For my fellow Christians: How we should read Genesis

Nathan45 · #41 23rd February 2008, 03:37 AM

Originally Posted by Vance

You know, Nathan, there have been cases where non-Christians come on this forum and take very dramatic and unreasonable positions for the sole purpose of undermining Christianity. While I have sometimes considered whether AV is one of these since his posts fit the profile very well, I really don't think Inan is one of them. At least I am giving her the benefit of the doubt.

... the name would be a pretty strong coincidence.

Nathan45 · #42 23rd February 2008, 03:41 AM

Originally Posted by Nathan45

... the name would be a pretty strong coincidence.

And i'm going to bow out of this particular thread now, anyway, as i seem to be hijacking it in a different direction.

Inan3 · #43 23rd February 2008, 03:42 AM

Originally Posted by Vance

A few points.

1. You did seem confused about what "question-begging" was based on your response to that point..

I may not have know what it meant but but I certainly was not confused.

2. You definitely seemed very dramatic and over-reactive to what is, after all, a fairly common position among Christians worldwide. Almost all of the mainstream Protestant Christian denominations hold a similar position, as does the Catholic Church. But you reacted as if it was just some extreme, radical position.

I may have seemed very dramatic but I don't think it was YOUR place to point that out. If Christ were here today many would call Him dramatic, dogmatic and over-reactive, too.

As to mainstream Protestant so called Christian denominations and the Catholic, while I do disagree with most of them I do not think they are extreme nor radical in their faith, quite the opposite I think they are dead in their faith. They have intellectually picked apart the scriptures so that they have made the power of God of none affect.

2Ti 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
2Ti 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

3. I am not advocating any type of free-for-all interpretation, but a sensible and rational approach to exegesis. Kind of ironic that you would think this was wild speculative interpretation when this entire thread is about the approach of one of the founding pillars of our Christian tradition.

If you are speaking of Augustine, he was not a founding pillar to my Christian tradition nor to many millions of others. It seems to me he, too fit the above scriptures.

4. This is not an attack on you personally, either, but just asking you to take a step back and look at the tone and nature of your post. You all but called me a heretic and non-Christian. Even in writing, your tone came across as a significant "rant". I am merely stating that this is an odd reaction to something that is not very dramatic within the Christian world.

My tone is one of conviction rather than mere ranting. I find it very "dramatic" as you say. It is a vital difference amongst believers and unbelievers. The scriptures are the foundation of our faith, Jesus Christ being the Chief Cornerstone. It's obvious that you and I both live in different Christian worlds. I do think that anyone who wants to interpret the scriptures to fit evolution is somewhat heretical or at least ignorant of the scriptures. You really have not refuted that. What do you base your Christianity on? How do you know you are a Christian?

The articles are merely there for your assistance in understanding a position that seems to take you by such surprise. If you choose not to look at them, that is fine. But I think it would be a bit disingenuous to argue so vehemently against a position that you don't even want to bother to understand. Polemics without research is not really sensible

It doesn't really take me by surprise because I knew it existed but it still throws me back a little to hear someone claim to be a Christian and in the same breath suggest that Genesis or any of the scripture cannot be taken literal. You mess with the foundation and you are building your house on sand. As to the articles I said "at this time", I may look into them later but merely as a reference point.

Inan3 · #44 23rd February 2008, 04:00 AM

Originally Posted by Nathan45

A choice... is that so?

Romans 9:15-18
15For he says to Moses,
‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.’

16So it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who shows mercy.

17For the scripture says to Pharaoh, ‘I have raised you up for the very purpose of showing my power in you, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.’

18So then he has mercy on whomsoever he chooses, and he hardens the heart of whomsoever he chooses.

Do people like Vance and augustine not want or choose God? Has he revealed them the truth, and are they true christians, and are they born again, or are they not? Or is every one a God-hating liar?

And can anyone really choose what they believe? Proclaim whatever you want, but you cannot make one hair white or black.

Jn 6:64-65
But among you there are some who do not believe.’ For Jesus knew from the first who were the ones that did not believe, and who was the one that would betray him.

65And he said, ‘For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted by the Father.’

Jn 6:44
44No one can come to me unless drawn by the Father who sent me; and I will raise that person up on the last day.

Jn 8:47
"47Whoever is from God hears the words of God. The reason you do not hear them is that you are not from God."

Yes, but He in another place tells us who He will have mercy on.

