied consistently. they "pop up" the issues surrounding racism precisely for political social reasons.
they could not survive as a big spokesperson for the creationist if they were identified as racist. now i am not privy to any thinking at AiG, but the achilles heel of the fundamentalist movement as it grows out of the south is the incipid racism that it brings along. the pca is fighting it on several fronts as it grows out of the south into the west and northwest. people tend to be cut out of a whole piece of cloth, if we havent examined issues in particular we tend to assume them from our culture. race relations is an issue the the whole society has been aware of for 40 years, it is almost impossible not to take a stand somewhere on the issue.
AiG has because of their strong stand against racism distanced themselves from the CI folks and for that matter most of the pca people i know. they can only do so by changing their hermenutically principle to raise the plain meaning of certain verses into another plane.
this is exactly the same process the oec use to understand the creation week and similiar passages. the denial that the literal plain man in the pew technic works on these verses.
so this is the point.
dabney failed to change his literal interpretive principles.
CI consciously follow dabney and continue to hold to separation of the races, several verses in genesis are classic focus. AiG holds to the same hermenutical principles as does CI but they differ on this issue. they do so by changing interpretative principles.
but the hold issue on evolution and creation from the AiG is that this is accommodationist, capitulation to an unbelieving world. this process of theologizing is to be done without input from the world. scripture interprets scripture. science is not to influence theological principles.
but they, inconsistently as compared to CI, have modified their principles as applied to these verses. under political and social pressures that would destroy their ministry if they were branded as racist.
therefore racism as slavery before it is an issue where the world pushed the church into changing its interpretative principles, at least with respect to a few verses( i believe it was bigger than that but that is another discussion).
since AiG has modified the body of theology it is heir to, in particular, in order to be successful in the world. it has no right to insist that the verses in genesis for a 6 24 hour day be interpreted literally, since it is science not theology demanding the change.
there is another interesting issue here. is fundamentalism as we see it today, AiG in particular the heirs of dabney theologically? i need to look into that one, since my readings would have me believe that the fundamental theology is not reformed but arminian, not postmil but dispensationalist. i think of the pca as the successor of dabney and the theology of the old south. looking at the papers where the pca has stuggled with the issues of evolution and creation makes me believe that there are different hermenutically principles involved. the problem comes with the CI folks who are reformed, at least the several sites that i make reference to. there were others but their theology turned me off and i didnt continue to study them.
my current ravings at rtb--
--- In RTB_Discussion_Group@yahoogroups.com,XXXX
wrote:
XXXXX you miss the point.
follow the thinking.
i have been reading AiG.
i come across exactly what you mention. the conscious differentiation by AiG from an element of traditional southern american cultural context-racism.
neat i think, how does he do it? distancing himself from the right wing of the same movement? i know from past studies in history that this is a big trick that i have never seen done successfully. i want to learn more.
so i go looking for the right wing southern folks. i know they are there, i've been there. so i find the christian identity folks and post their link to my first messages so you too can follow my reasonings.
so i renew an acquaintance with the issues of slavery in the south. find my old copy of dabney's books. and poof. what do i find: a consistent literal interpretation that focus's in on verses in genesis. as well as paul's generalized teaching about roman slavery.
nice. leads to the big question. AiG denies the applicability of these verses to slavery-racism etc. it homes in on acts and one race, one body. good thinking. that is the common church idea in america. it is however not the common cultural thinking in the south.
the problem is the hermenutic. literalness, plain teaching for simple folks, it is the hermenutic used until it is attacked from the left. under pressure the church reinterprets using a more sophisticate, more reasoned, less literal approach...why?
because the literal technic was shown to be wrong!!!!!!!!
just as i do not support slavery.......dabney did.
just as i believe the earth revolves around the sun
just as i deny the doctrine of the two swords.....formulated by augustine.
i think that the church, conservative, traditional, bible believing, will reevaluate its position on 6 24 hr day creation week, under pressure from believers who want to reconcile their deeply held scientific understanding with their likewise deeply held convictions that the bible is the very word of god.
that is my whole point.....
look at the CI, they sit in the same pews as do you, their hermenutic is a consistent literalism on an issue that you differ over.
kurt you have successfully convinced me that creationism is not a scientific movement, which like OEC was my viewpoint for 25+ years. it is a social political movement born out of american fundamentalism. the more i read AiG and the like(i know kenham is ozzy)the more this principle becomes the way to see the issues.
versus how i saw things when i started here. i thought creationist were interested in the scientific issues. the points where a difference in world and life view would be most obvious and more discussible.
nay. question assumptions. not work on the interpretation of the facts.
richard williams
--- In RTB_Discussion_Group@yahoogroups.com,XXXX
wrote:
XXXXX you miss the point.
follow the thinking.
i have been reading AiG.
i come across exactly what you mention. the conscious differentiation by AiG from an element of traditional southern american cultural context-racism.
neat i think, how does he do it? distancing himself from the right wing of the same movement? i know from past studies in history that this is a big trick that i have never seen done successfully. i want to learn more.
so i go looking for the right wing southern folks. i know they are there, i've been there. so i find the christian identity folks and post their link to my first messages so you too can follow my reasonings.
so i renew an acquaintance with the issues of slavery in the south. find my old copy of dabney's books. and poof. what do i find: a consistent literal interpretation that focus's in on verses in genesis. as well as paul's generalized teaching about roman slavery.
nice. leads to the big question. AiG denies the applicability of these verses to slavery-racism etc. it homes in on acts and one race, one body. good thinking. that is the common church idea in america. it is however not the common cultural thinking in the south.
the problem is the hermenutic. literalness, plain teaching for simple folks, it is the hermenutic used until it is attacked from the left. under pressure the church reinterprets using a more sophisticate, more reasoned, less literal approach...why?
because the literal technic was shown to be wrong!!!!!!!!
just as i do not support slavery.......dabney did.
just as i believe the earth revolves around the sun
just as i deny the doctrine of the two swords.....formulated by augustine.
i think that the church, conservative, traditional, bible believing, will reevaluate its position on 6 24 hr day creation week, under pressure from believers who want to reconcile their deeply held scientific understanding with their likewise deeply held convictions that the bible is the very word of god.
that is my whole point.....
look at the CI, they sit in the same pews as do you, their hermenutic is a consistent literalism on an issue that you differ over.
kurt you have successfully convinced me that creationism is not a scientific movement, which like OEC was my viewpoint for 25+ years. it is a social political movement born out of american fundamentalism. the more i read AiG and the like(i know kenham is ozzy)the more this principle becomes the way to see the issues.
versus how i saw things when i started here. i thought creationist were interested in the scientific issues. the points where a difference in world and life view would be most obvious and more discussible.
nay. question assumptions. not work on the interpretation of the facts.
