ooops, I forgot something. The reason that I quoted 1 Corinthians in my last posts was to illustrate that the virgin birth and the resurection seemed foolish to the masses from the very beginning.
Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter Lost_At_Sea
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
- Status
fire_diver
Contributor
MikeFerrara:
I find it interesting that you quote 1 Corinthians. We have been studying it in our church group. It's from the study guide called "Free from bondage" (I think that's the correct title)
FD
I Corinthians has long been one of my favorite "freedom" books of the Bible. Too often Christians have exchanged one set of legalisms for another set. I guess some people just have to have rules instead of listening to their heart rules.
I would point out that this denunciation of evolution is not truly "fundamentalism", but "extremism" disguised as being based on the scriptures. True fundamentalism brings you back to the core values of Christianity, which is captured in I Corinthians 13: the chapter on Love.
Anti-evolutionism in Christianity is merely extremism coupled with quite a few assumptions. The true fundamentalist would never condemn a system of beliefs that is not specifically condemned in scripture. Again, no where can you read "Thou shalt not accept evolution". Those who contend that God is wholly against evolution have drawn a line in the sand that the scriptures do not draw, and thus have inadvertently "added" to the scriptures. In their quest to defend the indefensible, they have violated one of the basic precepts of revealed theology.
I would point out that this denunciation of evolution is not truly "fundamentalism", but "extremism" disguised as being based on the scriptures. True fundamentalism brings you back to the core values of Christianity, which is captured in I Corinthians 13: the chapter on Love.
Anti-evolutionism in Christianity is merely extremism coupled with quite a few assumptions. The true fundamentalist would never condemn a system of beliefs that is not specifically condemned in scripture. Again, no where can you read "Thou shalt not accept evolution". Those who contend that God is wholly against evolution have drawn a line in the sand that the scriptures do not draw, and thus have inadvertently "added" to the scriptures. In their quest to defend the indefensible, they have violated one of the basic precepts of revealed theology.
I blink and there are 10 more pages in this thread.
I, for one, appreciate everyone's candor and input through this entire thread. I haven't changed my mind on anything, not did I ever think I'd change anyone else's mind but I have learned a lot about how different people view the world through different glasses. I've also learned some fun stuff about rocks and astronomy and physics...
I don't really feel the need to try and dispute the existence of a historical Jesus because in the end it doesn't matter a bit. The basic message that I get out of the Bible is "don't be an jerk." I think that's a good message and would serve everyone well if they lived it. I know there are plenty out there that take it further than that and that's fine too right up until the time you try to push it on me.
I appreciate the time that people have spent defending their views, on both sides, and that the discussion has been darn civil especially knowing some of the personalities involved. For all those trying to close the thread, please don't read it. I think it stands as a monument to what a forum thread can do and be.
... and now back to your regularly scheduled C vs. E debate.
R
I, for one, appreciate everyone's candor and input through this entire thread. I haven't changed my mind on anything, not did I ever think I'd change anyone else's mind but I have learned a lot about how different people view the world through different glasses. I've also learned some fun stuff about rocks and astronomy and physics...
I don't really feel the need to try and dispute the existence of a historical Jesus because in the end it doesn't matter a bit. The basic message that I get out of the Bible is "don't be an jerk." I think that's a good message and would serve everyone well if they lived it. I know there are plenty out there that take it further than that and that's fine too right up until the time you try to push it on me.
I appreciate the time that people have spent defending their views, on both sides, and that the discussion has been darn civil especially knowing some of the personalities involved. For all those trying to close the thread, please don't read it. I think it stands as a monument to what a forum thread can do and be.
... and now back to your regularly scheduled C vs. E debate.
R
True enough Pete. The Bible doesn't mention evolution. The account of creation is pretty vague and there's an awful lot that it doesn't say. It isn't a science book or a cook book that you can follow to create your own universe. It is clear on some points though. For instance, that God created everything, That He created things according to their own kind and that he did certain things within a specific time frame.
We know that symbolism is used in the Bible. Do we completely understand everyplace it's used and in every way? Revelation is filled with symbolism. When Jesus said that His body and blood were to be food and drink, I don't think that he was commanding His desciples to step forward, cut Him up and devour him. Is there any symbolism, in the creation account? If there is, I don't see it but it isn't very detailed.
I don't see a way to completely reconcile the book of Genesis with all of science. Even if a scientist believes in God, I don't see where he has any choice but to limit scientific discussion to measureables. I know that as an engineer I could not explain away things by just saying that God did it. LOL I had to get a little more specific.
