That would be a false trichotomy. There are more possibilities in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
3 Likes
I’m rejecting the YEC understanding of inerrancy.
2 Likes
I’ve experienced situations where I have been out in the hot sun. I’m looking forward to the cooler evening, but the hot part of the day keeps dragging on.
My best guess is that’s what the sun standing still was about. But I would call that “psychological”, rather than “phenomenological”.
1 Like
That pretty much reflects my earlier point, that’s what’s in the Bible reflects the cultural understandings of the people for whom it was written.
1 Like
But I was rejecting that we can have a complete understanding of their cultural understanding, especially when the words used in a text could have more definitions than the narrow ones you chose.
The text claims it was a miracle (the most extraordinary day in history: Joshua 10:13-14), so I don’t think (with my view of inerrancy) it would be a psychological or natural phenomenon only.
But even I rejected your understanding of inerrancy 
1 Like
Yeah, I can imagine the tsunami of questions is pretty overwhelming. I’m certainly glad I’m not on the other end of it for sure. 
I like Paulogia and Jon, I find them to reflect much more what I’m interested in than Aron. Aron’s good for getting a big picture view of evolution, but his anti-theism is pretty souring for some. I wouldn’t recommend him. I think there are plenty more neutral channels that can provide a similar function.
I suppose that’s a difference between us. Heaven never appealed to me even as a little kid. I just figured someday it would appeal to me more, but that never happened. As far as people changing quickly goes, I think that depends on what it is they rested their faith on and also how flexible people are with their theology. For me, YEC was the cornerstone, and it was rigid as H-E-double-
. It’s like building your house upon the sand (I guess a super rigid sand? Yeesh, these metaphors aren’t mix well.). When the floods come… anyway, yes, it was emotional for sure. Scary, disappointing, and then a mix of anger and relief.
Ken Ham can have my props when he pulls them from my cold, dead fingers! Just kidding. Sort of. Heh. I think this whole idea of linking atheism and evolution is really interesting and sad, because I’ve now gone from Ken Ham’s view to an agnostic one (at the least), and having passed through that veil, I have a very different perspective on it (and it was pretty mind-blowing to realize as it was happening). From one side, it can seem like the steps go from:
YEC–>Become convinced of evolution–>Why is God even necessary?–>He’s not–>There is no God–>Become atheist.
When the steps go something more like this (may vary from person to person):
YEC–>Become convinced of evolution–>Realize that although you were super confident about it, you were also super wrong about a basic fact of reality–>If you and so many others were both super confident and super wrong about this basic fact, what other basic facts could you be wrong about?–>Begin questioning if God is one of those things–>Become unsatisfied with reasons to believe–>Leave Christianity–>Become atheist.
Now, one can say, “look, either one starts with believing evolution and ends with atheism–it’s all the same.” But it’s not. In Ham’s version, the cause of the atheism is believing evolution, but in reality, it’s discovering “Hammonism” is wrong that’s the cause. I have no doubt were I raised in a faith community that affirmed/accepted evolution, I would still be a Christian today. Ham’s dogmatic refusal to understand other people’s journeys, among other things, tends to ruffle feathers everywhere, non-theist and theist alike. It wouldn’t be such a problem, except he spreads that kind of closed-eared xenophobia throughout his sphere of influence, and it objectifies people and does real damage to relationships.
5 Likes
Yes, I think that many who accept inerrancy would reject @nwrickert’s formulation of inerrancy. Although the concept of inerrancy is one that is easy to misunderstand, hard to explain, and easy to use to justify controversial views at the intersection of science and faith. Perhaps Ken Ham and Hammonists view inerrancy that way, too, which if so I agree is problematic
Yes, which seems to be what happens in Hammonism
2 Likes
Thanks for answering! The metaphor made sense to me.
I apologize for over-simplifying in my questions. It makes sense that what people go through is the latter, and I don’t think it makes much sense anyway that one would question only one thing in such a huge change in their worldview. It just seems like one of the steps people would likely go on in a journey from Christianity to atheism would be to affirm evolution or question creation, unless they were a Christian that already affirmed evolution. But by no means is it always the first step. It sounds like the first thread/step is usually something initially foundational to that person if the journey happens quickly. (Sorry I just like to analyze people, but I know all of us are complicated and again I’m over-simplifying). For Jon, I’ve watched him explain some about his journey and contemplating evolution was probably a much later step/thread he pulled.
If you ever someday change your mind about Christianity, which prayerfully of course I hope you do, maybe it’s likely it would be a much different sort of faith. You might not change your mind about evolution but I could see that you’d change your mind about this. I was just thinking about what you wrote and these verses came to mind.
13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off [e]were assured of them, embraced them and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. 14 For those who say such things declare plainly that they seek a homeland. 15 And truly if they had called to mind that country from which they had come out, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 But now they desire a better, that is, a heavenly country. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared a city for them.
1 Like
I hope you don’t think I was being short with you, because that was not my intention. We all come at these issues and analyze people and motives and what-have-you from our own perspectives. I think the most important thing is to be able to genuinely connect with people and honestly work to understand where they’re coming from and how we can live together meaningfully. It’s totally fine to ask people if evolution led them to atheism (I’m sure there are some), but it’s another to just assert it, and that’s what Ken Ham does.
I doubt that would happen, but if I were to come back to the fold, it would be a very, very different fold from the one I left.
2 Likes
You’re always nice when you write so I didn’t think you were being short with me. Just wanted to be clear in what I was saying also.
1 Like