The Inquisitor
Christ 4-ever
What is the metaphor of God creating a man and a woman, and their children committing incest to create more offspring?
Upvote
0
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.
Jesus came speaking in metaphors, just as God spoke in metaphors all throughout the old testament. As God said, "I have used similitudes (metaphors)".
That wouldn't be a metaphor. But eating from a literal tree and a literal talking serpent would be. All throughout scripture God mixed literal with metaphorical.What is the metaphor of God creating a man and a woman, and their children committing incest to create more offspring?
That wouldn't be a metaphor. But eating from a literal tree and a literal talking serpent would be. All throughout scripture God mixed literal with metaphorical.
"I have used similitudes." Hosea 12:10. The great allegory "The Pilgrim's Progress" opens with that verse.
While historically Christianity has allowed for some degree of allegory in this passage (indeed some older theologians argued that it had to be allegorical, because it wouldn't take God six whole days to create the world), there are limits to how far you can take allegory. In Christianity, death is an Adamic, Hamartiological condition. To deny this is to veer dangerously into Pelagianism.
You say you're a Calvinist Christian, but I'm not sure how you can square the Evolutionary theory of biogenesis with your Calvinism. It's my reason for rejecting it. Our understanding of the Atonement rests on the notion that death is the result of sin in such a way that if Christ died for your sins you cannot die in the second death, since your sins have been paid for. Death and sin are indivorcible, so you cannot have billions of years of death anticedent to Adam's sin.
Agreed, and it's pretty simple to see what is literal and what is figurative (metaphorical).Sure I accept evolution, I don't take Genesis 1-3 literally so in my worldview there is no biblical contradiction in sight. We all use judgment to determine what passages of the bible are literal and which are figurative, it is variations on those views on what causes doctrinal issues. The good Lord did give us minds and the ability to reason, after all.
That was just an introduction of myself, as I am new to this part of the forum. So I stated I'm a calvinistic christian who accepts evolution.
And calvinism, in regards to Soveriegn Election has amazing parallels with Natural Selection. It seems one is the natural method and the other spiritual, and God is without fault in both.
Jesus came speaking in metaphors, just as God spoke in metaphors all throughout the old testament. As God said, "I have used similitudes (metaphors)".
It is in a sense weeding out.Hmmm... I have some pretty serious problems with comparing salvation to natural selection, because it implies that the process of election is 'weeding out' the sinners, when in fact we are all sinners and there is nothing which makes any of us better than others. Natural selection requires there to be something which makes the one being selected for better than the one being selected against.
While historically Christianity has allowed for some degree of allegory in this passage (indeed some older theologians argued that it had to be allegorical, because it wouldn't take God six whole days to create the world), there are limits to how far you can take allegory. In Christianity, death is an Adamic, Hamartiological condition. To deny this is to veer dangerously into Pelagianism.
You say you're a Calvinist Christian, but I'm not sure how you can square the Evolutionary theory of biogenesis with your Calvinism. It's my reason for rejecting it. Our understanding of the Atonement rests on the notion that death is the result of sin in such a way that if Christ died for your sins you cannot die in the second death, since your sins have been paid for. Death and sin are indivorcible, so you cannot have billions of years of death anticedent to Adam's sin.
Hmmm... I have some pretty serious problems with comparing salvation to natural selection, because it implies that the process of election is 'weeding out' the sinners, when in fact we are all sinners and there is nothing which makes any of us better than others. Natural selection requires there to be something which makes the one being selected for better than the one being selected against.
Natural selection sounds more Calvinist if anythingThink about it, weeding out the damned from the elect....works brilliantly. It's not a thought school I dare subscribe to but it is an interesting way to take things....although probably a little incoherent.
It is in a sense weeding out.
Jesus told the parable of the wheat and tares growing together, and then the angels weeding out the tares and casting them into the fire.
Who were the wheat? The ones God had mercy on, and the tares were those left to perish, as God is by no law obligated to save those justly under condemnation because of their own doings. As I said before, no judge is obligated to free a criminal who is justly under the punishment of his crime, but he can have mercy on whom he wills. So it is with God.
And you're right, no one is better than anyone else, that's why it's *grace*. We were/are all rightly under condemnation and God is not obligated by any law to save those justly under the penalty of their own sin, but He can have unmerited mercy on those He wills, to the glory of His mercy.
I find calvinism FAR more logical and reasonable than any other Christian school of thought and have never seen it lose in a debate. Although, hyper-calvinism is crazy...Natural selection sounds more Calvinist if anythingThink about it, weeding out the damned from the elect....works brilliantly. It's not a thought school I dare subscribe to but it is an interesting way to take things....although probably a little incoherent.
I said it has *some* amazing parallels. I never said it's exact. lol... But in both cases we find God allowing some to perish and others to go on to become something greater than before.Yes, but while the Calvinist view of election requires no special quality upon which God based His election, natural selection does require some special quality. That is where the analogy falls apart. And if you believe that God based election on some sort of special quality, then you are not Calvinist.
Howso? I see no absolute contradiction.It is my belief that Macro Evolution as it is taught and understood is inconsistent and cannot be reconciled with any proper or semi-proper reading of Genesis 1-3.
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?