[OPEN]Does the Origin theory really matter?[/OPEN]

[stumpjumper]

From a scriptural perspective it is much more of a sin to call someone a fool or idiot than to call them an inferior Christian. Jesus compared calling someone a fool akin to murder. Reproving someone for being an inferior Christian appears to be an obligation when reading through Paul's letters or seeing how Jesus related to the pharisees..

Well there is a reason Jesus said not to call anyone a fool:

Psalm 14:1
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

One of the reasons that Jesus said not to call anyone a fool was because that those that did looked upon fools as people being outside of God's love.

They looked upon them as people who have rejected God and were unworthy of his love... Once they painted them as someone unworthy of his love then they would be able to do something un-loving to them...

 

[Assyrian]

We have faith in God too Kenneth.

I'll allow that you have some.

Very gracious of you there Kenneth. Don't you realise it is not the size of your faith, but who you have faith in? My faith is in a very big God, it doesn't matter if it is only the size of a mustard seed.

But as far as I can tell, OEC/Day-Age is full or internal contradictions, and if you try to pursue its ideas to their logical end you end up at YECism (or in the wilderness).

I have to disagree, OEC is based firmly on the ground that you do not deny the clear truth of the world around us. Historically, OEC/Gap/Day Age arose because evangelical leaders, the first Fundamentalists, refused to sweep the geological evidence under the carpet. Evolution was harder to swallow (to mix metaphor or two), probably more from an emotional commitment to being made in God's image, rather than any scriptural evidence to prove God couldn't make us in his image using evolution. At the same time, evidence for evolution was a lot less strong than the evidence for geology so there was less compelling reason to reassess their understanding of special creation.

I think even today, the reason people are OEC/Gap/Day Age is because they understand the evidence of an ancient earth, but are not convinced by the evidence for evolution. But the logical end of OEC/Gap/Day-Age is always that a Christian has a love and commitment to Truth, you cannot follow Jesus who is the way the truth and the life, and deny the truth of how the world was made.

Incidentally, I would see OEC as by definition people who deny 'evolution' though you could probably trace a continuum between OEC and TE if we look at how much involvement God had in the history of life on earth. Day Age actually says nothing about whether God could use evolution or not, though it is more commonly the interpretation of Genesis among OECs.

Personally as a TE my interpretation of Genesis, or one of my readings of Genesis, is pretty close to Day Age, because while Gen 1 is a very simplified overview of creation, it fits the geological history just too well (When I read birds or literally 'winged creatures' in verse 20, I think of the giant dragonflies who ruled the skies long before the age of giant amphibians and dinosaurs, as well as the pterosaurs, birds and bats that followed later).

From a scriptural perspective it is much more of a sin to call someone a fool or idiot than to call them an inferior Christian. Jesus compared calling someone a fool akin to murder. Reproving someone for being an inferior Christian appears to be an obligation when reading through Paul's letters or seeing how Jesus related to the pharisees.

Actually, fool or moros in the Greek referred to some one who was morally foolish rather than their intellectual capacity, which sounds very like the charge leveled by YECs. Thayers definition of moros is
1) foolish
2) impious, godless

That sounds really great, jareth. My experience however differs considerably. I normally avoid the public CreVo forums here at CF because I have found that any comments made there by any Christian other than a TE will have to be defended against both the TE's and the secular evolutionists. TE's in my experience will band together with atheists long before they will with a YEC or an OEC/Gapper.

In discussing what the science says, yes of course. What surprises me so much is Gap OEC and IDists whose default position is alongside YECs. Surely people who realise the incontrovertible evidence of an ancient earth should be constantly urging their YEC brothers to deal with the facts and not keep going on with dodgy 'proofs' of a young earth. That is where I have a lot of respect for Hugh Ross. I don't agree with him on evolution, but he realises the damage the young earth view causes and he really tries to get YECs to look at the actual science.

Assyrian

 

[kenneth558]

Very gracious of you there Kenneth. Don't you realise it is not the size of your faith, but who you have faith in? My faith is in a very big God, it doesn't matter if it is only the size of a mustard seed.

Assyrian, a correct and believing reading of the Bible would show you that the faith as a mustard seed is not small. When Jesus spoke of the faith as a mustard seed, He never mentioned size of faith.

 

[vossler]

I normally avoid the public CreVo forums here at CF because I have found that any comments made there by any Christian other than a TE will have to be defended against both the TE's and the secular evolutionists. TE's in my experience will band together with atheists long before they will with a YEC or an OEC/Gapper.

Now there's an observation I can sadly admit I totally agree with. Why that is I haven't a clue and it is extremely disturbing to me.

 

[chaoschristian]

Now there's an observation I can sadly admit I totally agree with. Why that is I haven't a clue and it is extremely disturbing to me.

Probably because science is the primary focus of the threads in the CREVO forum, not theology, and in general TEs and non-Christians will hold very similar if not exactly the same views regarding science and emperical evidence. This similarity exists because the nature of the evidence transcends one's personal theological views.

