ALAYMAN said:
ddgently said:
Of course I agree, and even though I wouldn't describe myself as a Fundamentalist, I enjoy hanging out here and mixin' in up with my brothers from other mothers (and a few sisters from different misters
).
Just so you don't confuse my intentions (and lamentations) about this being a fundamentalist haven, I highly value freedom of speech, especially when it is substantive speech, and am not looking to squelch opposing voices. I was rather saying, in effect, "my, my, how things change so quickly"....sort of like the prevailing culture around us.
In the years (yikes!) since I've been participating here, I think what I've seen is a decline in the relative number of "true Fundamentalists" posting, relative to the number of moderate or liberal posters. This place doesn't seem to garner near the traffic it used to.
And don't worry, I didn't take your lamentation the wrong way
. In fact, the back in forth you and I are having is incredibly refreshing at the moment!
ALAYMAN said:
ddgently said:
The false dichotomy between accepting the findings of the modern sciences and being a faithful Christian.
I don't shrink back from saying that I believe your approach is wrong, but I'm not saying that you aren't sincere or "a faithful Christian". When I was first saved I thought for some time that Jesus was a created being, but got it right after properly shown from Scriptures, so I am confident that with proper instruction you'll be alright.
. False dichotomies are usually a little more subtle than a blanked black-and-white statement. We could rehash the #HamonNye debate (but let's not), but just to pick on one particularly squeaky wheel, Ham certainly builds his ministry on the notion that while you can be saved and believe in evolution, you're certainly on a dangerous path.
In other words, most of the voices coming from the YEC side of the spectrum are saying, in so many words, that you can't serve God and Modern Science. There's also the conspiratorial vein of thinking, that basically says the scientists are lying, or covering up the lack of evidence.
ALAYMAN said:
ddgently said:
There's a lot to digest there, but thanks for the link to Barna. I don't refute that young people seem to be turning away from the faith in ever increasing numbers, but as somebody trained in the sciences yourself, you understand that social sciences are good at making correlation, but often fall short on causation. Nonetheless I am interested on keeping a pulse on what youth are being tuned into, and oftentimes deceived by, because I have an 8 year old that will fall for similar tricks of the world.
One minimal observation though, after skimming the article, youth often make a lot of false assumptions about life (and they are famously known for spotting hypocrisy and inconsistency in a heartbeat as well), and it seems that some of the feedback from the polls show that they are sensitive to exclusivity. They want to fit in with their peers more than ever, and their peers exert influence through social media in unprecedented volumes. I made most of my mistakes in younger life due to going against my parents (and God's) expicit wishes, and succombing to those around me who said effectively "God didn't say that it would kill you."
Right, the perceived anti-scientism was one of six. But I think it's still significant that so many young people are turned of to Jesus because those they perceive to be speaking for Him tell them that the scientists are lying, only for them to study it for themselves and see that it (mostly) adds up.
ALAYMAN said:
ddgently said:
Fundamentalists want to interpret the Scriptures literally as historically, scientifically, and factually accurate in all respects because they (sincerely) see this as the only way to be faithful to God.
Militant atheists want to interpret the Scriptures literally as historically, scientifically, and factually accurate in all respects because they (sincerely) see religion as outdated/dangerous and they (rightly) know they can knock down a strictly literal reading of large swaths of the Bible.
And I (and others like me) insist that there is a third way...
From the article you linked to earlier about how to interpret the Bible differently than the historico-grammatical manner...
Historical criticism can be a tool providing greater insight into the sort of literature the Bible is, so that we can better hear what God is trying to say to us, and so that we can stop fighting to defend perspectives (for example, a 6,000 year-old earth or the creation of humans out of dirt) that the Bible doesn’t ask us to defend.
God didn't really make man from the dust of the ground?
Is this what you mean by a different method of interpretation? Why should I be persuaded by such an argument for this kind of hermeneutic?
In short? Because the evidence stacks up largely in favor for an old universe, Darwinian (or neo-Darwinian) evolution, etc., etc.
So we then ask ourselves, is God a liar? Would he give us all this physical evidence that would lead intelligent people to patently wrong conclusions?
If not, then is our interpretation of his written Word wrong?
That's where I was left, and the hermeneutic Enns affirms, I think, is faithful to the intent of the text while at the same time allowing us to study and appreciate God's created Word.
)
