Good Read

[1denomination]

Just read this, thought it arose some interesting questions. Especially about the Original sin. your thoughts please. http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evo/blfaq_evo_relig_xtn.htm

 

[seebs]

My thought is that the best possible source for information about Christian theology is probably not people who have rejected it, who in some cases have an emotional investment in continuing to reject it, and thus carefully try to show that "Christianity" must be precisely the weakest and most thoroughly falsified form of Christianity they can think of.

In short, this is a piece written by someone aiming to disprove Christianity by offering arguments for why it must be false.

 

[Micaiah]

This person, apparently not a believer, has a greater degree of insight than I'd creedit many on this forum with.

 

[grmorton]

Just read this, thought it arose some interesting questions. Especially about the Original sin. your thoughts please. http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evo/blfaq_evo_relig_xtn.htm

If one might be permitted to entertain a novel thought on this board, (perish the thought), one can only say the above if one assumes that the Bible doesn't teach evolution and that God doesn't act in time. I think both sides in this C/E issue are stuck in the same thought patterns and the only way out is to try something new. Apologietics has been stuck in the same 2 ruts for about 150 years.

I would recommend four pages which show a different viewpoint.

1. http://home.entouch.net/dmd/synop.htm
2. http://home.entouch.net/dmd/Gen1-11.htm
3. http://home.entouch.net/dmd/daysofproclamation.htm
4. http://home.entouch.net/dmd/god-evol.htm
The views are different, but the data requires them to be different and out of the box.

HOpefully novel ideas won't offend anyone.

 

[Bushido216]

This person, apparently not a believer, has a greater degree of insight than I'd creedit many on this forum with.

Congratulations, that article is the result of YECists like YOU making poeple doubt the compatibility of Christianity (the study of God's Word, Living or otherwise) and Science (the study of God's Creation).

You are driving a wedge between the two aspects of ourselves, Micaiah.

 

[zoziw]

Just read this, thought it arose some interesting questions. Especially about the Original sin. your thoughts please. http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evo/blfaq_evo_relig_xtn.htm

What a tragedy the author of this article represents. He appears unable to understand Christianity outside of a fundamentalist context to the extent that in order to attack the faith of other Christians he resorts to trying to defend fundamentalism as the only legitimate form of the religion (modern fundamentalism only originated about 100 years ago as a reaction to modernism).

IIRC, the doctrine of original sin was promulgated in the western church by St. Augustine and that has coloured many, but not all, Christian theologies. The largest denomination in Canada, The United Church of Canada, does not hold to the doctrine of original sin and I don't think the Eastern Orthodox Churches hold to it either (at least Augustine's view).

I haven't run into too many liberal christians who hold to it either.

The whole premise of his argument falls apart at that stage as many of us recognize the inherently symbolic nature of early Genesis, haven't adopted Augustine's doctrine and have no need to pinpoint the exact time in history that man first dropped the ball.

A simple drive to the shopping mall demonstrates that people fail to follow the golden rule or the great commandment and if you accept the assumption that Jesus said failure to do those things is a sin than that is all the evidence you need that we have a problem.

If you do not accept that Jesus taught that, no big deal, but we do.

He then switches the argument to a "naturalistic" perspective and the rest of his article only makes sense if you adopt his assumptions about the nature of reality (and a fundamentalist belief system).

While he can imagine a soul being created during a 'special creation', he can't imagine one being infused during evolution (probably because he doesn't believe in God). However, the larger problem with his argument is that he assumes, as per fundamentalism, that only humans have souls, that if you don't believe a specific set of propositions you go to hell and that hell exists as per the fundamentalist definition.

He also thinks Jesus' only purpose is to keep him out of hell.

The author does not appear to understand anything with respect to liberal Christianity.

 

[1denomination]

Congratulations, that article is the result of YECists like YOU making poeple doubt the compatibility of Christianity (the study of God's Word, Living or otherwise) and Science (the study of God's Creation).

"Emphasis mine"

Do we really need to start casting stones.

I know I'm not a mod but lets please be civil.


God Bless.

 

[Micaiah]

This is what angers fundamentalists so much - the idea the humans are simply a flesh and blood development of the animal kingdom and not in fact spiritual creations of God. Given the framework of evolution, I'm not convinced that the traditional Christian notion of "sin" is tenable. Basically, if the evolutionary account of human origins is true, then there was certainly no literal Fall from Grace - no Adam and Eve disobeying the Christian God.