Mat 5:7 Blessed [are] the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

Paul's point in the scripture you were referring to was that we have to come HIS way. As I was saying before, we can't come the way we want. We MUST be born again. BUT then again in John it says,

Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:
Joh 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

1Jn 5:1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

I don't know if Vance and Augustine want God or choose Him but I do know that if they do then He will come to them and make His abode with them. If they receive Jesus Christ then He will give them the power to become the sons of God. My only point is that sometimes people are religious and want to serve or find God on their own merits or by going to a specific church. They neglect or reject the provision that God has made...the sacrifice of the Lamb of God, Jesus Christ, on our behalf.

Just because Jesus knew those who believed and those who did not does not mean that they were predestined to be that way. God does know those who will choose Him but ALL have the invitation.

Inan3 · #45 23rd February 2008, 04:19 AM

Originally Posted by ReverendDG

then what gives you the right to take shots at augustines' faith then? wasn't that between him and god? i still think you just don't agree with him so you say hes not a true christian, even though you have no right to say this.

so you agree that believing in creationism doesn't make you more or less of a christian then?
that believing genesis is literal is not part of being christian and its absurd to try to hack up science so creationism is right?

its funny but creationists like to argue that you aren't a true christian unless you agree with creationism. yet people say to be a true christian all you need to do is believe in jesus. so which is it?

When a person is born again they are literally born by the Word of God. The Word is our life, also literally. Peter said to desire the sincere milk of the word that we might grow by it. It is also referred to as meat. We are changed by the Word, delivered by the Word, healed by the Word, our life is by the Word.

I have never said you have to agree with creationism to be a true Chrisitan what I have said is that if you are a true Chrisitan you will believe all the Bible. It's an outcome of being born again. If God said He made man in His image and likeness and He separated them out specifically from the rest of creation than that's the way He made them. He didn't mean they came from some primate ancestor. He meant what He said and a true Christian will believe that, if not when he/she first becomes a Christian they will when they learn what the scriptures teach and take them for face value.

Inan3 · #46 23rd February 2008, 04:22 AM

Originally Posted by Vance

You know, Nathan, there have been cases where non-Christians come on this forum and take very dramatic and unreasonable positions for the sole purpose of undermining Christianity. While I have sometimes considered whether AV is one of these since his posts fit the profile very well, I really don't think Inan is one of them. At least I am giving her the benefit of the doubt.

I am a Christian and for that matter so is AV. You just have to read his post to know this.

Psudopod · #47 23rd February 2008, 06:28 AM

If God said He made man in His image and likeness and He separated them out specifically from the rest of creation than that's the way He made them. He didn't mean they came from some primate ancestor. He meant what He said and a true Christian will believe that, if not when he/she first becomes a Christian they will when they learn what the scriptures teach and take them for face value.

So god has 4 limbs, 2 eyes, a mouth, reproductive organs? Does he have long hair or short hair? If god has a penis, does that mean women are not in the image of god? Or maybe image isn't appearance, but something deeper.

I believe someone mentioned that image (or prehaps ythe word transalated as image) did not always mean an optical reflextion. It also used to be someone who acts for a power or leader, ie an ambassador is in the image of his country.

You migth not like the fact that we are primates, or animals, but I bet you cannot look at the definition of ape and point out part that humans do not line up with.

If you take scripture for face value, you can end up with things that contradict god's very creation. If scripture is literal and there was a global flood about 4000 years ago, why does god's creation not only show no evidence but in fact show the event was impossible? A literal reading of several passages shows a geocentric view point. Most people will deny this, but that's because they know better. They are taking an interpretation to fit with relality. And there are plenty of christians past and present who will argue against the re-interpretation of those passage.

Choosing a literal interpretation that goes against relaity seems like building a house on snad to me. Because you are setting scripture up to be falsified. I've seen many creationists state things like "well if genesis isn't literally true then the whole thing is wrong and I'll stop being a christian." They then have to ignore god's very creation, or risk losing their face in him. (Not saying this is you, by the way, but it's definitely some people).

AV1611VET · #48 23rd February 2008, 10:17 AM

Originally Posted by Vance

Honestly, do you even know anything about Augustine?

I know he's dead. Whether he was saved or not, I have no idea. I know he didn't go to our church. I couldn't care less about what he had to say.

