Do you accept evolution as a valid scientific theory?

[gluadys]

How do evolutions explain that when Paul says that sin and death only came into being after adam sinned, how many populations of species could've "died" if, we go by Pauls words, that death and sin only came in through adam?

Evolution does not explain religion; it explains how species change and diverge over time.

And the notion that nothing died before the fall is a controversial interpretation of scripture that many Christians do not agree with. Paul was speaking of human death--and primarily of spiritual death.

 

[gluadys]

Mythical genealogies? Please explain.

Ancient genealogies do not distinguish historical from mythical ancestors. In fact, the point of many of them was to connect historical communities with mythical ancestors.

 

[gluadys]

When did the first sin occured? and how?

Isn't it more important to know how we are saved from sin than to know when and how sin first occurred?

 

[pastorkevin73]

Ancient genealogies do not distinguish historical from mythical ancestors. In fact, the point of many of them was to connect historical communities with mythical ancestors.

The problem here is that you cannot distingish at what point the geneologies turn from myth to historical. Not only that but you are then saying that there is the possibility that Abraham and the forefathers never existed. Which then says that God never promised that out of Abraham all nations would be blessed. Which in essense says that Jesus was never God and died in vain. All this because you say that part or all of Genesis is myth. Without the Genesis account one cannot truely account for sin and reduces the theology of sin to an idea.

Why is it so hard to believe that God did what he said in Genesis and created the universe in six days, including humankind? Is not God all-powerful? Is He not the God that can do anything except lie or decieve? The truth is, we do not have the luxury to make scripture fit what we think or accept only what fits what we want to believe. God did not say that it would be easy to accept or understand everything in scripture, but He does ask us to trust Him. If we don't accept what scripture says we aren't trusting Him.

So it comes to this, do you believe God to be who He says He is and do you accept the Bible to be His Word, full of truth and without lies/myths?

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

Isn't it more important to know how we are saved from sin than to know when and how sin first occurred?

It's better to answer my question. otherwise it shows by accepting TE one can only have a faulty set of beliefs which can't withstand reasoning. Atheists can also use this to crack up the faith of any Christian TE.

 

[gluadys]

The problem here is that you cannot distingish at what point the geneologies turn from myth to historical.

That's true. But I do not consider it a problem.

Not only that but you are then saying that there is the possibility that Abraham and the forefathers never existed. Which then says that God never promised that out of Abraham all nations would be blessed. Which in essense says that Jesus was never God and died in vain.

But the rest of this is not. This is the problem with deductive thinking based on flimsy premises. You have constructed a line of logic which in effect says: "Since you believe X (genealogies are a mix of mythical and historical characters), you must also believe Y (Christ died in vain).

But the fact of the matter is that I do not believe Y. You are using spurious logic.

All this because you say that part or all of Genesis is myth. Without the Genesis account one cannot truely account for sin and reduces the theology of sin to an idea.

I also believe in the fall, original sin and redemption from sin. I don't find evolution to be a hindrance to accepting basic Christian theology.

Why is it so hard to believe that God did what he said in Genesis and created the universe in six days, including humankind? Is not God all-powerful?

What makes you think it would take less than an all-powerful God to nurture life's species through evolution?

As for the Genesis days, it is not a problem of believing God could have created so. But all the evidence tells us that is not how God did create.

Is He not the God that can do anything except lie or decieve? The truth is, we do not have the luxury to make scripture fit what we think or accept only what fits what we want to believe. God did not say that it would be easy to accept or understand everything in scripture, but He does ask us to trust Him. If we don't accept what scripture says we aren't trusting Him.

But I do accept scripture and I do trust God. I just don't accept what you describe as the correct interpretation of scripture.

It is not God or the bible I disagree with, pastor. It is your way of reading scripture that I disagree with.

So it comes to this, do you believe God to be who He says He is and do you accept the Bible to be His Word, full of truth and without lies/myths?

Without lies, yes. Without myths, no. (Myth does not mean "lie" when speaking of literary form.) I do not assume that God will not inspire a true myth. Nor do I assume that we should reject God's teaching when he uses myth as a teaching device.

 

[ebia]

It's better to answer my question. otherwise it shows by accepting TE one can only have a faulty set of beliefs which can't withstand reasoning. Atheists can also use this to crack up the faith of any Christian TE.

Only if your theology is built on the flimsy premise that you know and need to know this information. "I don't know and it's not important that I do know" is a perfectly valid answer to some questions.