richard williams
Monday, January 27, 2003
kurt in his message said rightly that the slavery issue was a misreading of scripture brought about by a confounding of unscriptural principle with the bible.
likewise the arguments about galileo revolve around unscriptural principles being confused with true bible values.
my point is that those untwisting, those clarifications that result in him believing as do i, that the earth is not the center of the universe, that the earth revolves around the sun. that man should not own another man, that the legacy of racism is wrong and ought to be fought.
these beliefs are the result of the world challenging the church to change its long held, tightly held, scriptural justified, hermenutically based beliefs. the church by re examing their position were charged with accommodationism capitulation etc. the same charges as you bring here. the same charges that the CI use against their foes.
the issues are not the same, but the way their defenders justify them even today are----
he bottom of the issue is however similar, the exegesis of particular passages of scripture being used to justify a belief at variance with the larger society. the church responds with a study committee to take up the issue(after all we are presbyterian*grin*). the BIG result being a change in the interpretation of key passages of scripture.
imho. this will happen in the conservative churches as well leaving behind a faithful remnant like the CI, who do not go along with the majority viewpoint. but for us they are living reminders of hard fought battles in the past were the church was deeply divided over the interpretation of scripture.
and that is my fundamental point, evolution like slavery is a big issue in the understanding of historical theology, where we look to see how the church modifies its most deeply held and long cherished beliefs under fire from someone, often external to the church itself.
ps....let the debate subside for a note....
thanks for the book pointer Christianity on Trial i ordered it, looks to be right on topic.
as an aside, we personally go through the issues of the day, like evolution, emotionally tied up in them. where analogies exist to past events where emotions arent so attached like to galileo, it is good/easier to examine. but where past battles are still being fought as in the issue of slavery and its aftermath racism. emotions are still to high to objectively see how things work sometimes. i do not mean to hurt anyone's feelings and i apologize if i do so inadvertantly. but with the issue still a live one in the church it needs to be looked at as instructuve on how the creation-evolution debate can be likewise solved.
likewise the arguments about galileo revolve around unscriptural principles being confused with true bible values.
my point is that those untwisting, those clarifications that result in him believing as do i, that the earth is not the center of the universe, that the earth revolves around the sun. that man should not own another man, that the legacy of racism is wrong and ought to be fought.
these beliefs are the result of the world challenging the church to change its long held, tightly held, scriptural justified, hermenutically based beliefs. the church by re examing their position were charged with accommodationism capitulation etc. the same charges as you bring here. the same charges that the CI use against their foes.
the issues are not the same, but the way their defenders justify them even today are----
he bottom of the issue is however similar, the exegesis of particular passages of scripture being used to justify a belief at variance with the larger society. the church responds with a study committee to take up the issue(after all we are presbyterian*grin*). the BIG result being a change in the interpretation of key passages of scripture.
imho. this will happen in the conservative churches as well leaving behind a faithful remnant like the CI, who do not go along with the majority viewpoint. but for us they are living reminders of hard fought battles in the past were the church was deeply divided over the interpretation of scripture.
and that is my fundamental point, evolution like slavery is a big issue in the understanding of historical theology, where we look to see how the church modifies its most deeply held and long cherished beliefs under fire from someone, often external to the church itself.
ps....let the debate subside for a note....
thanks for the book pointer Christianity on Trial i ordered it, looks to be right on topic.
as an aside, we personally go through the issues of the day, like evolution, emotionally tied up in them. where analogies exist to past events where emotions arent so attached like to galileo, it is good/easier to examine. but where past battles are still being fought as in the issue of slavery and its aftermath racism. emotions are still to high to objectively see how things work sometimes. i do not mean to hurt anyone's feelings and i apologize if i do so inadvertantly. but with the issue still a live one in the church it needs to be looked at as instructuve on how the creation-evolution debate can be likewise solved.
---
> Richard Williams has made a classical ploy of cheap rhetoric
> called "guilt by association", and has also distorted the real
> history.
>
--->i used a whole message to reply to the argument that this is guilt
by association arugment.
> astronomy. Then they used verses from NON-HISTORICAL books like the
> Psalms, which were NOT INTENDING to teach a cosmological view, to
> support this "science". And it "scientific establishment" of its day,
> the Aristotelians of the Universities, who first opposed Galileo, and
> the Church mistakenly followed their lead. So the lesson from Galileo
> is NOT that the church "wrongly opposed science" but that the church
> wrongly adopted the science of its day to interpret Scripture. This
> is all well documented at
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geocentrism.asp.
>
>
> And how can anyone blame a literal interpretation of the Bible for
> thinking that black people are the result of "the curse of Ham" WHEN
> THERE IS NO SUCH THING!! The curse was on CANAAN!. And in our
> experience, those who oppose inter-racial marriages are do NOT agree
> with the AiG/ICR view of Genesis, but many hold the Gap Theory. E.g.
> Bob Jones University, which until recently had a rule against inter-
> racial marriage, also refuses to say that the Gap Theory is contrary
> to Scripture. Also, note VERY CAREFULLY that people like Ken Ham use
> the grammatical-historical hermeneutic of Scripture as the CORRECTIVE
> to racist attitudes!!
>
this is EXACTLY my point. you are heir to a changing conception of
scripture. as am i. our forefathers justified slavery on biblical
exegetical grounds. we deny these arguments because the church has
responded to an external force......
in your words the church has capitulated to the politics of the
day(back in mid 1800's) and changed its beliefs.
look at the arguments from the right wing CI, they deny that the
arguments against slavery from the 1800's are valid. step back from
the heat of the argument and see this point.
in the early 1800's the church believed in justifying slavery with the
same assurance of correctness that you justify a 6-24hr creation week.
you are heirs to exactly the same hermenutic principles of literal
interpretation of genesis, this was their bedrock arguments. read
them. curse of ham. etc. they made the same arguments that the CI do.
to change our biblical based beliefs is CAPITULATION to an unbelieving
world.
yet the YEC, in the AIG site, distance theyselves from these
interpretations and REINTERPRET scripture. just as the descendents of
the boer struggle in the dutch reformed church. etc.
the church DOES change with response to the world. these undercuts
your arguments that a young earth is no more than an accommodationism
to science. it is a realistic reapprasial of our beliefs ABOUT how we
interpret scripture. just as our forefathers struggled with slavery.
as we today struggle with racism. the CI are CONSISTENT on the issue.
i am consciously not consistent, i do not believe as did robert dabney
and as do many reformed presbyterian conservatives in the south that
racism can be justified from the bible. but the BIG point is that they
are consistently applying the SAME hermenutically principles with the
same argument about capitulation to evolutionary thinking as you do to
me....except they(the CI) apply the label evolutionist to anyone who
disagrees with their interpretation of scripture. in particular to
someone like KenHam.
historical theology is the picture of a changing concept of an
unchanging god anchored to a book with a closed canon. the issue of
slavery provoked exactly the same responses from its defenders as you
level at me. capitulation accommodationism evolutionary
thinking......and you can read them on the CI site where people are
arguing exactly the same way as they did in robert dabney's day.