 

[LoG]

This similarity exists because the nature of the evidence transcends one's personal theological views.

Would it not be fairer to say that both have allowed the nature of the evidence to transcend their personal theological beliefs?

 

[Assyrian]

No. Reality is bigger than personal opinion. Our personal theology is relevant only to the extent that it matches reality.

 

[jereth]

I have to disagree, OEC is based firmly on the ground that you do not deny the clear truth of the world around us. Historically, OEC/Gap/Day Age arose because evangelical leaders, the first Fundamentalists, refused to sweep the geological evidence under the carpet. Evolution was harder to swallow (to mix metaphor or two), probably more from an emotional commitment to being made in God's image, rather than any scriptural evidence to prove God couldn't make us in his image using evolution. At the same time, evidence for evolution was a lot less strong than the evidence for geology so there was less compelling reason to reassess their understanding of special creation.

I think even today, the reason people are OEC/Gap/Day Age is because they understand the evidence of an ancient earth, but are not convinced by the evidence for evolution. But the logical end of OEC/Gap/Day-Age is always that a Christian has a love and commitment to Truth, you cannot follow Jesus who is the way the truth and the life, and deny the truth of how the world was made.

Very well said, friend. I guess I was referring exclusively to the Hugh Ross version of OECism in my previous remark. I understand that there can be OECists who do not try to force the Scriptures to fit science. In fact, in retrospect I think that I myself made the transition from YECism to TEism via OECism, and even today I'm willing to accept that OECism is right in some respects.

 

[Assyrian]

Assyrian, a correct and believing reading of the Bible would show you that the faith as a mustard seed is not small. When Jesus spoke of the faith as a mustard seed, He never mentioned size of faith.

So my reading of even the parables is not only incorrect it is unbelieving? Can't you see the arrogance and bigotry in that? If this is the fruit of YECism Kenneth, you need to root it out.

Matt 17:19 Then the disciples came to Jesus privately and said, "Why could we not cast it out?" 20 He said to them, "Because of your little faith (some manuscripts: unbelief). For truly, I say to you, if you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you."

What did Jesus mean when he referred to the mustard seed? From his other references to mustard seed, the point seems to have been the size of the seed.

Matt 13:31 He put another parable before them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed that a man took and sowed in his field. 32 It is the smallest of all seeds, but when it has grown it is larger than all the garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches."

Mark 4:30 And he said, "With what can we compare the kingdom of God, or what parable shall we use for it? 31 It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when sown on the ground, is the smallest of all the seeds on earth, 32 yet when it is sown it grows up and becomes larger than all the garden plants and puts out large branches, so that the birds of the air can make nests in its shade."

Luke 17:5 The apostles said to the Lord, "Increase our faith!" 6 And the Lord said, "If you had faith like a grain of mustard seed, you could say to this mulberry tree, 'Be uprooted and planted in the sea,' and it would obey you.

Blessings Assyrian

 

[stumpjumper]

There is also an interesting parallel between the parable of the mustard seed and the Cedar tree mentioned in Ezekial 17:22-24...

Mustard seeds can only grow into small bushes and is hardly competition for the Lebanese Cedar tree that was mentioned in Ezekial in reference to Israel... Jesus juxtaposed that parable most likely in reference to that prophecy in Ezekial...

"For God hath chosen the weak things of this world to confound the mighty." - St. Paul

 

[RenHoek]

In my view people who advocate trade unions and a minimum wage are Communists...
See how unhelpful opinions are in trying to get to know what the other side really thinks?

Maybe you should quit focusing on the God-Haters and get to know more non-believers who think the Creation/Evolution issue is a social and political one.

One opinion desrves another I suppose...

One post does not a focus make

 

[Pats]

Maybe you should quit focusing on the God-Haters and get to know more non-believers who think the Creation/Evolution issue is a social and political one.

This is invaluable advice. I think we should all get to know what other believers and non-believers think. I can't share my faith with some one and express to them what it has done for me if I can't also get to know what they think and feel.

I realize I haven't read this thread entirely through, so if I repeat what others have already said, I appologize.

My answer to the OP:

Does Origins Theolog really matter?

Yes, it matters. The important thing for me is not that it matters but how it is viewed and applied. I don't think the a debate such as the YEC view vs. the TE view is worth anyone's salvation. Meaning, if a person has accepted modern science as it is taught in the main stream and finds too much evidence against the YEC view to ever accept it, this should not be a hinderance to their belief in Christ, salvation, or relationship with God when there are other sound theologies that might make sense to them.

My ideas along these lines right now are just thoughts I've recently begun to have, so, please take them as such. I am not a very scientific person neither am I a Bible shcollar.

I believe God is an awesome, indefinable God that exists outside of time and science as we know them here on Earth.

I believe that God created the heavens and the earth and all that dwells therein.

