What Would Jesus Do?

[MountainMan1646]

Given that you apparently believe that the Flood story happened exactly as written in the Bible and that story requires "Goddidit" at every stage, almost as much as the Creation itself, I'm assuming that you are indeed a YEC, which then requires truly prodigious feats of mental gymnastics to reconcile Genesis with what pretty much every branch of physical science is telling us about the age of the earth and the universe.

I am probably a YEC. I don't care about it nearly as much as you'd probably guess.

 

[Agent327]

I wonder what Jesus would say about all that. He'd probably hold his tongue, being a wise man and all.

 

[Arakhor]

I am probably a YEC. I don't care about it nearly as much as you'd probably guess.

Fair enough. I can respect that (assumed) viewpoint.

 

[MountainMan1646]

Fair enough. I can respect that (assumed) viewpoint.

These days most evangelicals are not in terrible danger of starting to believe macroevolution (which is itself not always damnable error though its clearly unbiblical). What they are not only in danger of, but have already done, is become antinomians with a terrible understanding of law and grace.

 

[Arakhor]

Anti-what-now? Apparently, those are people who reject the fixed application of moral law, but that's silly, as we just had a brief discussion about how people 400 years ago would have thoroughly different views to us. Why should arbitrary moral guidelines from 2,000 years ago still be used to judge people today, except in the broadest sense? (Don't lie, steal, kill etc.)

I very much doubt anyone is going to be damned for believing that the Earth is not 6,000 years old. If anyone is going to be damned (which I don't actually believe), it'll be for violating some religious law or other, not through believing modern science to be accurate.

 

[MountainMan1646]

Anti-what-now? Apparently, those are people who reject the fixed application of moral law, but that's silly, as we just had a brief discussion about how people 400 years ago would have thoroughly different views to us. Why should arbitrary moral guidelines from 2,000 years ago still be used to judge people today, except in the broadest sense? (Don't lie, steal, kill etc.)

I don't know where you're getting your "broad" standard from. So stealing and killing are always wrong, but worshipping false gods, breaking the sabbath, and not committing adultery are not? This is arbitrary.

Seriously though I find your presumption that Luther and Calvin would agree with modern liberalism "if only they knew better" as quite absurd. Maybe they'd be old earthers (though even that I doubt) but they certainly would not be leftist on morality.

I very much doubt anyone is going to be damned for believing that the Earth is not 6,000 years old. If anyone is going to be damned (which I don't actually believe), it'll be for violating some religious law or other, not through believing modern science to be accurate.

Well, if you don't believe anyone is going to be damned than you yourself are currently believing a false gospel and thus at risk of damnation, though Jesus may save you from this. But aside from that, I agree that the age of the earth is not an essential gospel doctrine and thus there are true Christians that err on that issue. Hence why I'm not really pushing it, I'm sure you've heard it all before from the fundamentalists, and I think it would be more interesting to discuss all of the true pre-enlightenment doctrines that I doubt any evangelical has ever had the guts to actually talk to you about

 

[Arakhor]

No, I agree that John Calvin would probably still be a very objectionable person, even if he did live today, however I did say "etc." Of course, adultery is a bad thing, because that involves breaking sacred vows of trust with your partner, and if you become a neo-pagan to somehow get back at God for some reason, then clearly that's also a sin, but if you take up, say, Asatru (modern Germanic paganism) and believe in it sincerely, then clearly that can't be a sin as the Bible defines it, because you do not subscribe to the Judaeo-Christian viewpoint.

 

[MountainMan1646]

No, I agree that John Calvin would probably still be a very objectionable person, even if he did live today, however I did say "etc."

I guess I just don't understand the point you are making then. If you try to impose Calvin on a modern context he'd be close to conservative Christians (probably the Reformed Presbyterian Church or one of the tiny covenanter denominations) not with modern liberal Presbyterians. Luther would almost certainly be much closer to LCMS and WELS rather than ELCA (I apologize for using American denominations but I don't honestly know what the European equivalents are. I don't know Lutheran denoms as well as I am a Presbyterian.) Your original comment almost seemed to be lumping being higher church than modern evangelicals and being more liberal as if that was a package deal. But you can't really do that. It would not be possible for me to assess "Lutheranism" as it is broadly defined today as if it were one thing. Lutheran "churches" that ordain gay ministers and don't believe the BIble are not Christans. Lutheran churches that do believe the Bible but interpret it incorrectly on some points are in fact Christians.

Of course I realize many evangelicals are sloppy and act like everything that is higher church than them is both liberal and Catholic at the same time but that's sloppy.

Of course, adultery is a bad thing, because that involves breaking sacred vows of trust with your partner, and if you become a neo-pagan to somehow get back at God for some reason, then clearly that's also a sin, but if you take up, say, Asatru (modern Germanic paganism) and believe in it sincerely, then clearly that can't be a sin as the Bible defines it, because you do not subscribe to the Judaeo-Christian viewpoint.

I don't see how your belief being sincere makes it not a sin. Where does the Bible teach that that wouldn't be sin?

 

[Arakhor]

My original comment was more of a callback to fundamentalist arguments that Newton (for instance) was an Anglican creationist. Well, yes, but you had to join the church to study at Oxford in the 17th Century and given that he was obsessed with studying the natural world, he certainly not be a creationist if he were born in the 20th Century.

As for sincerity and sin, that's because nobody goes through life worrying about other religious beliefs to which they don't subscribe. I don't worry about not praying five times a day or about not propitiating Poseidon before setting out on a sea journey, so if I was a neo-pagan, I certainly wouldn't worry about supposedly being damned to a Judaeo-Christian hell after my death.

