From: martinharran@gmail.com   
      
   On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 11:03:06 +1100, MarkE  wrote:   
      
   >On 15/03/2025 4:30 am, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >> On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 20:13:29 +1100, MarkE  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On 14/03/2025 6:52 pm, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >>   
   >> [snip for focus]   
   >>   
   >>>>>>>> Name one mainstream denomination that teaches that 'speaking into   
   >>>>>>>> life' should be taken literally and evolution dismissed.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> As I've said before, members of various denominations subscribe to a   
   >>>>>>> range of interpretations of the biblical account, ALL of which involve   
   >>>>>>> God creating, i.e. "speaking into existence":   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Do any of the mainstream denominations take "speaking into existence"   
   >>>>>> literally as you do?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> 1. TE (front-loaded)	God speaks into initial conditions   
   >>>>>>> 2. TE (Martin Harran)	God speaks ???   
   >>>>>>> 3. TE (guided)		God speaks into being gradually   
   >>>>>>> 4. Progressive Creation	God speaks into being progressively   
   >>>>>>> 5. OEC/YEC/ID		God speaks into being directly/other   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> "And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds   
   >>>>>>> fly above the earth across the vault of the sky." So God created the   
   >>>>>>> great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water   
   >>>>>>> teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every   
   >>>>>>> winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good."   
   >>>>>>> (Genesis 1:20-21)   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> So you are a Bible literalist. I'm glad we got that much clarified.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> How did you get "Bible literalist" from my list of mostly non-literal   
   >>>>> interpretations of Genesis 1?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Talking about God speaking things into life and quoting Genesis to   
   >>>> back it up is a pretty strong clue.   
   >>>   
   >>> The measure of literalism is in the *interpretation* of the text of   
   >>> Genesis, not the quoting of it. Your response indicates that you know   
   >>> this, but attempted to slide past it to your real agenda, at the expense   
   >>> of correctness and honesty.   
   >>   
   >> If anyone is guilty of a lack of honesty here, it is you and your   
   >> continuous evasion.   
   >>   
   >> You made no attempt to provide any interpretation of the Bible passage   
   >> you quoted. You gave a list if the ways you think that *other people*   
   >> might interpret Genesis but none of those qualify as literal - they   
   >> can't because interpretation is the opposite of literal - and you   
   >> don't even give any indication which of them (if any) applies to   
   >> yourself. I have asked you several times whether you think humans have   
   >> evolved or were created as a stand-alone species and you have made no   
   >> attempt to answer. I've asked you if you accept your "intelligent   
   >> designer" has created some really bad things, some really inefficient   
   >> things and some precarious things. Again, you have made no attempt to   
   >> answer. Even in your response to my post above about you being a Bible   
   >> literalist, it's notable that you neither admit nor deny my claim, you   
   >> just whine about me making it.   
   >   
   >The conversation has not been about my personal position. Most recently   
   >it was in relation to your question: 'Do any of the mainstream   
   >denominations take "speaking into existence" literally as you do?'"   
   >   
   >My appropriately general response was to your general question.   
   >   
   >You then misapplied my response, making a logically fallacious leap to   
   >press your agenda, which is (it seems) to accuse me of being a biblical   
   >literalist, which you have assumed to be the case. Your doing this, and   
   >your unwillingness to admit as much, damages trust and derails discussion.   
   >   
   >And ironically, for the record, I'm not a biblical literalist in the   
   >sense that I assume you mean,   
      
   So why quote from Genesis without offering any interpretation?   
      
   >i.e. holding to a YEC interpretation of   
   >Genesis? I believe the Bible to be the infallible word of God. But the   
   >world and universe appear to me to be older than 10,000 years.   
      
   I've never really 'got' this YEC vs OEC thing. If you accept that the   
   days in Genesis are not literally 24 hour days, why stop there, why   
   take that part as figurative but insist that the rest of it should be   
   read literally? Whilst I totally reject the YEC approach, I recognise   
   that at least they are consistent in how  they read the Bible.   
      
   >I've   
   >stood on the edge of the Grand Canyon and thought it difficult to   
   >conceive of a natural process that could carve it out in only thousands   
   >of years.   
      
   You really should read Francis Collins book 'The Language of God'; he   
   had a not dissimilar experience in front of a frozen waterfall which   
   led to his final step to becoming a Christian. (The book is a bit   
   dated now but still a good read.)   
      
   >   
   >Look, we can continue an unedifying slanging contest (which I've   
   >admittedly contributed to), or we can seek to understand each other. For   
   >example, while I'm unconvinced of your views related to say Teilhard de   
   >Chardin, I am interested to know how you arrived at that position,   
      
   Short version of a long story - up to about 20 years ago, I knew   
   nothing whatsoever about evolution and related areas until someone   
   challenged me about my lifelong religious beliefs being "God of the   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)