The faith that atheists can crack open is one built on falsifiable facts that have been falsified (such as creationism). Atheists can't "crack up the faith" of a liberal Christian TE because there is nothing scientifically falsifiable to falsify.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

Only if your theology is built on the flimsy premise that you know and need to know this information. "I don't know and it's not important that I do know" is a perfectly valid answer to some questions.

An example:
person A: if n satisfies 2^(n-1) = 1 (mod n) then n is a prime number
B: but n = 341 is an exception
A: I don't know and it's not important that I do know

The faith that atheists can crack open is one built on falsifiable facts that have been falsified (such as creationism). Atheists can't "crack up the faith" of a liberal Christian TE because there is nothing scientifically falsifiable to falsify.

going to an extreme, if a Christian hold no Christian belief, an atheist also can do nothing about him, and there's no need to do anything since he's no different to an atheist. John Kerry is one of such, I guess it's non-offending because he's Catholic. There's little contention among Catholics that he goes against almost all teachings of Catholic Church.

 

[ebia]

An example:
person A: if n satisfies 2^(n-1) = 1 (mod n) then n is a prime number
B: but n = 341 is an exception
A: I don't know and it's not important that I do know

Your theology might be dependent on knowing when the first sin took place, mine is not.

going to an extreme, if a Christian hold no Christian belief, an atheist also can do nothing about him, and there's no need to do anything since he's no different to an atheist. John Kerry is one of such, I guess it's non-offending because he's Catholic. There's little contention among Catholics that he goes against almost all teachings of Catholic Church.

I'll take that as a retraction of this, if nothing else:

Atheists can also use this to crack up the faith of any Christian TE.

It's not for me (or you for that matter) to judge the faith of John Kerry.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

Your theology might be dependent on knowing when the first sin took place, mine is not.

whether a system is OK depends on whether there're times it doesn't work not whether there're times it works.

I'll take that as a retraction of this, if nothing else:

It's not for me (or you for that matter) to judge the faith of John Kerry.

Every organized Church has it's clearly defined set of rules. About Kerry, it's official teaching of Catholic Church that every one should know what he did is wrong. we just don't condemn him to hell (what if he has a death bed repent?)
"Judge not" is not "don't distinguish right or wrong"

 

[ebia]

whether a system is OK depends on whether there're times it doesn't work not whether there're times it works.

Since you haven't take the time to find out what our "system" is, you are not in a position to look for weak spots.

Every organized Church has it's clearly defined set of rules. About Kerry, it's official teaching of Catholic Church that every one should know what he did is wrong. we just don't condemn him to hell (what if he has a death bed repent?)
"Judge not" is not "don't distinguish right or wrong"

Sorry, I didn't realise that Kerry's bishop had appointed you to speak on the matter.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

Since you haven't take the time to find out what our "system" is, you are not in a position to look for weak spots.

simple, you keep revealing it. and you still haven't been able to answer that question.

Sorry, I didn't realise that Kerry's bishop had appointed you to speak on the matter.

Every Catholics(and most Protestants I guess) is supposed to know good and evil.

 

[ebia]

simple, you keep revealing it.

And you are doing a very good job of misunderstanding it.

and you still haven't been able to answer that question.

And you haven't show why it's relevent. I don't suppose you know the colour of my bathroom, but your failure to be able to tell us what it is doesn't demonstrate much unless I can show why it's relevent.

 

[invisible trousers]

Why is it so hard to believe that God did what he said in Genesis and created the universe in six days, including humankind? Is not God all-powerful? Is He not the God that can do anything except lie or decieve? The truth is, we do not have the luxury to make scripture fit what we think or accept only what fits what we want to believe. God did not say that it would be easy to accept or understand everything in scripture, but He does ask us to trust Him. If we don't accept what scripture says we aren't trusting Him.

So it comes to this, do you believe God to be who He says He is and do you accept the Bible to be His Word, full of truth and without lies/myths?

Because every piece of evidence on earth and in our universe points towards an old earth/big bang/etc.

I'm not particularily interested in worshipping a god who lies to his believers.

PS God is the Word, not the bible. And yes, the bible is full of truths. Truths do not have to be literal stories.

 

[shernren]

Do you think the whole Bible is a story?
Where Jesus told stories, Bible or Jesus explicitly said it's a parable.

That's simply not true. The Parable of the Good Samaritan, the Parable of the Prodigal Son (disputably) and the Parable of the Shrewd Manager were not obviously labeled as parables. And yet the first impression one gets is that Jesus is telling a story and not describing actual events ... despite the fact that there is no explicit "Let me tell you want [this and that] is like" or "Then Jesus told a parable" or even "Let me tell you a story" (which He surprisingly never said, IIRC, considering He told so many parables).

