An exhortation from Greg on Genesis, miracles, and natural evil

@swamidass

I’ll try using bold.

I should point out that the objection against using upper case for individual words is rather contrived.
Nobody goes around shouting individual but non-contiguous words of a sentence… so the whole logic of the complaint is flawed.

2 Likes

Sorry, but that looks as if you’re shouting the words “bold”, “shouting”, and “non-contiguous”. It’s a bizarre thing to do, but it just looks as your speech patterns are bizarre.

@John_Harshman (cc @swamidass):

I find it bizarre that you think it is normal for you to perceive my written communications in the way you describe.

How can my using bold letters be confused with an oral behavior pattern that is non-existent in the real world?

It suggests that you are projecting some weirdness onto your surroundings… and expect everyone else to beat the drum to the same strange rhythms that you hear inside that noggin of yours.

Certainly you have demonstrated how very easily confused and disoriented you become … even if someone merely uses a metaphor to describe an analogy. I still remember the day you complained about an analogy because the structures referenced in the comparison weren’t really like that.

That was a doozy … it’s called “concrete thinking” … and it makes it difficult to efficiently communicate ideas to the person afflicted with such “concreteness”.

So just to clarify: is this the official stance of the organization called “peaceful science?” I personally think that the whole Moses borrowing from another culture to build his story is the biggest load of garbage that i would fully expect such thinking from a unitarian universalist. On the other hand, this stance is quite contrary to Christianity and i personnally would classify as heresy. Could you have your Christian friends there at peaceful science confirm which side they are on because this would be quite telling. Please get back with us. In the meantine, i will put out warning to churches to be aware of the potential of this garbage influence being subtly inserted into the fold via books and resources in the name of “peace”

This is serious gbrooks9. These are not mere words. You contend with the living God who gives life.

There’s really no need to get so defensive.

@Greg, I will let @swamidass speak for Peaceful Science, if he wants, but I would point you to the Disclaimer, particularly:

Also note, there is no faith statement for Peaceful Science, it is an open forum where people from all walks of life and viewpoints and theologies (and lack thereof) are welcome to the conversation.

@Greg, I can appreciate your concern for truth and a defense of traditional views of biblical authorship and orthodox Christianity. That said, this is a forum where we can seek to understand each other better and “agree to disagree” where needed. The forum values good questions and good evidence in support of possible answers. You’ve made a point:

So rather than use it as an opportunity to attack somebody, perhaps now is the time to give some evidence for why your assertion should be considered. I know you believe it is “garbage” (and maybe you could find a different term), but I have no idea why you believe that except that you think it’s heresy. I have not seen any ecumenical council statements (Nicea, etc,) that indicate that “borrowing from another culture to build a story” is a heresy, but I’d be happy to consider evidence you provide to the contrary.

7 Likes

Bold letter are just fine @gbrooks9,

Spot on @Jordan

1 Like

I did not call gbrooks garbage. I called the idea he presented garbage because that is what it is. If Adam and Eve are concoctions by the writer of Genesis, and OT prophets, Jesus and the apostles ALL acknowledge them as historical figures, to dismantle them as figures of imagination based on cultural myths is to attempt to completely dismantle the Christian faith. Additionally, if a universal unitarian encapsulates the negative above, then gbrooks is loved by God, but such a faith is not, and indeed hated by God and should be out of earshot or influence of the church.

I believe that God is real. And i believe that the Holy Spirit is a real Person of our triune God. And i know He is at work to cut out the ideas that man concocts that distort, discolor, and dishonor the very Name of God Almighty. If you think it wise to allow ideas to be presented by many here to flow without bringing them in the light of the glory of God of Scripture, then i believe that the Holy Spirit will do a work to convince you differently. If i am used as an instrument in this respect…taking time from my very vacation to do so and am called a “parasite” by @gbrooks9 for doing so, then im ok with that.

Isaiah 44 : Sing, O heavens, for the Lord has done it;
shout, O depths of the earth;
break forth into singing, O mountains,
O forest, and every tree in it!
For the Lord has redeemed Jacob,
and will be glorified in Israel.

24 Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer,
who formed you from the womb:
“I am the Lord, who made all things,
who alone stretched out the heavens,
who spread out the earth by myself,
25 who frustrates the signs of liars
and makes fools of diviners,
who turns wise men back
and makes their knowledge foolish,

What if they just acknowledged them as well-known figures that their listeners would know about and understand? What if they were being used in the same way as the good Samaritan was used?

4 Likes

@Greg,

You are personally “off the charts” with your positions … and you could say that I am as well. So we balance each other out, right?

I’m 100% positive that @swamidass does not agree with most of my position on many things regarding the Bible.