[bible]Matthew 22:16[/bible]

DoubtingThomas29 · #49 23rd February 2008, 03:57 PM

Vance if you were a priest at a local church of mine, I would go to your church to try to be more spiritual. I totally believe that wheter you are convinced there is no God, or convinced there is a God or convinced it is better to reserve judgment, that is a matter of faith. We have to realize that we are on a spiritual journey too, not just a journey to get a better career, or to be more succesful but to truly grow as a person. I too look for meaning and significance in the human condition and would like to try to be more agnostic towards the existance of God. Unfortunately though I do not know of any libral theological churches around where I live. I used to go to a Lutheran church, and the pastors coming out of the seminary, are such that I cannot agree with what they are being taught. My faith demands, to reject a God who punishes people for all eternity, or even for one day, who is he to do that? We come into existance, forced to live, and now he is going to punish us because we messed up or didn't believe the right thing? I reject that God in a heart beat and like to think Buddha is smiling down on me from Buddha land to have gotten over the irrational fears I had for all my agnostic atheist and non-christian friends. The quest for rational thought is a hard one, and frankly most days I feel as though we are so lucky to be alive, and we owe our existance entirely to natural processes that really forced us to be alive. However if I could find a more liberal church or a buddhist temple I would like to try to hope there is a God who created the universe and just might come back to the Earth and ressurect us. And no longer feel certain of that, but just hope that when my older friends and parents start to die off really, I can still hope that there is a buddha land that people go to and try to stick around for a whil if they want to. If they rather not exist then, I am sure the creator can be accomidating to that too, and just let them be dead forever.

Personally though I can't help but think, if a creator who is really smart is going to try to make a thinking feeling thing exist, he'll make sure it can go back to not existing again. Just incase the quality of life of the person or animal becomes like torture to the living animal or person, I mean death can be looked at as nature's insurance policy for life incase life goes to total agony.

There is a truth, Nano Amita A Butsu.

Inan3 · #50 23rd February 2008, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by Psudopod

[/color][/size][/font]

So god has 4 limbs, 2 eyes, a mouth, reproductive organs? Does he have long hair or short hair? If god has a penis, does that mean women are not in the image of god? Or maybe image isn't appearance, but something deeper.

I believe someone mentioned that image (or prehaps ythe word transalated as image) did not always mean an optical reflextion. It also used to be someone who acts for a power or leader, ie an ambassador is in the image of his country.

You migth not like the fact that we are primates, or animals, but I bet you cannot look at the definition of ape and point out part that humans do not line up with.

If you take scripture for face value, you can end up with things that contradict god's very creation. If scripture is literal and there was a global flood about 4000 years ago, why does god's creation not only show no evidence but in fact show the event was impossible? A literal reading of several passages shows a geocentric view point. Most people will deny this, but that's because they know better. They are taking an interpretation to fit with relality. And there are plenty of christians past and present who will argue against the re-interpretation of those passage.

Choosing a literal interpretation that goes against relaity seems like building a house on snad to me. Because you are setting scripture up to be falsified. I've seen many creationists state things like "well if genesis isn't literally true then the whole thing is wrong and I'll stop being a christian." They then have to ignore god's very creation, or risk losing their face in him. (Not saying this is you, by the way, but it's definitely some people).

My point was IF Genesis was an allegory as some would have you believe, then what was God's purpose in the of singling out the creation of man. IF man is merely a primate than why not just leave it with the creation of the beasts of the field?

By definition:
Allegory is a form of extended metaphor, in which objects, persons, and actions in a narrative, are equated with the meanings that lie outside the narrative itself. The underlying meaning has moral, social, religious, or political significance, and characters are often personifications of abstract ideas as charity, greed, or envy.
Thus an allegory is a story with two meanings, a literal meaning and a symbolic meaning. http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/lit_terms/allegory.html

Whatis this underlying meaning that God would specifically mention the creation of man?

Also, of Genesis be an allegory as the definition states, it has both a LITERAL meaning and a symbolic meaning. What would these be? I see NOTHING in these verses of scripture that would remotely connect the creation of man with any other animal He created. You would have to MAKE IT UP an stray far from the actual words to connect Genesis with Evolution.

And if you are going to make it up or add to it then you are changing the Word of God which God commands NOT to do.

Now if a person is so inclined to do so, it would appear that they disregard the command of the Lord and therefore it would appear that they are really NOT "true" Christians because by definition a Christian is a follower of Christ and Christ ALWAYS obeyed the Father.

I ask that you please try to stick with the point and arguement.