Evolution and Christianity

This is also a typical YEC trick of tying evolution to the destruction of original sin and Jesus' redemption, thus striking the strongest cord of Christianity. The problem comes with layers of faulty interpretation layered upon one another.

The "trick" was tying literal to "true" and non-literal to "false". Otherwise I'm not sure it's a trick or a sincere belief on the part of YECers. It could be a debating trick, or it could be one of their legitimate fears.

If a fear, that fear does arise from their faulty interpretation, as you say. What always puzzles me is that, if you can get rid of the fear by changing the interpretation without harming Christianity (which you can), then why not change the interpretation?

Unfortunately, that brings us to the psychology of YECers and a stubborness to cling to a faulty interpretation. I am afraid that all the answers I find point to severe theological deficiencies. Deficiencies sufficient to get them cut off from God.

Yes, you are right, I think it does arise out of a sincere belief (and that belief is, indeed, based on fear, whether conscious or not). I did not mean to suggest that they are using debating tricks knowingly (although some do, I am sure).

The reason why they must go to absurd extremes rather than accept that their interpretation is wrong is primarily their fear of the "slippery slope". This comes in two interrelated flavors:

First, if their interpretation here is wrong, that calls into question all of their interpretations.

Second, if you change any position based on evidence given by the "World" or, even worse, "Science" in particular, then you are compromising or weakening and once you give in on one point, you will eventually give in on all of them.

The whole "slippery slope" argument is a very sad one. This means that if they are at the top of the slope, and the truth is halfway down the slope, they will never get to the truth for fear of sliding right past it and heading off into error. I say: get better climbing gear.

Nicely put! So how do we help them get better climbing gear?

First, we can show other passages where they don't take a literal interpretation -- Luke 2:1 for instance -- and that doesn't cause them to question their interpretation of Genesis 1.

Second, we can demonstrate that a literal interpretation has been shown to be wrong before by extrabiblical evidence -- flat earth and geocentrism (and evolution) -- and Christianity has survived. How do we reassure them that there are some points -- such as the Resurrection -- that science simply can't touch?

The problem is dealing with the underlying (subconscious?) fear that is involved. It is very powerful. I think you are on the right track regarding the reassurances.

One thing to point out is that while God can and does "over-ride" his own natural laws when it fits His purpose (as with all the miracles described in the Bible), those natural laws are still there and discoverable by science. These laws, if understood correctly, can explain the past and predict the future in EVERY case except those in which God purposefully chose to over-ride them. The natural world was created by God and does not lie to us, but it can never disprove any event in which a supernatural force was involved since such action is just that: "super"-natural.

The study of science is just the effort to determine what happens when there *is* no supernatural intervention. If the conclusion is that evolution happens unless there is a supernatural intervention, then we should take that seriously and ask ourselves to what extent the Scripture states *without doubt* that a supernatural overriding of this natural process took place.

I'm not sure that reasurances are the right track. That's why I started the "Lost sheep or fatal disease?" thread. It doesn't seem to matter how many reassurances you give a Biblical literalist. They will still stick to literalism no matter what. So maybe we should move this discussion over there. I'll post the rest of my response there.

If that is what you wish to believe about the word of God than that is your choice but in your attempt simply dismiss the creation account to that of a parable you forget that Jesus told parables only after when? Only when it was made clear to us that that they were parables:

