<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: REPOST: Coffee Cup Apologetics 40</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/repost-coffee-cup-apologetics-40/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/repost-coffee-cup-apologetics-40</link>
	<description>...dispatches from the post-evangelical wilderness</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 12:47:28 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ken</title>
		<link>http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/repost-coffee-cup-apologetics-40/comment-page-1#comment-239609</link>
		<dc:creator>Ken</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 May 2008 17:51:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.internetmonk.com/?p=2046#comment-239609</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;My understanding of this is that for some (many? most?) Christians, if the creation stories arenâ€™t true, then the Fall isnâ€™t true, and if the Fall isnâ€™t true, then we didnâ€™t need Jesus to die and be raised. Or some variation of that.&lt;/i&gt;

It&#039;s a variant of Magic Book-ism; when all you have in your faith tradition is the Bible, you have to make it self-referential, until you get to &quot;The Bible is true because The Bible says so!&quot; and wind up inside your own event horizon, where Faith becomes denial of physical reality instead of the substance of things hoped for.  (Islam took that route with Mohammed al-Ghazali around 1000 years ago, and we&#039;re seeing the long-term results.)

My church (RCC) gets around this trap with what it calls &quot;the Magisterium&quot;, a tradition of precedent and teaching authority based on experience.  Two thousand years of institutional memory can make a guess as to what interpretation holds water and what doesn&#039;t.

As far as I can tell, the creation stories in Genesis show every sign of Classical Hebrew poetic structure.  It was written as a poem, not a textbook.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>My understanding of this is that for some (many? most?) Christians, if the creation stories arenâ€™t true, then the Fall isnâ€™t true, and if the Fall isnâ€™t true, then we didnâ€™t need Jesus to die and be raised. Or some variation of that.</i></p>
<p>It&#8217;s a variant of Magic Book-ism; when all you have in your faith tradition is the Bible, you have to make it self-referential, until you get to &#8220;The Bible is true because The Bible says so!&#8221; and wind up inside your own event horizon, where Faith becomes denial of physical reality instead of the substance of things hoped for.  (Islam took that route with Mohammed al-Ghazali around 1000 years ago, and we&#8217;re seeing the long-term results.)</p>
<p>My church (RCC) gets around this trap with what it calls &#8220;the Magisterium&#8221;, a tradition of precedent and teaching authority based on experience.  Two thousand years of institutional memory can make a guess as to what interpretation holds water and what doesn&#8217;t.</p>
<p>As far as I can tell, the creation stories in Genesis show every sign of Classical Hebrew poetic structure.  It was written as a poem, not a textbook.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeff</title>
		<link>http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/repost-coffee-cup-apologetics-40/comment-page-1#comment-238501</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeff</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 May 2008 22:27:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.internetmonk.com/?p=2046#comment-238501</guid>
		<description>Ken wrote, &quot;Dawkins, Hamm, Hoving â€” read St Paul! Itâ€™s â€œif the Resurrection didnâ€™t happen, all Christian belief collapsesâ€, NOT the Six-Day Zap! So why all the Creation-vs-Evolution knock-down-drag-outs as the core of the Faith?&quot;

My understanding of this is that for some (many? most?) Christians, if the creation stories aren&#039;t true, then the Fall isn&#039;t true, and if the Fall isn&#039;t true, then we didn&#039;t need Jesus to die and be raised.  Or some variation of that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ken wrote, &#8220;Dawkins, Hamm, Hoving â€” read St Paul! Itâ€™s â€œif the Resurrection didnâ€™t happen, all Christian belief collapsesâ€, NOT the Six-Day Zap! So why all the Creation-vs-Evolution knock-down-drag-outs as the core of the Faith?&#8221;</p>
<p>My understanding of this is that for some (many? most?) Christians, if the creation stories aren&#8217;t true, then the Fall isn&#8217;t true, and if the Fall isn&#8217;t true, then we didn&#8217;t need Jesus to die and be raised.  Or some variation of that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ken</title>
		<link>http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/repost-coffee-cup-apologetics-40/comment-page-1#comment-238015</link>
		<dc:creator>Ken</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 May 2008 00:09:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.internetmonk.com/?p=2046#comment-238015</guid>
		<description>Nine minutes into your podcast, and it&#039;s a &quot;Say What?&quot; moment:

Dawkins says that Evolution Proves Atheism, QED?

