Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Correct.
I think that more notice should be taken of this quotation from Origen. Creationists frequently claim that all Christians everywhere believed what they believe about the Bible and the literal historicity of Genesis, until some of us were led astray by Darwinism. This extract from the writings of a respected father of the early church is just one more piece of evidence that such claims are self-serving hogwash.Being quite familiar with Scripture I can't think of anything in Scripture which should be contradictory to the theory of common descent. The only way I can see this being the case is by insisting that the creation narratives of Genesis 1 & 2 are to be taken literally, and I've already provided one major reason why they shouldn't. There are two creation stories, right next to each other, and if they are taken literally then they are irreconcilably different--and attempts at trying to reconcile them usually amounts to nothing more than adding to the text or engaging in massive eisegesis.
The creation narratives aren't there to give us a scientific-like explanation of material (or human) origins; they are there to communicate important points of theology which become increasingly relevant as the biblical narrative continues. And, if we are Christians, we understand that narrative as reaching its climax in the person of Jesus Christ. Origen makes a pretty solid point when he writes,
"For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally." - Origen of Alexandria, De Principiis, Book IV, ch. 16
-CryptoLutheran
You said it yourself.
His power.
I think that more notice should be taken of this quotation from Origen. Creationists frequently claim that all Christians everywhere believed what they believe about the Bible and the literal historicity of Genesis, until some of us were led astray by Darwinism. This extract from the writings of a respected father of the early church is just one more piece of evidence that such claims are self-serving hogwash.
At least I tried.At this point I'm not hearing much of a helpful explanation for what "God-energy" or "shekinah energy" is and how it relates to anything relevant here.
It doesn't matter; I was not attempting to argue ad verecundiam. The very fact that Origen existed and had that opinion is enough to refute the Creationist claim that no Christian prior to Darwin ever entertained such a notion, unless they can show that De Principiis was a post-1860 forgery.Though many would likely merely dismiss Origen, because many frequently dismiss the ancient fathers anyway; but in Origen's case there still exists a level of bias against him on account of the eccentricities of some later Origenists; or who largely just misunderstand Origen.
-CryptoLutheran
At least I tried.
It's God's own divine energy which He used to bring time and space and the universe into existence.What is "God-energy"? That's not even a theological concept that has any meaning that I'm aware of
No less than dark energy.it has even less meaning in any possible scientific context.
If it is hypothetical it is nothing more than an imaginary story.Dark energy is a hypothetical something.
Why is that question even necessary to my theory?a statement which answers exactly none of the interesting theological questions raised -- namely, what was God doing before and during the "Gap"?
It's God's own divine energy which He used to bring time and space and the universe into existence.
God's ability is empowered by God's energy.Again, I don't know what you mean. Are you talking about God's ability as God? Or are you referring to some sort of "energy" or "force"?
Even scientists tells us that energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change forms.If the former, then there's nothing even remotely analogous to the notion of dark energy.
If the latter, then we have bizzaro theology going on, and it still doesn't amount to anything scientific.
Why is that question even necessary to my theory?
Sure, why not?I'm free to ask it. Any chance it'll ever get an answer?
Before the Gap God was governing the angels with their pet dinosaurs, both of whom God had created.what was God doing before and during the "Gap"?
Sure, why not?
Before the Gap God was governing the angels with their pet dinosaurs, both of whom God had created.
During the Gap God was preparing to govern Man with his pet monkeys, both of whom God was about to create.
"When you [God] take away their breath, they die and return to the dust. When you send your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the earth." -- (Psalms 104:29-30).
God took away the breath of prehistoric life that died and returned to dust (fossils).
God then sent His Spirit (Genesis 1:2) to create new life and renew the face of the earth.
Why interpret it? What we should view Adam as the first chevron station?Not a thing in there about how one is supposed to interpret Genesis.
Our natural means unnatural to God.Not a problem. Identifying a natural cause for a phenomenon does not rule out a simultaneous divine proximate cause, and God created the natural causality as well.
If Adam and Eve were not literal, and the rivers not literal, and the garden, and the trees, and Cain and Abel, and the sacrifices ans sin..etc...the bible is a garbage text.Only if you insist that it's literal.
Amen!No.
Not only did God say He created everything in six days, but the ORDER He created them in is also diametrically opposed to evolution.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?