Different denominations and even indivudual churches interpret the Bible in sorts of imaganitive ways from concidering it inerrant to infallible to authoritative to just flat out taking the parts they like and discarding what they don't.
Even when an honest attempt is made to interpret the Bible strictly not everyone is going to agree on every single point especially without going to great lengths like looking the the actual words used, how it was translated and how that same word or phrase is used in other parts of the Bible. Taking small pieces out of context is a great way to mess it all up.
We know that symbolism is used in the Bible. Do we completely understand everyplace it's used and in every way? Revelation is filled with symbolism. When Jesus said that His body and blood were to be food and drink, I don't think that he was commanding His desciples to step forward, cut Him up and devour him. Is there any symbolism, in the creation account? If there is, I don't see it but it isn't very detailed.
I don't see a way to completely reconcile the book of Genesis with all of science. Even if a scientist believes in God, I don't see where he has any choice but to limit scientific discussion to measureables. I know that as an engineer I could not explain away things by just saying that God did it. LOL I had to get a little more specific.
Different denominations and even indivudual churches interpret the Bible in sorts of imaganitive ways from concidering it inerrant to infallible to authoritative to just flat out taking the parts they like and discarding what they don't.
Even when an honest attempt is made to interpret the Bible strictly not everyone is going to agree on every single point especially without going to great lengths like looking the the actual words used, how it was translated and how that same word or phrase is used in other parts of the Bible. Taking small pieces out of context is a great way to mess it all up.
lamont
Contributor
MikeFerrara:
Does your God decide on right and wrong down the level of noise abatement laws, or does he stick with "do unto others"? And why must he necessarily decide what is right and wrong? The creator may have created the concepts of right and wrong, but why would he *necessarily* proscribe what they were?
That's going to get into a rathole of a discussion. I think its garbage. If I think its garbage, it will change my unique reaction to it and I'll argue against it. The garbage-ness of it has a subjective reality to me which is very real to me and which affects my behavior. You may disagree. That's what makes the entire world go round.
Yeah, and that's the attitude that annoys me about Christians. If a person believes that God doesn't exist they can choose to have a very selfish and solipsistic viewpoint on morality and ethics, which leads to Pride and other human failings. Or you can choose to not have a selfish philosophy and to respect the give and take between yourself and other humans (and your environment and the rest of your world), which is actually much larger than yourself and (imo) must be given the kind of respect that Christians give God.
If you don't allow for this possibility, though, there is no possibility for discourse between Athiests and Christians (at least Christians which hold your beliefs). If you completely deny the ability for morality and ethics to be drawn from non-religious and entirely human sources, then really you're just judging me to be inherently immoral and unethical and there's no point in us talking one more word about it.
It is very important to me that I agree with them. If I don't I will debate them on the point of morality and ethics with with we disagree. That doesn't have any implications, though, towards science and the original topic at hand.
And we are going to have to agree to disagree. This is one of those things which I really despise people pulling out of the Bible because it severely limits our ability to live together and understand one another.
If that is your answer I have nothing else to say to you... I have nothing I can say to you...
Why not? It becomes clear at the very beginning of Genesis that God is not talking with modern people who understand what an epoch is. To these naive individuals, God laid out how the Universe came to be. Not in terms of precise times and places but in "baby talk", so to speak, so that his people would understand just one thing: God is in control. I talk completely differently to my son now that he is 17 than when he was an infant. Holding Genesis to the same standards of clarity and precision as we would hold Matthew is taking it out of it's historical context. In fact Hebrews opens up with this very thought:MikeFerrara:
Hebrews 1:1 In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. NIV
Like any good Father, God speaks to us differently as we mature. The same can be said for us individually as we listen to His Spirit.
BTW, a good word study of the Hebrew shows that the word "day" used in Genesis really means a "warm period" or a "working period". It had nothing to do with a 24 hour time span. We really have no clue how long these "working periods" lasted, and just how active God was in the process.
II Peter 3:8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. NIV
Folks, lets stop getting over the top.
Mod warning:
Keep it civil or someone chills for awhile.
Mod warning:
Keep it civil or someone chills for awhile.
Soggy
Contributor
No one knows who wrote Genesis. Some sects believe it was Moses, but no authorship is claimed in the text. What reason is there to believe that what is written down is the way things happened?
Because! ...............................................
- Status
Similar threads