> Richard Williams has made a classical ploy of cheap rhetoric
> called "guilt by association", and has also distorted the real
> history.
>
--->i used a whole message to reply to the argument that this is guilt
by association arugment.
> astronomy. Then they used verses from NON-HISTORICAL books like the
> Psalms, which were NOT INTENDING to teach a cosmological view, to
> support this "science". And it "scientific establishment" of its day,
> the Aristotelians of the Universities, who first opposed Galileo, and
> the Church mistakenly followed their lead. So the lesson from Galileo
> is NOT that the church "wrongly opposed science" but that the church
> wrongly adopted the science of its day to interpret Scripture. This
> is all well documented at
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geocentrism.asp.
>
>
> And how can anyone blame a literal interpretation of the Bible for
> thinking that black people are the result of "the curse of Ham" WHEN
> THERE IS NO SUCH THING!! The curse was on CANAAN!. And in our
> experience, those who oppose inter-racial marriages are do NOT agree
> with the AiG/ICR view of Genesis, but many hold the Gap Theory. E.g.
> Bob Jones University, which until recently had a rule against inter-
> racial marriage, also refuses to say that the Gap Theory is contrary
> to Scripture. Also, note VERY CAREFULLY that people like Ken Ham use
> the grammatical-historical hermeneutic of Scripture as the CORRECTIVE
> to racist attitudes!!
>
this is EXACTLY my point. you are heir to a changing conception of
scripture. as am i. our forefathers justified slavery on biblical
exegetical grounds. we deny these arguments because the church has
responded to an external force......
in your words the church has capitulated to the politics of the
day(back in mid 1800's) and changed its beliefs.
look at the arguments from the right wing CI, they deny that the
arguments against slavery from the 1800's are valid. step back from
the heat of the argument and see this point.
in the early 1800's the church believed in justifying slavery with the
same assurance of correctness that you justify a 6-24hr creation week.
you are heirs to exactly the same hermenutic principles of literal
interpretation of genesis, this was their bedrock arguments. read
them. curse of ham. etc. they made the same arguments that the CI do.
to change our biblical based beliefs is CAPITULATION to an unbelieving
world.
yet the YEC, in the AIG site, distance theyselves from these
interpretations and REINTERPRET scripture. just as the descendents of
the boer struggle in the dutch reformed church. etc.
the church DOES change with response to the world. these undercuts
your arguments that a young earth is no more than an accommodationism
to science. it is a realistic reapprasial of our beliefs ABOUT how we
interpret scripture. just as our forefathers struggled with slavery.
as we today struggle with racism. the CI are CONSISTENT on the issue.
i am consciously not consistent, i do not believe as did robert dabney
and as do many reformed presbyterian conservatives in the south that
racism can be justified from the bible. but the BIG point is that they
are consistently applying the SAME hermenutically principles with the
same argument about capitulation to evolutionary thinking as you do to
me....except they(the CI) apply the label evolutionist to anyone who
disagrees with their interpretation of scripture. in particular to
someone like KenHam.
historical theology is the picture of a changing concept of an
unchanging god anchored to a book with a closed canon. the issue of
slavery provoked exactly the same responses from its defenders as you
level at me. capitulation accommodationism evolutionary
thinking......and you can read them on the CI site where people are
arguing exactly the same way as they did in robert dabney's day.
is the racism/slavery issue a guilt by association argument?
-=-=-=-=-no....and here is why-=-=-=-=
i agree with kurt that the racism charge against the YEC looks like a quilt by association argument but in this case it is not. here's why.
i have 3 distinct lines of thought, i am aware of, leading to the argument. 1-geocentric and christian identity form a rightwing to the YEC movement. they are generally the same people, bible belt US. cultural socially and historically form a social-political-cultural movement that has particular distinct viewpoints that differ from the general american-western consensus. the root principle is an adherence to a particular scripture hermenutic. it is this principle of literalism that i wish to critized/understand/discuss. i think if you read the link you will see exactly the same scripture arguments presented as proof of "separation of the races"
2-i was explicit that i got to the reasoning by reading AiG, especial KenHam's book on _one blood_. i view the book, i do not have a copy so i will gratefully desire specific info on how it handles the issue, as an attempt to distance himself and the YEC movement from the christian identity movement. this however is a political and sociology question, how do you handle the rightwing of movements that you are a part of. i repeat myself, but there is not difference in principles between the YEC and CI. they share a very important stance on the bible, the YEC can not disavowl the CI on principle without calling into question the hermenutic.
3-your argument directed towards OEC in particular is that they are accommodationist/capitulation to science etc. the issue of slavery in the western world is a very serious problem with how the hermenutic we hold is effected by the world. i really appreciate robert dabney's writings, i share his hermenutic in many ways, but he was deadly wrong on the issue of race, which he consciously derived from the scriptures. very much like his descendents in the south do today. so how i approach the issue was been modified by the world. it shows how the world impinges on my interpretation of scripture. this is the very issue i am trying to make understood.
we, the church as well as individuals, respond to the world. one way is to modify received understandings with regard to this new data. slavery, race, the conquest of the world by a few white christian nations of europe, are related topics to how history changes scriptural hermenutically principles.
Ken Ham from all indications on the AiG website is not a racist. i explicitly deny that i am using a "quilt by association" argument. but rather i am trying to explore how he distances himself from another community-southern primarily baptist but the site i linked to is presbyterian conservative, literal hermenutic, they use the idea of capitulation to the world to discribe those who would integrate schools and blame the entire progress on the acceptance of evolution. as does AiG and KenHam. where they explicitly blame the acceptance of evolution for the appearance of racism.....
race is a loaded issue, i have struggled with the issue for many years, but for the above reasons i believe that it is a very good way to show that accommodationism capitulation argument is deathly flawed in that this process of modifying your beliefs is not only necessary but historically done, you are a result of it. AiG and the CI sites come to different conclusions using the SAME principles on the issue of race.
it is a continuation of the argument that the church no longer justifies slavery on biblical grounds...why? the hermenutic with respect to those passages clearly justifying slavery have changed. except in the CI community. they are holding to the same principles as did most christians at the turn of the 18th c. it was in the 19th c that the antislavery movement modified scriptural principles and changed the world. the CI are consistent in their arguments that this represents capitulation to the world. go read the site. it is excellently written and presents a consistently literal scripture hermenutic, just as do the YEC. the community is the same as the YEC, the arguments, the tone, the desires, the whole thing reads just like the creationist sites. why? they are part of the same community, not a quilt by association argument where you tar one group for anothers sins. but they are the same community. the CI form the right more consist but politically incorrect wing of the YEC.
it is an extension of my desire to see how the YEC deal with dessenters in their ranks, i started with the geocentric. these rightwingers accuse the main bunch of YEC of selling out to the world on the issue of race, by extension and argument to slavery. and furthermore they, the CI, blame evolutionary thinking as the culprit!!!!
i will ask again, go read their site. see how the arguments against integration, against equalitarism, against evolution are the same as the YEC.
