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.
This is all I want to TE's to admit. I do not think that a TE who shares the above veiw is lacking in faith. They have enough faith to beleive that God could do it the YEC way but for certain reasons think the TE way is more likely. It is when TE's totally rule out YEC when I get a little annoyed with them.
I will however say that to reject a literal Adam and Eve is very unbiblical because Gods Word states through genelogys that Jesus is a literal decendent of Adam.
Just to clarify, could you say However I also believe that God can do all things and may have done it the TE way, although the Biblical available in my opinion does not support this. In other words, do you hold Creationists to this same high standard?
__________________ God is bigger than your theology!
"Some people believe Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to church."--TL funniest post ever.
"God is not a liar, but he is a poet."--CL--best sig ever
I am a number 6, but it is only a belief, I make no attempt to tell anyone I know for certain.
__________________ God is bigger than your theology!
"Some people believe Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to church."--TL funniest post ever.
"God is not a liar, but he is a poet."--CL--best sig ever
I'd fall under 7 or 8. Adam ("man") and Eve ("living") are characters in a mythic account, so in the same way that I don't believe in Pandora ("all gifts) or Woden's ravens Huginn and Muninn ("thought" and "remembering"), I doubt Adam and Eve were historical figures. As Gluadys would explain, Paul made a parallel of Adam and Christ, conceiving Adam and Eve (male and female) as typological representatives of humanity in its totality.
__________________
"My soul with truth clothe all about,/And I shall question free:/The man that feareth, Lord, to doubt,/In that fear doubteth thee." George MacDonald
"But there is one argument which we should beware of using for either position [the Fundamentalists' view of the Bible and the Roman Catholics' view of the Church]: God must have done what is best, this is best, therefore God has done this." C. S. Lewis
Somewhere between 6-8. Possibly a mixture too. In that, if there was not a "literal" Adam and Eve, you can still say that the first two organisms that could be called human, became sentient, gained a soul, etc. = Adam and Eve.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
There are Creationists, and there are Realists. Which one are you? - Dracil "The Bible is true, and some of it happened" - Catholic priest
"There may be many other fish in the sea, but there are just as many fishermen." - Dracil
Maybe we misread the evidence form science, maybe we misread the Bible.
Most likely we all do both to a greater or lesser extent in fact, and start off from our differing bias too, since we're all fallible.
I tend strongly towards the YEC view.
Vance, regarding your first two options; geocentricity and flat-earth theory:
there has been an overlap of those who believe them and also believe YEC, but they are not really to do with origins are they?
This is because for many YECs, the position is that whatever the scientific evidence, YEC is true, because that's what The Bible* says.
Geocentrists are geocentrists for exactly the same reasons. Flat earthers also.
And this is, of course, where my footnote comes in:
*by which the holder of the position means "my interpretation of the Bible".
What is always interesting is to see a heliocentric YECer (the vast majority) defend a non-literal reading of those passages which strongly suggest geocentrism, whilst decrying non-YECers who do the same with the passages suggesting a young earth.
But that's by the by.
__________________ I take a stand on justice, I take a stand on race Gonna take me a TV evangelist and punch him in the face I sing about the hope that’s in me and ask why the poor aren’t fed But if I don’t tow the party line, it’s be better if I were dead
I’m a liberal backslider I’ve been sliding ‘bout ten years
People ask me how I’m doin’ and I confirm all their fears I’m swearing like a trooper, and I’m drinking like a bum
I'm a liberal backslider, and it sure is a lot of fun
Susana, I understand your point. I agree that the title of the thread ("Christian Belief on Origins") is misleading. But in Vance's intro paragraph, he explained that he was coming at the question from a "how literal do you read Scripture" viewpoint.
__________________
"My soul with truth clothe all about,/And I shall question free:/The man that feareth, Lord, to doubt,/In that fear doubteth thee." George MacDonald
"But there is one argument which we should beware of using for either position [the Fundamentalists' view of the Bible and the Roman Catholics' view of the Church]: God must have done what is best, this is best, therefore God has done this." C. S. Lewis
I think this is a good point, Susana, and the list is more based on the "degree of literalism" regarding issues to do with God's Creation, not strictly origins of life, as my title suggests. The way that it ties together is that Flatearthers and Geocentrists also point to Genesis 1 and 2 to support their position (although both point to other Scripture as well, using the most literal, "plain" reading). Basically, the concept is the degree to which we allow the scientific discoveries about God's Creation to inform and clarify our understanding of God's Word.
Geocentrists sometimes hold YEC's in the greatest contempt since YEC's *pretend* to hold strictly to Scripture while clearly allowing their understanding of Scripture to be influenced by secular scientific propositions.
Linear Mode