 

[MountainMan1646]

My original comment was more of a callback to fundamentalist arguments that Newton (for instance) was an Anglican creationist. Well, yes, but you had to join the church to study at Oxford in the 17th Century and given that he was obsessed with studying the natural world, he certainly not be a creationist if he were born in the 20th Century.

Ah, OK. You seem really obsessed with young earth creationism in general, and I don't get why. Why does this particular doctrine bother you so much? We disagree on so many much more important things anyway.

I realize that pretty much everyone was a creationist back then and not everyone is now so I wouldn't really read too much into these things one way or another. But I think that based on what Calvin said about allegory and reading in allegory when its not there, i'd be shocked if a modern day Calvin would not still be YEC. Luther was more of a loose cannon though, and less far removed from Rome (the Roman Catholic Church is usually more OK with evolution than conservative Protestantism... whereas all of the hardline conservative Presbyterians that I've seen that would be doctrinally similar to Calvin are hardline YEC... usually they care more than me as well) so it wouldn't surprise me as much if modern day Luther was a bit more flexible about this particular. I don't think either would emphasize it as much as modern day evangelicals.

As for sincerity and sin, that's because nobody goes through life worrying about other religious beliefs to which they don't subscribe. I don't worry about not praying five times a day or about not propitiating Poseidon before setting out on a sea journey, so if I was a neo-pagan, I certainly wouldn't worry about supposedly being damned to a Judaeo-Christian hell after my death.

That's not an argument. What you worry about isn't the standard for what is. I may not pray five times a day because I don't believe the Muslim Allah is the true God, but if I'm wrong (I don't believe that's possible but as a hypothetical) I don't think my ignorance means that I'm "good."

 

[Arakhor]

It might not be an argument, but that's human nature. For instance, I don't believe in damnation because that's the way I was raised, but that doesn't mean I go out of my way to "sin" because that would make me an arsehole and God generally isn't in the habit of making people into arseholes. Likewise, whilst the God of Muhammad is clearly the God of Abraham and St Paul, that doesn't mean in the slightest that they had similar conceptions of the Almighty. For that matter, he's the God of you and me too, but we already know that we disagree quite systemically so far.

I'm not actually that bothered about what anybody thinks, provided that they don't try to force it on others. YEC organisations, especially in the US, are notorious about trying to force their views into secular education and replace science classes with religion, which is what I definitely have a problem with, even though I'm not American.

 

[MountainMan1646]

It might not be an argument, but that's human nature. For instance, I don't believe in damnation because that's the way I was raised, but that doesn't mean I go out of my way to "sin" because that would make me an arsehole and God generally isn't in the habit of making people into arseholes. Likewise, whilst the God of Muhammad is clearly the God of Abraham and St Paul, that doesn't mean in the slightest that they had similar conceptions of the Almighty. For that matter, he's the God of you and me too, but we already know that we disagree quite systemically so far.

I would argue that you and I do not even worship the same god, let alone Muhammad.

I'm not actually that bothered about what anybody thinks, provided that they don't try to force it on others. YEC organisations, especially in the US, are notorious about trying to force their views into secular education and replace science classes with religion, which is what I definitely have a problem with, even though I'm not American.

Well I'm against any form of "secular education" and any form of public schools, and I'm a total and self-admitted theocrat so there 'ya go

I actually have the opposite criticism of evangelicals as you do though. Evangelicals are usually secular pluralists for the most part. They just want equal time with the humanists. I want them silenced according to the Word of God

 

[Arakhor]

You don't believe in public education? Wow. Okay, we're not discussing shades of grey then, but more blue and orange.

 

[MountainMan1646]

You don't believe in public education? Wow. Okay, we're not discussing shades of grey then, but more blue and orange.

I'm surprised you thought our ideas were similar

I consider the covenanter version of public education (specifically Reformed Presbyterian in a Reformed Presbyterian State) to be far less objectionable but ultimately I think the Biblical view is that families and churches have jurisdiction over education.

 

[Arakhor]

Western Christians tend to have at least a few points of similarity.

Of course, the Bible was compiled centuries before the rise of the modern state and of nationwide programmes. That's why I think it's far more important to take the inspired word of the Bible, rather than the literal words. We're clearly not going to agree on almost anything though.

 

[Leoreth]

Genesis says that light (Day 1) was created before the sun (Day 4), doesn't it? Still don't know how that's supposed to work.

Easy, shortly after the big bang stars hadn't formed yet but lots of photons were already flying around. See, the Bible actually figured out the big bang before The Science did #berzerkertheories

We can avoid Berzerker's zany interpretation of a couple verses in Genesis right now ... Just gotta exercise willpower.

But they are fun. I don't even mean that in the sense of being fun to make fun of.

I am probably a YEC. I don't care about it nearly as much as you'd probably guess.

No YEC cares, otherwise they would accept the facts.

 

[El_Machinae]

What they are not only in danger of, but have already done, is become antinomians with a terrible understanding of law and grace.

Oh, that I can agree with. The standard to which Jesus would hold people is vastly higher than what the modern Christians believe. And when they're called on it, they say things like "faith" is what they have. They weren't 'called' by the Spirit to live like Jesus commanded.

 

[warpus]

So the laws of physics changed on day 4?

They slowly changed in between days 1 and 158,6581,6781,m3678386

 

[gay_Aleks]

I think you're wrong, again. They changed between days 1 and 2 129 000. Approximately. Calculate all those, um, 1500 leap years?