-=-=-=-=-no....and here is why-=-=-=-=
i agree with kurt that the racism charge against the YEC looks like a quilt by association argument but in this case it is not. here's why.
i have 3 distinct lines of thought, i am aware of, leading to the argument. 1-geocentric and christian identity form a rightwing to the YEC movement. they are generally the same people, bible belt US. cultural socially and historically form a social-political-cultural movement that has particular distinct viewpoints that differ from the general american-western consensus. the root principle is an adherence to a particular scripture hermenutic. it is this principle of literalism that i wish to critized/understand/discuss. i think if you read the link you will see exactly the same scripture arguments presented as proof of "separation of the races"
2-i was explicit that i got to the reasoning by reading AiG, especial KenHam's book on _one blood_. i view the book, i do not have a copy so i will gratefully desire specific info on how it handles the issue, as an attempt to distance himself and the YEC movement from the christian identity movement. this however is a political and sociology question, how do you handle the rightwing of movements that you are a part of. i repeat myself, but there is not difference in principles between the YEC and CI. they share a very important stance on the bible, the YEC can not disavowl the CI on principle without calling into question the hermenutic.
3-your argument directed towards OEC in particular is that they are accommodationist/capitulation to science etc. the issue of slavery in the western world is a very serious problem with how the hermenutic we hold is effected by the world. i really appreciate robert dabney's writings, i share his hermenutic in many ways, but he was deadly wrong on the issue of race, which he consciously derived from the scriptures. very much like his descendents in the south do today. so how i approach the issue was been modified by the world. it shows how the world impinges on my interpretation of scripture. this is the very issue i am trying to make understood.
we, the church as well as individuals, respond to the world. one way is to modify received understandings with regard to this new data. slavery, race, the conquest of the world by a few white christian nations of europe, are related topics to how history changes scriptural hermenutically principles.
Ken Ham from all indications on the AiG website is not a racist. i explicitly deny that i am using a "quilt by association" argument. but rather i am trying to explore how he distances himself from another community-southern primarily baptist but the site i linked to is presbyterian conservative, literal hermenutic, they use the idea of capitulation to the world to discribe those who would integrate schools and blame the entire progress on the acceptance of evolution. as does AiG and KenHam. where they explicitly blame the acceptance of evolution for the appearance of racism.....
race is a loaded issue, i have struggled with the issue for many years, but for the above reasons i believe that it is a very good way to show that accommodationism capitulation argument is deathly flawed in that this process of modifying your beliefs is not only necessary but historically done, you are a result of it. AiG and the CI sites come to different conclusions using the SAME principles on the issue of race.
it is a continuation of the argument that the church no longer justifies slavery on biblical grounds...why? the hermenutic with respect to those passages clearly justifying slavery have changed. except in the CI community. they are holding to the same principles as did most christians at the turn of the 18th c. it was in the 19th c that the antislavery movement modified scriptural principles and changed the world. the CI are consistent in their arguments that this represents capitulation to the world. go read the site. it is excellently written and presents a consistently literal scripture hermenutic, just as do the YEC. the community is the same as the YEC, the arguments, the tone, the desires, the whole thing reads just like the creationist sites. why? they are part of the same community, not a quilt by association argument where you tar one group for anothers sins. but they are the same community. the CI form the right more consist but politically incorrect wing of the YEC.
it is an extension of my desire to see how the YEC deal with dessenters in their ranks, i started with the geocentric. these rightwingers accuse the main bunch of YEC of selling out to the world on the issue of race, by extension and argument to slavery. and furthermore they, the CI, blame evolutionary thinking as the culprit!!!!
i will ask again, go read their site. see how the arguments against integration, against equalitarism, against evolution are the same as the YEC.
Sunday, January 26, 2003
reconciliation accommodationism interesting words often used by the YEC in their attacks on the OEC..........yet another example of how the YEC treat their right wing---christian identity movement and the old south.
a defense of virginia and through her the south
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
this short essay is dedicated to mr. crowder and mrs. bright; if i could, i would ask for your forgiveness and understanding. and say thank you for your kind faces are those i see when i think about the issue of racism........
-=-=-=-
defending the indefensible
in the world of lost causes the american south must certainly make the top ten. my folks sent me summers to very rural very racist tupelo mississippi, their motivations were somehow to halt the slide into liberal californian thinking they didnt understand or appreciate at all. it couldnt have had a stronger influence on me.
i was looking for the library and an elderly black man stepped off the sidewalk, took his hat off and said "excuse me sir". i must have been 16, i looked behind me to see who he was talking to. no one was there so i just smiled and continued walking, wondering what happened. i asked my uncle gordon later what it meant. he explained to me in no uncertain terms the rules of jim crow. no, my parent's never intended me to learn the lessons i did that summer. radicalized, horrified, confused. my californian upbringing rebelled strongly against the old south and its deathly horror of racism.
the only separation is that between those in christ and those outside. no other divisions are valid.
-=-=written for rtb groups-=-=-=-
creationists are very concerned(rightfully i believe) in the problem of the slippery slope "fall" to secularist world and life view if their effort to stem the flow of scientific thought doesn't hold at a literal interpretation of Genesis. I applaud the effort. but i believe it is wrong, wrong issue, wrong timing. people often point to galileo and accuse the church of missing that point and doing the same thing again with a literal view of the creation week.
i'd like to bring up another point of where the church "missed the boat" and changed biblical interpretation to 'fit' the world. you call it accommodation, capitulation. i call it reasonable defense of the faith and the ability to admit errors, ask god for forgiveness and move on.
the issue was re-introducted with kurt's pointer into ken ham's page which eventually took me here:
aig
i grew up with the knowledge that my mother and "her people" were racists. unreconstructed southerners was the way i hear it referred to. we even joked about it like the time i called after kenburn's civil war series on pbs was finished. i asked her "why she didnt tell me?". she asked "tell you what?". i answered "that the south lost the war".
i lived for many years with a confederate flag on the wall of my bedroom, put there by my folks. i am painfully aware that we all tend toward exclusivity, passionate defense of the groups we belong to, us versus them mentality. this is one reason for the most unbiblical rise of denominationalism. see john frame _evangelical reunion_.