The guy&#039;s a funhouse mirror of Young Earth Creationists!  At their core, YECs believe in the same thing as Dawkins -- Evolution automatically means Atheism, Evolution automatically disproves Christianity.  It explains a lot.

Eleven Minutes in, another &quot;Say What?&quot;: 

Dawkins, Hamm, Hoving -- read St Paul!  It&#039;s &quot;if the &lt;b&gt;Resurrection&lt;/b&gt; didn&#039;t happen, all Christian belief collapses&quot;, NOT the Six-Day Zap!  So why all the Creation-vs-Evolution knock-down-drag-outs as the core of the Faith? 

Thirteen Minutes in:

&quot;Religion is dangerous because it always leads to violence?&quot;  Skipping what happened when the French and Russian Revolutions made atheism into their State Religion, did Dawkins ever write &lt;i&gt;Star Trek&lt;/i&gt; fanfic?  &quot;Religion Equals Primitive Superstiton, NO EXCEPTIONS!&quot; was one of the core axioms of the &lt;i&gt;Star Trek&lt;/i&gt; universe!  I remember a couple &lt;i&gt;Next Gen&lt;/i&gt; (AKA New Testament Trek) episodes that hammered the viewer over the head with just that dogma!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nine minutes into your podcast, and it&#8217;s a &#8220;Say What?&#8221; moment:</p>
<p>Dawkins says that Evolution Proves Atheism, QED?</p>
<p>The guy&#8217;s a funhouse mirror of Young Earth Creationists!  At their core, YECs believe in the same thing as Dawkins &#8212; Evolution automatically means Atheism, Evolution automatically disproves Christianity.  It explains a lot.</p>
<p>Eleven Minutes in, another &#8220;Say What?&#8221;: </p>
<p>Dawkins, Hamm, Hoving &#8212; read St Paul!  It&#8217;s &#8220;if the <b>Resurrection</b> didn&#8217;t happen, all Christian belief collapses&#8221;, NOT the Six-Day Zap!  So why all the Creation-vs-Evolution knock-down-drag-outs as the core of the Faith? </p>
<p>Thirteen Minutes in:</p>
<p>&#8220;Religion is dangerous because it always leads to violence?&#8221;  Skipping what happened when the French and Russian Revolutions made atheism into their State Religion, did Dawkins ever write <i>Star Trek</i> fanfic?  &#8220;Religion Equals Primitive Superstiton, NO EXCEPTIONS!&#8221; was one of the core axioms of the <i>Star Trek</i> universe!  I remember a couple <i>Next Gen</i> (AKA New Testament Trek) episodes that hammered the viewer over the head with just that dogma!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ken</title>
		<link>http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/repost-coffee-cup-apologetics-40/comment-page-1#comment-238010</link>
		<dc:creator>Ken</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 May 2008 23:51:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.internetmonk.com/?p=2046#comment-238010</guid>
		<description>Dawkins is a nutcase.

He&#039;s well-beyond Atheist and into Anti-Theist.

It&#039;s like he&#039;s channelling Madelyn Murray O&#039;Hare or something.

&lt;a href=&quot;http://shmuley.com/articles.php?id=654&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Reply to Dawkins&#039; attacks by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach.&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dawkins is a nutcase.</p>
<p>He&#8217;s well-beyond Atheist and into Anti-Theist.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s like he&#8217;s channelling Madelyn Murray O&#8217;Hare or something.</p>
<p><a href="http://shmuley.com/articles.php?id=654" rel="nofollow">Reply to Dawkins&#8217; attacks by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach.</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