Matthew 13:18 Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower.
Matthew 13:24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
Matthew 13:31 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:
Matthew 13:33 Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.
Matthew 13:34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:
Matthew 13:36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.
Matthew 15:15 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable.
Matthew 21:33 Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country:
Matthew 24:32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:
Mark 4:10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.
Mark 4:13 And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables?
Mark 4:34 But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples.
Mark 7:17 And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable.
Mark 12:12 And they sought to lay hold on him, but feared the people: for they knew that he had spoken the parable against them: and they left him, and went their way.
Mark 13:28 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When her branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is near:
Luke 5:36 And he spake also a parable unto them; No man putteth a piece of a new garment upon an old; if otherwise, then both the new maketh a rent, and the piece that was taken out of the new agreeth not with the old.
Luke 6:39 And he spake a parable unto them, Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch?
Luke 8:4 And when much people were gathered together, and were come to him out of every city, he spake by a parable:
Luke 8:9 And his disciples asked him, saying, What might this parable be?
Luke 8:11 Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.
Luke 12:16 And he spake a parable unto them, saying, The ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully:
Luke 12:41 Then Peter said unto him, Lord, speakest thou this parable unto us, or even to all?
Luke 13:6 He spake also this parable; A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none.
Luke 14:7 And he put forth a parable to those which were bidden, when he marked how they chose out the chief rooms; saying unto them,
Luke 15:3 And he spake this parable unto them, saying,
Luke 18:1 And he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint;
Luke 18:9 And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:
Luke 19:11 And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear.
Luke 20:9 Then began he to speak to the people this parable; A certain man planted a vineyard, and let it forth to husbandmen, and went into a far country for a long time.
Luke 20:19 And the chief priests and the scribes the same hour sought to lay hands on him; and they feared the people: for they perceived that he had spoken this parable against them.
Luke 21:29 And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees;
John 10:6 This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them.

Before a parable was told the reader is made aware that it was a parable so it would be very erroneous to conclude that the creation account was in fact only a parable when Jesus used parables all the time. This comes not from faith I suspect but from fallible human reasoning.

Jesus was God you know and the fact that He was God also meant that He was omniscient and knew the capabilities of our finite minds. If Jesus were to tell us of heavenly things how can we as finite beings understand infinite heavenly concepts without an earthly axiom to work with?

__________________

That may be – however it seems neither do many self proclaimed Christians but that is what is expected – as there are different levels of being a Christian you know. It is one thing to talk the Christian talk but it is another to walk it.

__________________

So. Because these passages are explicitly parables it follows that all parables must be explicitly delared as such? I cannot present you with an example of an unannounced parable because by your definition it can't be a parable if it's unannounced. It's a True Scotsman fallacy:

All True Scotsman eat salted porridge
My Uncle Hamish doesn't eat salted porridge
Your Uncle Hamish isn't a True Scotsman

i.e.

All parables are announced as parables
The book of Job is not announced as a parable
The book of Job is not a parable.

Correct

Wrong. Mark 13 v.32

Because He had one as well. If He didn't, He wasn't truly human. He emptied Himself of the attributes of divinity to become Man (Philippians 2). But Christology is by the by.

Indeed. Which is why He didn't tart around messing with the primitive scientific understanding of people but worked within that understanding.

Karl - Liberal Backslider] 1) Midway through your paragraph you shift from "literal and not" to "true and false". Is this your problem - you don't understand how something can be true without being literal?

Let faith guide your thinking chap, not mere human intuition. You obviously missed the point as what I was saying is why do we believe in what scripture says in certain things when we do not in others? Is it logical to believe in an inconsistent God? Or for that matter a God who deceives by saying He did one thing and then shows us another?

2) Does it matter? The lessons and applications for today are the same whether it's literal or not.

Yes it does matter. If one were Satan and wanted to destroy the truth about God where would one begin? It would be pointless to attack the virgin birth or the resurrection of Christ, as that would be too obvious. One would start with the very foundation of all scripture – in discrediting God as sole creator as that is what makes Him God and gives Him sole proprietary rights to us. What one has done then is proven (or think they have anyway) that God is not required or needed – therefore He has no right to us as natural processes could have done what God is said to have done. And so there was no literal Adam and Eve and there was no original sin therefore there is no need for Christ to die for anyone. That would be barbaric acording to todays standards and besides how can one man die for the whole world anyway or for that matter why would God allow His one and only son to die for a race descended of apes anyway?

__________________