i am also self consciously reformed, so the church in south africa, the dutch reformed has been an historical interest to me.
what does this have to do with ken ham?
like the US the australians are dealing with a legacy of racism and genocide. which was justified straight out of the bible. like the south
(see:defense of south
for a very good defense of southern culture.
like south africa
SA church condemns apartheid
our forefathers in the faith (and many unreconstructed southerners, and unconvinced dutch reformed south africans) justified slavery, genocide, racial hatred, murder, jim crow, lynchings with the new testaments clear teaching on slavery.
ken ham is distances himself from these other bible believing people with a book about racism:
book on racism
why do we believe that these ancient interpretations of scripture are wrong? why can i say "i am sorry" to the victims of biblically sensitive people's misdirected racial hatred- because i do not interpret the bible the same way as those people did.
the church's interpretation of scriptures CHANGED, under political societial economic demographic scientific forces who challenged attacked the literal biblical interpretation based on numerous elements of new testament teachings about slavery. often quoting the very passages in genesis that you likewise use. mark of cain, ham and his descendents. the construction of a post deluvian world.
you dont believe as robert dabney did? that god created the races separately? how can you abandon such a likewise crucial literal interpretation under political pressure of a civil war?
the only consistent unchanged literal people are the unreconstructed southerners who defend the whole package, the remnants of the dutch reformed in south africa who defend apartheid today. the rest of us abandoned long held, very strongly felt, very important doctrines for very GOOD reason. they like a 6 day 24 hour creation week are indefensible, they are not biblical, as historical theology shows now. and as history will demonstrate.
i have to be aware that all creeds ere, all true and faithful churches contain false doctrine, part of being human is to believe false things. i need to be open to change. i think the churches defense of racism was deadly wrong. this is a key element in the idea of the willing suspension of disbelief...(yes that is the right phrase:
yahoo search
and a very important part of learning.
richard williams
a defense of virginia and through her the south
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
this short essay is dedicated to mr. crowder and mrs. bright; if i could, i would ask for your forgiveness and understanding. and say thank you for your kind faces are those i see when i think about the issue of racism........
-=-=-=-
defending the indefensible
in the world of lost causes the american south must certainly make the top ten. my folks sent me summers to very rural very racist tupelo mississippi, their motivations were somehow to halt the slide into liberal californian thinking they didnt understand or appreciate at all. it couldnt have had a stronger influence on me.
i was looking for the library and an elderly black man stepped off the sidewalk, took his hat off and said "excuse me sir". i must have been 16, i looked behind me to see who he was talking to. no one was there so i just smiled and continued walking, wondering what happened. i asked my uncle gordon later what it meant. he explained to me in no uncertain terms the rules of jim crow. no, my parent's never intended me to learn the lessons i did that summer. radicalized, horrified, confused. my californian upbringing rebelled strongly against the old south and its deathly horror of racism.
the only separation is that between those in christ and those outside. no other divisions are valid.
-=-=written for rtb groups-=-=-=-
creationists are very concerned(rightfully i believe) in the problem of the slippery slope "fall" to secularist world and life view if their effort to stem the flow of scientific thought doesn't hold at a literal interpretation of Genesis. I applaud the effort. but i believe it is wrong, wrong issue, wrong timing. people often point to galileo and accuse the church of missing that point and doing the same thing again with a literal view of the creation week.
i'd like to bring up another point of where the church "missed the boat" and changed biblical interpretation to 'fit' the world. you call it accommodation, capitulation. i call it reasonable defense of the faith and the ability to admit errors, ask god for forgiveness and move on.
the issue was re-introducted with kurt's pointer into ken ham's page which eventually took me here:
aig
i grew up with the knowledge that my mother and "her people" were racists. unreconstructed southerners was the way i hear it referred to. we even joked about it like the time i called after kenburn's civil war series on pbs was finished. i asked her "why she didnt tell me?". she asked "tell you what?". i answered "that the south lost the war".
i lived for many years with a confederate flag on the wall of my bedroom, put there by my folks. i am painfully aware that we all tend toward exclusivity, passionate defense of the groups we belong to, us versus them mentality. this is one reason for the most unbiblical rise of denominationalism. see john frame _evangelical reunion_.
i am also self consciously reformed, so the church in south africa, the dutch reformed has been an historical interest to me.
what does this have to do with ken ham?
like the US the australians are dealing with a legacy of racism and genocide. which was justified straight out of the bible. like the south
(see:defense of south
for a very good defense of southern culture.
like south africa
SA church condemns apartheid
our forefathers in the faith (and many unreconstructed southerners, and unconvinced dutch reformed south africans) justified slavery, genocide, racial hatred, murder, jim crow, lynchings with the new testaments clear teaching on slavery.
ken ham is distances himself from these other bible believing people with a book about racism:
book on racism
why do we believe that these ancient interpretations of scripture are wrong? why can i say "i am sorry" to the victims of biblically sensitive people's misdirected racial hatred- because i do not interpret the bible the same way as those people did.
the church's interpretation of scriptures CHANGED, under political societial economic demographic scientific forces who challenged attacked the literal biblical interpretation based on numerous elements of new testament teachings about slavery. often quoting the very passages in genesis that you likewise use. mark of cain, ham and his descendents. the construction of a post deluvian world.
you dont believe as robert dabney did? that god created the races separately? how can you abandon such a likewise crucial literal interpretation under political pressure of a civil war?
the only consistent unchanged literal people are the unreconstructed southerners who defend the whole package, the remnants of the dutch reformed in south africa who defend apartheid today. the rest of us abandoned long held, very strongly felt, very important doctrines for very GOOD reason. they like a 6 day 24 hour creation week are indefensible, they are not biblical, as historical theology shows now. and as history will demonstrate.
i have to be aware that all creeds ere, all true and faithful churches contain false doctrine, part of being human is to believe false things. i need to be open to change. i think the churches defense of racism was deadly wrong. this is a key element in the idea of the willing suspension of disbelief...(yes that is the right phrase:
yahoo search
and a very important part of learning.
richard williams
reconciliation accommodationism interesting words often used by the YEC in their attacks on the OEC. it is instructive to look at how they handle their right wing- the geocentric.
http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/tjv15n2geocentrism.asp
its a neat article, for it shows this continum of literalistic thinking. all stemming from taking the naive realism centered in the man-in-the-street/common man viewpoint of scripture and making it do double or even triple duty as 1-immovable reference point, 2-modern scientific reference point.
there is something about the scriptures which is timeless, meant for all people from the day they were first spoken to moments before the end of the world. people who differ greatly from each other. it achieves this timelessness, this always relevant, from 1-historically grounded 2-culturally bound with motifs and principles which are themselves timeless 3-its common denominator viewpoint that people can understand if they put aside some of their sophisticated thinking.
