Some help, please

Arnold_Philips · #1 4th November 2003, 12:16 PM

Yesterday I met with by Bible study and we got around to the topic of original sin. I eventually just said, "I'm sorry. I don't believe in Adam and Eve." This guy, JD, looked at me and said, "You don't believe in evolution, do you?" He said "evolution" like a child whispering a bad word. Of course I answered 'yes.' Some of them looked at me with great disbelief. (Heaven knows how they'll react when I tell them I gay.)

But anyway, a couple of them wanted to talk tomorrow, and what I request from you, oh gracious CF posters, is a basic rundown of why I don't believe in creationism or original sin. I guess what I want is a better way to firmly state my position, because I fumble over words easily. I don't consider myself at all worthy of this debate (for one, I am not as knowledgable to keep up, and to me, it just doesn't seem important as it has no bearing on salvation), so I just needed some quick facts. Basically, I want to tell them in an informed manner that I am a Christian that doesn't believe in The Fall or Creationism, and that the two do not contradict.

Thanks in advance.

ps139 · #2 4th November 2003, 12:21 PM

In my experience with fundamentalist Christians, they have not been able to admit that there can be any midway point between full blown 7 day creationism and randomly driven evolution. I believe that the evolutionary process occurred, took a long long time, but was directed by God. In other words, these "random mutations" were not random at all. However my evangelical father still regards me as an "evolutionist" and is trying to get me to watch some video...I will watch it but I do not think it will change my mind.

As far as the Fall...if you do not believe that man is born a sinner, what did Jesus Christ die for? Is Genesis 3 historically true in every detail? Maybe, but I do not think it matters, what matters is the spiritual truth that men have fallen from grace, as Paul says "we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."

lucaspa · #3 4th November 2003, 12:32 PM

Originally Posted by Arnold_Philips

But anyway, a couple of them wanted to talk tomorrow, and what I request from you, oh gracious CF posters, is a basic rundown of why I don't believe in creationism or original sin. I guess what I want is a better way to firmly state my position, because I fumble over words easily. I don't consider myself at all worthy of this debate (for one, I am not as knowledgable to keep up, and to me, it just doesn't seem important as it has no bearing on salvation), so I just needed some quick facts. Basically, I want to tell them in an informed manner that I am a Christian that doesn't believe in The Fall or Creationism, and that the two do not contradict.

Thanks in advance.

1. You don't accept creationism because the evidence God left in His Creation show He didn't create that way. We can go into specifics later.

2. You accept evolution because the evidence God left in His Creation shows He created this way. Instead, you throw out the man-made literal interpretation of Genesis.

3. Genesis 2 is an allegory where Adam (Dust) and Eve (Hearth) stand for each and every one of us in our disobedience of God. After all, Jesus died for your sins, didn't he? Not for Adam's. But for you.

4. If you really want to blow their minds, point out that evolution gives you the source of that disobedience and the "original sin". Natural selection must make an individual selfish. It can't make a completely altruistic individual or species. If a feature doesn't have some consequences useful to the individual, then it can't be selected for. So, by creating thru evolution and natural selection, God guaranteed that humans would be selfish and would choose to disobey God for what they consider their own best intersest: knowledge of good and evil as good for Adam and Eve. We need a Savior precisely because we were created by evolution.

SacredLight · #4 4th November 2003, 12:36 PM

Agreed with the second part of ps139.

As for the first part, I would have to agree with ps139's father

I have been told that by keeping to the word of God, I'm putting my own interpretation on the bible and taking Genesis literal makes me wrong by few on CF.

Its when we take the bible as metaphoric that we go from the Word of God, to the Word of Man.

I dont know what to tell you but to look into it more, and maybe your friends will have some good advice.

It really doesnt matter in the end, you know.

Not believing in the fall though, is a problem.

Godzman · #5 4th November 2003, 12:38 PM

Actually you can believe in creation and not original sin, we do not inherent adam's sin but his nature to sin

lucaspa · #6 4th November 2003, 12:43 PM

Originally Posted by SacredLight

Its when we take the bible as metaphoric that we go from the Word of God, to the Word of Man.

Don't you take the parables as metaphoric?

Or how about ob 26:7, I Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and Psalm 104:5? Each of these states in plain Hebrew that the earth is immovable. Yet we know from extrabiblical evidence that the earth moves around the sun! So you take these passages as metaphor or at least non-literal.

How about Luke 2:1? It says literally that ALL the world was enrolled. Do you really take that literally or is Luke using a metaphor for the Roman world?

The problem is that even the most ardent Biblical literalist takes some passages of the Bible as metaphor. So your argument can't be used.

What we are discussing is whether Genesis 1 or Genesis 2-3 should be read as non-literal. Both internal textual clues and the overwhelming evidence from God's Creation says a literal reading is incorrect.

Godzman · #7 4th November 2003, 12:45 PM

Originally Posted by lucaspa

Don't you take the parables as metaphoric?

Or how about ob 26:7, I Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and Psalm 104:5? Each of these states in plain Hebrew that the earth is immovable. Yet we know from extrabiblical evidence that the earth moves around the sun! So you take these passages as metaphor or at least non-literal.

How about Luke 2:1? It says literally that ALL the world was enrolled. Do you really take that literally or is Luke using a metaphor for the Roman world?

The problem is that even the most ardent Biblical literalist takes some passages of the Bible as metaphor. So your argument can't be used.

What we are discussing is whether Genesis 1 or Genesis 2-3 should be read as non-literal. Both internal textual clues and the overwhelming evidence from God's Creation says a literal reading is incorrect.

Yes but Genesis is not written as a parable, it is true, Adam and Eve were real, I have my own opinions about creation, which is not anything but my opinions.

SacredLight · #8 4th November 2003, 12:50 PM

Godzman is right.

Parables are written as metaphors, Genesis is written as history.

Arikay · #9 4th November 2003, 01:01 PM

If genesis is written as literal history and must be taken that way, then you are setting the bible up to be shown false.

Er, I mean, You are setting the bible up to have already been shown false almost 200 Years ago.

Probably not a good idea.

Godzman · #10 4th November 2003, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by Arikay

If genesis is written as literal history and must be taken that way, then you are setting the bible up to be shown false.

Er, I mean, You are setting the bible up to have already been shown false almost 200 Years ago.

Probably not a good idea.

that is silly, you weren't around when the world was made, so you believe science, which only sees through a limited scope, it takes faith in God, to believe the bible, and yes I am afraid, that if religion was false, then why do people worship science, worship man, worship sports, worship their car, people have a nature, where does this nature to worship come from???