Remember, I’m a Unitarian Universalist. Why would you expect PeacefulScience, which supports the idea of miraculous creation of Adam and Eve, would somehow be equivalent to a Unitarian Universalist’s personal position on the Bible?

2 Likes

First, this is not an issue of being off the charts in ideas. If God exists and has spoken and our reaction is not characterized as “off the charts” then it is really not of God. If our gaze is not upon God but alternatives, this is called idol worship. Look at the Isaiah chapter before the one i sent earlier about this very thing. People who say they said a prayer and believe Jesus rose fr the dead represent Him out of their imaginations and out of the boundaries of Scripture may toy w being not true converts, but rather believers in name only. Only God can truly judge hearts.

As far as @swamidass, why in the world do you depict him and the stance on this website as almost deity? Yes, your positions are bizarre. If you support another with so much enthusiasm, how do you think this will project to the audience in view of this?

@Greg,

My positions are Unitarian Universalist.

Are you suggesting that I would be a better Unitarian Universalist if didn’t defend the goals of Joshua’s group so vigorously?

Are you suffering from the idea that you improve your standing in this group by intentionally rejecting the idea that God could create many forms of life through his control (and design) of Evolutionary processes?

In fact, your insistence that God could never do such a thing as to use evolutionary processes is akin to saying God would never use the processes of Evaporation and Condensation to make it rain.

2 Likes

First, God cannot produce natural evil. He may allow it in a fallen world, but He is not the creator of it. Period.

Second, the idea that God creates via weeding the weak and empowering the strong is purely against His nature.

Third. For one to say that the designs in nature were produced in the luck involved in the selection of genetic mutations is anti God of Scripture.

Forth. God transcends nature. To suggest that He is the embodiment of nature to create is unscriptural.

Mainstream evolutionary science provides backbone for all of the above.

Creation science says God created Adam and Eve as the FIRST humans who sinned and this evil is the cause of death and natural evil.

Creation science says God created kinds and graced them with qualities for adaptation purposes is fair game. The fossil record supports this and this is Biblical.

The Christian worldview that honors God is in the last two. The Christian worldview is very opposing the first 4 points.

End of story.

Your universalist ideas may accept all of those and none of those all in one breath…but it leans much more closely to the first 4 points and that is why you like the stance this site takes. This speaks volumes.

So you’re one of those folks who thinks there was no death before the Fall? Who are you, incidentally, to say what God can and cannot do?

So you’re saying that natural selection doesn’t happen, even in the current world?

All death, in all species? Also the cause of earthquakes, hurricanes, volcanoes, and such?

I don’t understand this. How can the fossil record support adaptation if the fossil record is the result of a single Flood, and all those fossils died in it?

Natural selection does occur in created kinds designed to do so. This is called adaptation and incorporates the idea of common grace. This is fully acceptable by creationists and indeed fully embraced by Scripture. On the other hand, to suggest that God is a Creator by doing so via weeding out the weak via selection of chance mutations in an environment where natural evil is present as supplied by God…where in the end of it all God calls it “good” is completely unacceptable to scripture and a slap in the face insult towards the only God who is of Scripture and is the God i know and worship. To promote a misrepresentation of God will be subject to judgement by God.

That was gibberish. You can’t expect anyone to know what you’re saying if you don’t know yourself.

Why should God care whether anyone insults him? Is he insecure about himself?

I always love it when you end with a threat. Makes you that much more convincing.

2 Likes

@Greg

The God of the Flood is incapable of creating natural evil?

Are you high right now?

Not my threat. I would be unloving if i withheld the entire counsel given in Scripture. Listen, im not trying to sell you my book and taking a lot of time to share these truths. I have nothing to gain exceot that i know i care for people, love and respect God at His word. There comes a time to move on fr individuals who roll eyes, and i think that time has come with you harshman. Regards.

God creating natural evil for its own sake would be the equivalent to Him creating and causing murder. This is impossible. God destroying the world because the evil within it was so heinous equates to justice via the death penalty. God permitting natural disasters in a fallen world where fallen mankind caused such a paradigm shows Him sovereign even in that fallen world but not fallen in His nature Himself. This means that God even oversees natural disasters that cause the death of children! But He was not the cause of natural disasters being capable of harm…according to precepts in Scripture, this was due to the fall of man. And yes, i believe Scripture gives room for all children before the age of accountability going to heaven.

The reason why this pure God who has not one single sliver of evil in His nature needed to send His Son to take on the wrath that man deserved is because even our very best works are not enough to reconcile us back into relationship to Him. He is perfect, we are imperfect. Every time man suggests a model that does not protect God from being blamed for evil, suffering, disease, etc, not only does this dishonor God, but it belittles the cross.

It’s probably escaped your attention but almost everyone here including the Christians have “rolled their eyes” at the silly rejections of solid science you offer.

2 Likes