the bible is not located in the distance past, a mythological time of dragons and wizards. it avoids the stigma of the ahistorical by specific reference to specific things. this historicalness is so pronounced that we read it back into Gen 1,2 where it is not located specifically in space. gen 1,2 are not mythological like the hindu classics but loser to the german higher criticism's salvation history. where is the garden of eden? can we locate it on earth? what does the angel with the flaming sword mean? it is different history then Ur of the Chaldeans or egypt.
taking YEC numbers, the story of adam and eve must have been passed down verbally for 2500 years or more before it could have been reduced to writing. i've seen confucius grave, and his son's and his grandson's in Kufu, shangdong, china. i was told there is 250,000 graves their, with the oldest son's oldest son going back 78 generations. i can't really comprehend such ancientness, 3 different marble tombstones worn out by the rain. this is how long the story of adam and eve must have been transmitted orally through the righteous line to get Moses to be written down. 2500 years +. how was it preserved? God's hand must be the ultimate answer, but a proximal answer likewise is the contact it has with ordinary life. genesis is the story of real people.
our normal speech, like that of genesis betrays our self at the center thinking. but rather than admit that the scriptures are geocentric, AiG treats them as poor stepchildren, needing a lesson in bible and science. almost the same attitude that the scientists treat the YEC, as needing more proper education.
but this continum, does it mark increasing capitulation to science? or increasing harmony of the reading of the two books of god?
geocentric->YEC->ID->OEC->TE
http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/tjv15n2geocentrism.asp
its a neat article, for it shows this continum of literalistic thinking. all stemming from taking the naive realism centered in the man-in-the-street/common man viewpoint of scripture and making it do double or even triple duty as 1-immovable reference point, 2-modern scientific reference point.
there is something about the scriptures which is timeless, meant for all people from the day they were first spoken to moments before the end of the world. people who differ greatly from each other. it achieves this timelessness, this always relevant, from 1-historically grounded 2-culturally bound with motifs and principles which are themselves timeless 3-its common denominator viewpoint that people can understand if they put aside some of their sophisticated thinking.
the bible is not located in the distance past, a mythological time of dragons and wizards. it avoids the stigma of the ahistorical by specific reference to specific things. this historicalness is so pronounced that we read it back into Gen 1,2 where it is not located specifically in space. gen 1,2 are not mythological like the hindu classics but loser to the german higher criticism's salvation history. where is the garden of eden? can we locate it on earth? what does the angel with the flaming sword mean? it is different history then Ur of the Chaldeans or egypt.
taking YEC numbers, the story of adam and eve must have been passed down verbally for 2500 years or more before it could have been reduced to writing. i've seen confucius grave, and his son's and his grandson's in Kufu, shangdong, china. i was told there is 250,000 graves their, with the oldest son's oldest son going back 78 generations. i can't really comprehend such ancientness, 3 different marble tombstones worn out by the rain. this is how long the story of adam and eve must have been transmitted orally through the righteous line to get Moses to be written down. 2500 years +. how was it preserved? God's hand must be the ultimate answer, but a proximal answer likewise is the contact it has with ordinary life. genesis is the story of real people.
our normal speech, like that of genesis betrays our self at the center thinking. but rather than admit that the scriptures are geocentric, AiG treats them as poor stepchildren, needing a lesson in bible and science. almost the same attitude that the scientists treat the YEC, as needing more proper education.
but this continum, does it mark increasing capitulation to science? or increasing harmony of the reading of the two books of god?
geocentric->YEC->ID->OEC->TE
Saturday, January 25, 2003
a message from rtb-groups. i quoted the other person's message but altered the name. i did not ask permission to quote him here. but it is short and comes under reasonable use criteria.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Richard:even the YEC must admit that there are many professed christians who
believe differently then they do on the interpretation of Gen 1-2
if you find a topic like this with a virtual continuium of believes
then it is not clear, nor is it essential for salvation.
Luke: This is another Ross tactic. Pervert scripture by reconciling it with
modern atheistic assumptions (uniformitarianism) and then say it really doesn't
matter when it causes trouble. Sorry, but respect for the word of God and a
humility that acknowledges that we aren't God and maybe Moses knew what he was
talking about ARE necessary parts of healthly and TRUE walk with Christ.
Richard:to believe otherwise is to raise your pet project to the level of the
death and resurrection of Jesus, the only stumbling block of the faith.
Luke: The Bible is a stumbling block to many groups such as WTBTS, LDSA, SDA,
etc. By your words, we should remove those parts of scripture that they don't
like so that they don't have a stumbling block to thier respective faiths. The
Bible is a stumbling block to those that are lost.
Richard:the application of a modicum of brotherhood would avoid consigning a
OEC to everlasting flames, at least with your words, if not in your
mind. besides you might be wrong.
Luke: Perverting the word of God by allowing it to be shaped in the image of
the modern atheistic assumption may not trouble you, but that is you. Those of
us that know the Lord and respect his word know better.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
wow, it would be hard to express the disconcernation that i feel reading such.
In In In
essentials, non essentials All Things
unity..... liberty...... charity
no wonder there is little discussion or true changing of minds. the YEC have elevated 6 day 24 hour hour creation week to the level of the resurrection of Jesus!!!
this is certainly wrong. i look at the agony of brethren in the mainline Presbyterian church who have been only slowly joining the PCA over the last 20+ years or the OPC before that. agony over what it meant to the seamless robe of Christ, to the oneness of the body of Christ, the church. despite good evidence that liberalism is a different faith. yet here someone denigns fellowship over interpretation of Gen 1-2!!! wow, how very sad, not just for those who believe this way but for the church's witness before a watching world.
uniformitarianism is a functional tool not a world and life view. look at how it works carefully. i use it as a tool to investigate via science, without it i can't even play pool. for i would expect nothing consistent from the forces between the balls on the table. it is a necessary working hypothesis, based by the way on God's reasonable maintanance of the universe. i expect god not to act capriciously, with good reason. i apply the principle knowing full well that it is limited, there is a beginning and there will be an end to this world. you so vigorously label a very worthwhile and rather biblically inspired principle as atheistic? you are very foolish, so bound up with a unreasonable defense of the indefensible that you literally cut the ground out from your own feet. for even in your system uniformitarian principle reign from the end of God's creative week to today, to the last judgment, with the flood not withstanding since God caused it to rain. the argument is not if uniformitarnism is a principle of scientific thinking but what are the time limits of its application.
would you honestly want to say that the speed of light differed on jan 1st 1799 from dec 31 1798? or any other date back to your proposed 7th day of creation? you would have God intervening creatively subsequent to the 7th day? despite clear scripture "and the 7th day He rested".
and over this issue you draw the same line as between yourself and LDS who claim god is but an advanced man and that good mormons will one day rule and populate their own worlds as gods with their wives? is the issue of creation that important to you? i submit we share far more thoughts in common than do you with LDS, yet we are beyond the pale over creation's technic?
this might be a debate over statement but as i read more at AiG and like minded creationist sites, i think not. it seems like a deliberate polarization to make an dialogue impossible. to make any viewpoints either or, so black or white that no one dare challenge the ascent of a very particular biblical interpretation to such prominance that it shouts down all other options. a good political point but hardly conductive of a search for the truth.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Richard:even the YEC must admit that there are many professed christians who
believe differently then they do on the interpretation of Gen 1-2
if you find a topic like this with a virtual continuium of believes
then it is not clear, nor is it essential for salvation.
