The Integration of Christianity and Psychology: A guest post by Sarah Rainer | The Exchange


This entry was posted in the local church, theology, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to The Integration of Christianity and Psychology: A guest post by Sarah Rainer | The Exchange

  1. parsonsmike says:

    The contrast between how Mrs. Ranier approaches her science and the Old Earth Creationists approach theirs. She looks at the secular approach but puts the Word of God first, while the OEC modify the Word of God to accommodate the secular approach. Although OEC says they put the Bible first, it is not evident in their tenets or their apologetics.

  2. Mike, granted the YEC approach is to say, “Everything the Bible says is true. Now, how do I force the evidence fit the Bible…”

  3. parsonsmike says:


    Evidence, which most forget, is both incomplete and open to interpretation. Have you ever watched a TV crime show, like Law and Order, where the evidence points one way but then as more evidence cones in, points another? Or a similar frame, where the evidence points to one person as guilty, but at the last minute, the case is broken wide open, and the supposedly guilty one is found innocent of the crime?

    Now what we have is evidence that points us in a certain way, that admittedly by the experts in the field and by their experiences, is both incomplete and to which their interps have varied somewhat. What we are left with is two types of people. One is like you, accepting as truth the direction of the evidence. Most crimes are solved this very way, by following the path of evidence to where it leads you, and the perp is proven guilty. Prosecutors are not wrong for following the evidence. The problem is that the evidence is never *fully* in, so they must decide to prosecute when they think they can overcome reasonable doubt. Sometimes they make mistakes. Many were sentenced for crimes they did not commit but when later evidence [DNA testing] came in that was not available at the trial, they were exonerated. The prosecutors did nothing wrong in prosecuting those men, but still, they were wrong in their beliefs.

    Which leads us to the other type of person. [Actually, there might be more than two types], This person is like me. I believe that the Bible is God’s inspired Word. Thus i am not really like the YEC people who seek to cram the evidence into a viewpoint. I do not worry about the evidence. I believe that in the end, when the evidence is fully in, and clear as to its interp, that the Bible is right in what it says about creation. Although I do understand that my interp may not be exactly right, I need not worry about that. I do not insist that MY interp need be the only orthodox one for all Christianity, and of course not at all for unbelievers. I simply hold to the plain reading of the Bible in this matter.

    If before you watched that TV crime show, you saw a preview that exonerated the accused, or, I mean, showed the accused as exonerated. Thus you would know the outcome of the trial all through the proceedings. Well, I read the end of the Book!

  4. Mike,

    Attempts to reinterpret the evidence is the only move in the Christian playbook. In the complete absence of evidence for God, Christians attempt to discredit all the evidence that points away from the biblical account.

    Perhaps the most telling line in your comment: “I do not worry about the evidence.” And people wonder why the Christian position is considered irrational…

  5. parsonsmike says:

    I understand why you and “people” might consider my position irrational.
    Our interaction here points out how we are on different playing fields. While you judge by one set of standards, I am judging by another. I am willing to undergo whatever problems my criteria bring my way only because I am looking past this present life for my reward and my justification.
    Now that does not mean that my position is irrational. It means that the evidence I use to judge is unavailable to you. You could say “While I don’t see your evidence, if it is as you say, then you are being rational.” Or you could say, “That according to my [Chris’] belief your evidence is imaginary and thus your position irrational.”

    From your statement above, I gather you adhere to the latter point, since you say in “the complete lack of evidence for God”.
    But since i am in it for the long run, I will wait and see. If there is a Judgment Day, and Jesus is Lord, then I will be vindicated. If not, well woes was me.


Comments are closed.