I do not think the Bible was ever meant to be a science book nor do I think biology class is a place for religion.

If I were going to do something like for example, build a computer and then tell my 5 year old child about how I did it, I certainly wouldn't go into minute and intracate detail.

I think there are some mysteries that science has not resolved and will not resolve regarding our origins because it's not in the nature of science to do so. Likewise, it's not in the nature of the Bible to explain everything God has done and will do. The Bible just tells us about some of those acts.

I think, somehow, in ways we can hardly fathom, God made everything. Beyond that, the details of how He executed that task are not relavant to my faith.

 

[artybloke]

I believe God is an awesome, indefinable God that exists outside of time and science as we know them here on Earth.

I believe that God created the heavens and the earth and all that dwells therein.

I do not think the Bible was ever meant to be a science book nor do I think biology class is a place for religion.

If I were going to do something like for example, build a computer and then tell my 5 year old child about how I did it, I certainly wouldn't go into minute and intracate detail.

I think there are some mysteries that science has not resolved and will not resolve regarding our origins because it's not in the nature of science to do so. Likewise, it's not in the nature of the Bible to explain everything God has done and will do. The Bible just tells us about some of those acts.

I think, somehow, in ways we can hardly fathom, God made everything. Beyond that, the details of how He executed that task are not relavant to my faith.

Can't see anything to disagree with here. And I'm a TE through and through.

One thing that bothers me, though. Why are so many people so bothered by theologies that are not completely watertight? The same questions about Adam, what's the first sin etc keep coming up. Seems to me that any theology that is so watertight doesn't allow room to breathe, no room for mystery and wonder in fact.

Something wise that Cromwell once said: "I beseech you in the bowells of Christ, accept the possibility that you are wrong." We could all learn to do that.

 

[Pats]

One thing that bothers me, though. Why are so many people so bothered by theologies that are not completely watertight? The same questions about Adam, what's the first sin etc keep coming up. Seems to me that any theology that is so watertight doesn't allow room to breathe, no room for mystery and wonder in fact.

Something wise that Cromwell once said: "I beseech you in the bowells of Christ, accept the possibility that you are wrong." We could all learn to do that.

I think seeking out the water tightness is part of what leads to error when there is too much mystery involved.

If you are curious why I started a thread about the first sin, it was merely for the sake of discussing the issue and learning more about various view points on it.

 

[Assyrian]

I believe God is an awesome, indefinable God that exists outside of time and science as we know them here on Earth.

I believe that God created the heavens and the earth and all that dwells therein.

I do not think the Bible was ever meant to be a science book nor do I think biology class is a place for religion.

If I were going to do something like for example, build a computer and then tell my 5 year old child about how I did it, I certainly wouldn't go into minute and intracate detail.

I think there are some mysteries that science has not resolved and will not resolve regarding our origins because it's not in the nature of science to do so. Likewise, it's not in the nature of the Bible to explain everything God has done and will do. The Bible just tells us about some of those acts.

I think, somehow, in ways we can hardly fathom, God made everything. Beyond that, the details of how He executed that task are not relavant to my faith.

 

[meebs]

You're a guest in an Open thread in the CO section, how about being a polite one and not interject comments like what I have bolded above.

:o i utterly apologise.

no really, i didnt know what i did. erm... forgiven?

 

[meebs]

Well. There are some good teleological arguments that incorporate design and purpose into an evolutionary view of the world... Haught, Rahner, and Polkinghorne are my favs

err...dare i ask - teleological?

yeah i can imagine. i thought of a theory (again when i was a christian) that God would have thought of the design in advance, knowing the outcomes, knowing things would have come about in a particular pattern and pushed or changed things when needed.

In a way, the idea would be that creation is ongoing!

(ps: i hope you understand what i mean! )

 

[USincognito]

:o i utterly apologise.

no really, i didnt know what i did. erm... forgiven?

Actually it's I who should apologize for being unduely harsh with you. I just wanted to suggest that since this is an [OPEN] thread, non-Christian posters here should have a little respect for sensativities our hosts here.

 

[meebs]

Actually it's I who should apologize for being unduely harsh with you. I just wanted to suggest that since this is an [OPEN] thread, non-Christian posters here should have a little respect for sensativities our hosts here.

and i will try to err... rephrase sensitively next time!

 

[stumpjumper]

err...dare i ask - teleological?

yeah i can imagine. i thought of a theory (again when i was a christian) that God would have thought of the design in advance, knowing the outcomes, knowing things would have come about in a particular pattern and pushed or changed things when needed.

In a way, the idea would be that creation is ongoing!

(ps: i hope you understand what i mean! )

Teleology simply means the study of design or purpose in nature... Most good teleological arguments focus more on purpose, intelligence, and the comprehensibility of nature than design.

Some process theology would say that creation is ongoing and that, in some ways, we are co-creators in the process. Rahner views Jesus Christ as the telos (or purpose) of creation...