Luke: This is another Ross tactic. Pervert scripture by reconciling it with
modern atheistic assumptions (uniformitarianism) and then say it really doesn't
matter when it causes trouble. Sorry, but respect for the word of God and a
humility that acknowledges that we aren't God and maybe Moses knew what he was
talking about ARE necessary parts of healthly and TRUE walk with Christ.
Richard:to believe otherwise is to raise your pet project to the level of the
death and resurrection of Jesus, the only stumbling block of the faith.
Luke: The Bible is a stumbling block to many groups such as WTBTS, LDSA, SDA,
etc. By your words, we should remove those parts of scripture that they don't
like so that they don't have a stumbling block to thier respective faiths. The
Bible is a stumbling block to those that are lost.
Richard:the application of a modicum of brotherhood would avoid consigning a
OEC to everlasting flames, at least with your words, if not in your
mind. besides you might be wrong.
Luke: Perverting the word of God by allowing it to be shaped in the image of
the modern atheistic assumption may not trouble you, but that is you. Those of
us that know the Lord and respect his word know better.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
wow, it would be hard to express the disconcernation that i feel reading such.
In In In
essentials, non essentials All Things
unity..... liberty...... charity
no wonder there is little discussion or true changing of minds. the YEC have elevated 6 day 24 hour hour creation week to the level of the resurrection of Jesus!!!
this is certainly wrong. i look at the agony of brethren in the mainline Presbyterian church who have been only slowly joining the PCA over the last 20+ years or the OPC before that. agony over what it meant to the seamless robe of Christ, to the oneness of the body of Christ, the church. despite good evidence that liberalism is a different faith. yet here someone denigns fellowship over interpretation of Gen 1-2!!! wow, how very sad, not just for those who believe this way but for the church's witness before a watching world.
uniformitarianism is a functional tool not a world and life view. look at how it works carefully. i use it as a tool to investigate via science, without it i can't even play pool. for i would expect nothing consistent from the forces between the balls on the table. it is a necessary working hypothesis, based by the way on God's reasonable maintanance of the universe. i expect god not to act capriciously, with good reason. i apply the principle knowing full well that it is limited, there is a beginning and there will be an end to this world. you so vigorously label a very worthwhile and rather biblically inspired principle as atheistic? you are very foolish, so bound up with a unreasonable defense of the indefensible that you literally cut the ground out from your own feet. for even in your system uniformitarian principle reign from the end of God's creative week to today, to the last judgment, with the flood not withstanding since God caused it to rain. the argument is not if uniformitarnism is a principle of scientific thinking but what are the time limits of its application.
would you honestly want to say that the speed of light differed on jan 1st 1799 from dec 31 1798? or any other date back to your proposed 7th day of creation? you would have God intervening creatively subsequent to the 7th day? despite clear scripture "and the 7th day He rested".
and over this issue you draw the same line as between yourself and LDS who claim god is but an advanced man and that good mormons will one day rule and populate their own worlds as gods with their wives? is the issue of creation that important to you? i submit we share far more thoughts in common than do you with LDS, yet we are beyond the pale over creation's technic?
this might be a debate over statement but as i read more at AiG and like minded creationist sites, i think not. it seems like a deliberate polarization to make an dialogue impossible. to make any viewpoints either or, so black or white that no one dare challenge the ascent of a very particular biblical interpretation to such prominance that it shouts down all other options. a good political point but hardly conductive of a search for the truth.
How to Impress....... A Woman
Compliment her,
cuddle her,
kiss her,
caress her,
love her,
stroke her,
tease her,
comfort her,
protect her,
hug her,
hold her,
spend money on her,
wine & dine her,
buy things for her,
dance with her,
listen to her,
care for her,
stand by her,
support her,
go to the ends of the earth for her
How to impress a Man
Show up naked.
Bring Beer.
clear see throughness of scripture.
only applies to the essentials, those things necessary to salvation that even the uneducated and ignorant can understand.
even the YEC must admit that there are many professed christians who believe differently then they do on the interpretation of Gen 1-2
if you find a topic like this with a virtual continuium of believes then it is not clear, nor is it essential for salvation.
to believe otherwise is to raise your pet project to the level of the death and resurrection of Jesus, the only stumbling block of the faith.
the application of a modicum of brotherhood would avoid consigning a OEC to everlasting flames, at least with your words, if not in your mind. besides you might be wrong.
------
there was a great flood and a devote lady was sitting in her home when the county sheriff ran up the porch and offered her a ride to the shelter. "God will provide as He has always done was her only response to the man who came to help.
the water rose, she was now in the second story window when a boat came by, but again she claimed that God would provide a way for her to escape the rising water.
when at last she was on the roof she waved away the resue heliocopter
with her last words. god will provide.
at the pearl gates she was somewhat angry at God for not reaching down His hand and staying the waters. but God only answered, i sent you the sheriff, a boat and a heliocopter, what else did you need?
-------
its a joke sure, but one about means. how God does things.
i've read your links to YEC materials, i've read so much AiG material that it is all sounding the same to me. why are you so very certain of the absolute righteousness of your position that you wave off----
fuz vr chris with canned quotes, not even to bother following their links or trying to see how their arguments hold together.
i have wondered why science seems to progress with relative uniformity of opinion on difficult subjects while theology with several millenium head start always seems to divide into ever smaller bodies while not making much headway at all in solving relatively simpler problems. part of it must be that science deals with things that people can agree about without throwing most of the participants out of the discussion by the most vocal....
richard williams
Friday, January 24, 2003
answering the wrong questions
The few weeks of discussions that I have been reading on RTB-groups.yahoo
have been a real eye-opener. I don’t interact with YEC in my face-to-face
world, and to watch the conversations and to spend time reading and interacting
with the links they present as evidence against an old earth viewpoint has made
several things clearer to me.
