Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
Christianity has fought, still fights, and will continue to fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.” G. Richard Bozarth, The Meaning of Evolution, American Atheist, p. 30. 20 September 1979.
Any comments?
__________________
"to give truth to him who loves it not is only to give him more plentiful material for misrepresentation." - George MacDonald
"The foundationless, fantastic edifice of the evolution doctrine would long ago have met with its long deserved fate were it not that the love of fairy tales is so deep-rooted in the hearts of man." - Albert Fleischmann
He doesn't know what he's talking about since most Christians accept evolution with no problems. If it destroyed Christianity then Christians wouldn't accept it would they.
__________________ "Ach, stick it up yer trakkans!"
he is an atheist who doesn't seem to realise that science is agnostic and christianity does not require belief in a literal creation. Perhaps he has reached this conclusion because of the number of christians who desperately cling to the premise that the Bible is the literal truth, rather than a theological one. It is a shame when Atheists get sucked into this mentality.
__________________ MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.
He doesn't know what he's talking about since most Christians accept evolution with no problems. If it destroyed Christianity then Christians wouldn't accept it would they.
Heh, heh - lets have an intelligent discussion this time and not make generalizations we cannot support.
__________________
"to give truth to him who loves it not is only to give him more plentiful material for misrepresentation." - George MacDonald
"The foundationless, fantastic edifice of the evolution doctrine would long ago have met with its long deserved fate were it not that the love of fairy tales is so deep-rooted in the hearts of man." - Albert Fleischmann
he is an atheist who doesn't seem to realise that science is agnostic and christianity does not require belief in a literal creation. Perhaps he has reached this conclusion because of the number of christians who desperately cling to the premise that the Bible is the literal truth, rather than a theological one. It is a shame when Atheists get sucked into this mentality.
So where do you draw the line when something in scripture is literal and when something is not? If the Bible is true in some parts and not in others how do we know for certain if the parts that are considered true are not really false?
__________________
"to give truth to him who loves it not is only to give him more plentiful material for misrepresentation." - George MacDonald
"The foundationless, fantastic edifice of the evolution doctrine would long ago have met with its long deserved fate were it not that the love of fairy tales is so deep-rooted in the hearts of man." - Albert Fleischmann
scripture is a theological message... a guide to get to heaven if you like. you can tell that God uses this method in the parables told by Jesus. the literal truth of what he says is not important - the message is. (oops, sorry, I posted in the CO forum )
__________________ MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.
Last edited by Jet Black; 18th August 2003 at 11:24 AM.
So where do you draw the line when something in scripture is literal and when something is not? If the Bible is true in some parts and not in others how do we know for certain if the parts that are considered true are not really false?
Two points.
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?
2) Does it matter? The lessons and applications for today are the same whether it's literal or not.
Yes. Evidently this guy knows nothing about the history of Christianity.
“Darwin is conquering everywhere, and rushing in like a flood, by the mere force of truth and fact. The one or two who hold out [against Darwin] are forced to try all sorts of subterfuges as to fact, or else by invoking the odium theologicum…” In the same letter Kingsley says: “the state of the scientific mind is most curious…They find that now they have got rid of an interfering God -- a master -- magician, as I call it -- they have to choose between the absolute empire of accident, and a living, eminent, ever-working God.” Charles Kingsley http://www.ucl.ac.uk/sts/cain/texts/osborn.pdf
"Fortunately, at about the time when Darwin's Descent of Man was published, there had come into Princeton University ``deus ex machina'' in the person of Dr. James McCosh. Called to the presidency, he at once took his stand against teachings so dangerous to Christianity as those of Drs. Hodge, Duffield, and their associates. In one of his personal confidences he has let us into the secret of this matter. With that hard Scotch sense which Thackeray had applauded in his well-known verses, he saw that the most dangerous thing which could be done to Christianity at Princeton was to reiterate in the university pulpit, week after week, solemn declarations that if evolution by natural selection, or indeed evolution at all, be true, the Scriptures are false. He tells us that he saw that this was the certain way to make the students unbelievers; he therefore not only checked this dangerous preaching but preached an opposite doctrine. With him began the inevitable compromise, and, in spite of mutterings against him as a Darwinian, he carried the day. Whatever may be thought of his general system of philosophy, no one can deny his great service in neutralizing the teachings of his predecessors and colleagues - so dangerous to all that is essential in Christianity. " http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi...al-effort.html
So where do you draw the line when something in scripture is literal and when something is not? If the Bible is true in some parts and not in others how do we know for certain if the parts that are considered true are not really false?
I agree with Karl. Nice sleight of hand here. In the first sentence you have literal and not literal. In the second sentence you deftly equate literal to true and non-literal to false.
1. What do you do about the parables of Jesus. NONE of them are literal, but do you then think they are not true?
2. What do you do with Luke 2:1? "ALL the world was taxed". Don't you know that this is not literal. Don't you know that Japanese, Sioux, and Laplanders were not taxed? How do you know this?
3. What do you do with Job 26:7, I Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and Psalm 104:5? Plain Hebrew that the earth does not move. Yet don't you know that the earth goes around the sun? That it moves?
When you answer those questions you will be able to answer both of yours. You will know how we decide that some passages are not literal and you will be able to tell the difference from "literally" true and theologically true.
Christianity has fought, still fights, and will continue to fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.” G. Richard Bozarth, The Meaning of Evolution, American Atheist, p. 30. 20 September 1979.
Notice that Bozarth has Jesus dying for OUR sins. Yours and mine. Not Adam's. Not Moses'. Not Noah's. So, how does evolution mean that WE do not sin? Isn't sin disobeying God and/or hurting out fellow humans? Can't we do that just as well if we evolved from an ape-like ancestor as if we were spoken into existence?
Adam and Eve are NOT destroyed by evolution. They are still the allegorical archetypes that stand for you and me. BOZARTH's man-made doctrine of original sin is in trouble, but Christianity isn't.
) 
Linear Mode