 

[S Walch]

That's simply not true. The Parable of the Good Samaritan, the Parable of the Prodigal Son (disputably) and the Parable of the Shrewd Manager were not obviously labeled as parables.

Actually, you'd be wrong there.

Good Samaritan: Luke 10:30

"In reply Jesus said: "A man was

Parable of the Prodigle Son: Luke 15:11

Jesus continued: "There was a man who...

Parable of the Shrew Manager: Luke 16:1

Jesus told his disciples: "There was a rich man..

Now, any good Bible commentary will tell you that Jesus liked to start nearly all his parables to do with something about "A man was" or "A rich man had" or "A man had"

Now, people in those days would understand what Jesus was doing here. He was copying the norm of any teacher in those days who would tell a story, so "There was once a Man" or "A Man was" is very much how we'd start off our stories today with"Once upon a time."

The starting of the story is what needs to be noted.

When Jesus quotes from scripture however, he does nothing of this sort at all.

So, it's quite easy to tell when he's speaking a) literally and b) story telling.

 

[pastorkevin73]

Because every piece of evidence on earth and in our universe points towards an old earth/big bang/etc.

I'm not particularily interested in worshipping a god who lies to his believers.

PS God is the Word, not the bible. And yes, the bible is full of truths. Truths do not have to be literal stories.

Please read the Evolution and Christianity Thread. My discussion on this thread has moved into the discussion on the validity of scripture.

 

[notto]

Take a read at Lee Stobel's "A Case for the Creator". He interview's highly respected scientists what will say evidences point to the Genesis account.

1) Define 'highly respected scientists'
2) Show where these scientists are highly respected in their fields
3) Show how their fields relate to issues involved with the genesis account
4) Why is it that these highly respected scientists views aren't highly respected by other scientists and seem to be tightly woven with their religious views?
5) Demonstrate that these scientists approach the topic objectively.

 

[shernren]

Now, any good Bible commentary will tell you that Jesus liked to start nearly all his parables to do with something about "A man was" or "A rich man had" or "A man had"

Which is precisely my point with the parables I quoted.

What we take as a "literal" introduction today could easily have been taken as a parabolic / mythical introduction in Jesus' day.

When a newspaper article talks about a highway robbery and says "A man was ... " we assume that this event the newspaper is talking about actually happened. If the event never actually happened, and the journalist made up the story just to teach the public a lesson, he'd be fired before you could blink.

But when Jesus talks about a highway robbery and says "A man was ... " we immediately assume that He's just telling a story and whether or not it actually historically happened was/is of secondary importance. In fact, quite a few of the parables (though not all, I grant) probably could not have actually happened given the social structure of Jesus' day.

So? Was Jesus lying because He started His stories with "There was a man who ... " when in fact "there was no man who ... "?

And is Genesis lying if it says 6 days when there historically were no 6 days?

Why do you expect Genesis written by Moses to read like a historical account of creation and get all worked up by people who say it isn't ... and then expect Jesus' parables (said by Jesus, no less!) to not be historical accounts of contemporary events even though that is what is expected of them given the language used?

 

[S Walch]

Which is precisely my point with the parables I quoted.

What we take as a "literal" introduction today could easily have been taken as a parabolic / mythical introduction in Jesus' day.

When a newspaper article talks about a highway robbery and says "A man was ... " we assume that this event the newspaper is talking about actually happened. If the event never actually happened, and the journalist made up the story just to teach the public a lesson, he'd be fired before you could blink.

But when Jesus talks about a highway robbery and says "A man was ... " we immediately assume that He's just telling a story and whether or not it actually historically happened was/is of secondary importance. In fact, quite a few of the parables (though not all, I grant) probably could not have actually happened given the social structure of Jesus' day.

So? Was Jesus lying because He started His stories with "There was a man who ... " when in fact "there was no man who ... "?

And is Genesis lying if it says 6 days when there historically were no 6 days?

Why do you expect Genesis written by Moses to read like a historical account of creation and get all worked up by people who say it isn't ... and then expect Jesus' parables (said by Jesus, no less!) to not be historical accounts of contemporary events even though that is what is expected of them given the language used?

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" isn't the start of a story.

And is absolutely nothing similar to Jesus parables, which were told as stories.

As Jesus, when talking to the pharises says "have you not read the scriptures? They record that In the beginning God created them male and female"

What does "they record" here mean?