I believe the biggest argument from the YEC is not
scientific, not theological, but emotional, rooted in a consciousness embattled
and afraid of ‘the modern mind”. To this end, to understand them, I will spend time
working through books that address this as an issue. The OPC is part of the
fundamentalist movement; Machen was a guiding, leading light in the early
years. As was Westminster Seminary so often pointed at as the real successor to
Princeton “after it went liberal”.
Because of this I have never been drawn to read things critical of
fundamentalism, I’ve always considered myself part of it, even without the YEC
viewpoint.
It has become obvious that the link above, to Templeton at AiG,
very succinctly displays the arguments that the YEC are really concerned with,
the slippery slope to unbelief. They are not really concerned with the science,
for in many ways they have conceded the field to unbelievers. This attitude is
different from the theonomist or postmil with whom I am more familiar. Likewise
they are not really concerned with the theology. I wondered after several hours
of reading: http://capo.org/creationstudies.html,
how many of the people quoting this site to me had actually read it. The attitude they
have towards references is like that towards using a club; use it quickly and with
maximum force. But what they are really concerned with is the slippery slope to
unbelief.
I remember a quote from Calvin, I don’t remember where, but
it is a prayer that God would not forget him. The idea is that God holds us to
him, and if God ceased even for a moment to pull Calvin towards Him, to hold
his thoughts and feelings close; that Calvin would of his own natural
tendencies withdraw and be lost. This, IMHO, is the right attitude towards God.
I do not of myself seek anything godly, I would not do anything out of right
motivations, God Himself holds me firm. I believe wrong things, I will hold to
many of those wrong beliefs till the day I die. Lord willing I will change some
of those to correct thinking before then, but not all of them. The noetic
effect of sin is pervasive and persuasive, especially if you believe as I do
that the intellect is very important. Why is this important? Because the same
God that created the universe, that presented Himself a sacrifice for sin on my
behalf is the one to preserve me, not by my efforts, not by my strength of will. I am not afraid to read
essays written by gay men (http://www.bidstrup.com/index.htm).
I am not afraid to say that abortion ought to be legal. I am not afraid to say
that “peace is patriotic”. I can do these things, without being contaminated by
them, as some fundamentalists would see it, because God Himself will cleanse me
in the last judgment. If I concede much to a pluralistic culture, if I
accommodate to a vigorous and beautiful scientific viewpoint, I concede nothing
of value if I understand that Jesus his death and resurrection are the key
elements in human history, as they are in mine.
The real issue is not Genesis, although I must admit it is
tempting to draw the line at 6-24 hours days of creation because it is easier
than the alternatives. The real issue is the trustworthiness of Scripture, its
reliability, and its continuing interpretation to each new generation. We have
a closed canon; we slam the door shut on continuing revelation. The only choice
to make the words plain to our children and our grandchildren is to re
interpret the words to mean the same thing as it did to our fathers and to the
first generation that heard it. This is really the question that AiG ought to
be working on. This is the really issue underneath fundamentalism. This is the
real division between Machen and the Presbyterian Church of 1910-1920, how must
we re interpret Jesus to each new generation.
I understand that religion is conservative, backward
looking, preservationist, in attitude, emotions, language, in many things. I
really don’t have a problem with that. My problem is that we need to bridge
that gap of past to future by learning what science teaches and relating it to
our understanding of Scripture.
Accommodationism is true Biblical preaching. The CRC no longer preaches in Dutch, not
even in Grand Rapids, we don’t believe the world is flat or the sky supported
on pillars. We don’t believe, thank God, the same way as Calvin did about
Augustine’s two swords. The problem is how to present an unchanging God to a
changing world without falling prey to the idea of a changing God while doing this.
Look at how the common secularist's biblical interpretation is that human
beings first saw gods in the earth, represented by mothers or the female.Then warfare brought masculine values to the
top and the storm gods were invented. Then in the axial age great prophets
arose to show us the path of love and justice for all men. The motif is
evolving and changing gods. But covenant theology is a framework to show that
God accommodates to us, to our need to build foundations first, His progressive
revelation shows a changing understanding on man’s part concerning an
unchanging God.
This is the big question, is Scriptural interpretation
always locked into past visions, always contextualized for our grandfathers
ways of thinking. Is it so baptized with age until it reaches maturity in an
different time; which doesn’t understand the meaning because it can't grasp the
images which no longer hold sway, being replaced with newer ways of conceiving
of the world.
Where is God? Ask a little boy, brought up on StarTrek,
StarWars to believe that God is up. He inherits a worldview much different than
the ancient Israelites. The stars are up there, worlds of imagination, worlds
of science fiction. How can God be up? It only makes sense if the universe is a
layer cake, hell below our feet, heaven above the dome of the stars. Do I have
to convince him that his world of red shifted fast moving stars is wrong, and
convince him of the Babylonian conception of the world inherited by the Bible
is the only way to conceive of universe? Bull shit. Heaven is not up any more
than Hell is down. Those are images, teaching tools, ways of looking at the
world no longer valid because they do not describe the real world. Because I have different images do I believe in another
God? If I do, than so do you because you are as much as I the result of
thousands of years of changing human history since Genesis was first spoken to
our forefathers. You don’t see the world the way they did, you see it how they
believed 100-150 years ago, before Darwin, before acceptance of geological
time.You baptize a world and life view
100-150 years old, not 3000. I cannot get into Darwin’s shoes let alone
Calvin’s or Augustine’s and certainly not Moses'. I inherited a world, actually two worlds. The one of
faith tied to an ancient book, which I believe is reliable and presents
faithfully a God who created the heavens and the earth. And the one of modern
science which sent men to walk on the moon and who decoded the human genome. I
am concerned to reconcile them because the God I worship demands that I
recognize all of my life belongs to Him because He bought me. Paid for, I am no
longer a slave to sin, but I am free to worship and to love Him. Images from a
Roman world, where you buy people, a world of slavery that my forefathers died
in the civil war fighting over. One of
my favorite books is Dabney’s “a defense of Virginia and through her the south”
written 20 years after the civil war. Yes the faith is backward looking but the
images of roman slavery bring tears to my eyes for they are real in the way I
express the things inside. Now must I if I was speaking to Chinese convince them
first of the need to introduce human slavery into their society in order that
it embark on the path to Godliness, for much of the new testament images are of slavery.
It is that interpretation of Scripture to a scientific world
that you miss with a fisted holding to images of another dead and gone world.
The right question is how to show the world that Genesis 1-2 speaks to them, in
their language, with their images, showing a creator God who cares enough to
display Himself to his creations. Otherwise you run to risk of being ignored,
put on the great delete spam list in the sky, because you have nothing revelant
to say to the world. The problem is that Jesus and Him crucified is actually what
the world needs to hear, but it can't through the din of the constant mantra of
"the world is only 6000 years old". He puts you on ignore because anyone that
ignorant can't possibly have anything of value to say