But if there was no Fall, then there was no advent of Original Sin - and without Original Sin and explusion from The Garden of Eden, then there is no reason to think that anything called "sin" (which is supposed to be disobedience to God) suddenly entered the world at all. If sin simple "evolved" into our ancestors through the natural development which God set into motion, why would God hold us accountable? In essence, a naturalistic development of sin means that insofar as we are naturally sinners, we simply are what our creator had us evolve into being.

All of this is obviously true if the Bible is read literally, as the fundamentalists do - thus their rejection of evolution is quite understandable. At the very least, their conception of humanity and the world would suffer irrevocably if they were to accept evolution as an explanation for human origins.

This is only one reason among many why we should reject theistic evolution and liberal theology.

 

[Bushido216]

"Emphasis mine"

Do we really need to start casting stones.

I know I'm not a mod but lets please be civil.


God Bless.

Yes, yes we do. What I've stated is the truth of the matter. Because YECists have been arguing against evolution from a theological standpoint as opposed to a scientific one they've inevitably tied up the notions of Creationism and Christianity to the point where most of the lay public doesn't believe you can be the latter without the former.

 

[Bushido216]

This is only one reason among many why we should reject theistic evolution and liberal theology.

It's a slippery slope arguement with dubious premises. A good counter-arguement can, and has, been made.

The arguement is an invalid, bad arguement.

 

[1denomination]

It's a slippery slope arguement with dubious premises. A good counter-arguement can, and has, been made.

The arguement is an invalid, bad arguement.

Could you please direct me to that counter-arguement.

 

[1denomination]

This is only one reason among many why we should reject theistic evolution and liberal theology.

Sorry If it offends anyone but I fully Agree. God bless you Micaiah.

 

[Micaiah]

No credible counter argument sited.

The issue is not that people are turned from the gospel by teaching the historicity of Genesis, but whether that is true. You get the idea from TE's that even if it wasn't the truth, it would be okay to say it was so people could be saved. I've already seen one conversation here to that affect. A young man was asking on behalf of a friend about TE theology. He was a YEC from what I could gather, and recognised the flaws in the TE arguments, but was willing to promote the TE beliefs so the friend would become a Christian. Pathetic. Sounded to me like the friend he was trying to 'convert' recognised the problems trying to combine evolution and Creation.

A man regularly rapes his daughter. Would you say it was okay for the man to continue this practise if said he wouldn't become a Christian if it had to stop.

 

[Vance]

"You get the idea from TE's that even if it wasn't the truth, it would be okay to say it was so people could be saved. "

Exactly where do you get this idea? No TE has even come close to making such an outrageous statement. This is very simply a baldface lie, and I don't mind saying it that bluntly.

And the simple fact is that we have seen a number of people on these very forums alone who have indicated that either YEC teachings were instrumental in their abandoning Christianity or that they were in danger of losing their faith due to YEC teachings before they encountered the alternative idea (which their YEC churches never exposed them to!), that you could be a Christian and accept evolution with ease. I personally have encountered many more in this same situation.

YEC's and militant atheists are unlikely bedfellows, as I have explained before.

The author of the article cited in the OP is just another sad example of the result of YEC dogma.

 

[1denomination]

" . This is very simply a baldface lie, and I don't mind saying it that bluntly. .

Vance my friend I find It hard to belive you would mind saying anything bluntly.

"And the simple fact is that we have seen a number of people on these very forums alone who have indicated that either YEC teachings were instrumental in their abandoning Christianity or that they were in danger of losing their faith due to YEC teachings before they encountered the alternative idea (which their YEC churches never exposed them to!), that you could be a Christian and accept evolution with ease. I personally have encountered many more in this same situation..

Shall we all pray that the lord give them faith. Faith in what they cant see, For blessed is he who belives and has not seen. You see, you veiw their abandonment of faith as a problem with the church and I view it as a problem with their faith, they could not let go of evolution so they let go of God. (Please do not misinterpret what I am saying here, This in to way intended to be an assault on TE.) I belive If I had to choose between the two I would choose God. Oh! you not what, I already Have. The fact that you have not let evolution distrupt your faith is something I applaud you TE on. But as for me, YEC Is where I stand And for that I would like it if you wouldnt accuse me of leading souls away from the body, as I have seen many people brought to the faith without evolution ever being brought up..............Sorry about the rant

"YEC's and militant atheists are unlikely bedfellows, as I have explained before..

Once again I find this to be terribly offensive. Please try to be a little less offensive as I am trying very hard to respect you.

"The author of the article cited in the OP is just another sad example of the result of YEC dogma.

Wow here we go again, Why is it you can continually bash YEC but the moment someone questions TE we get nearly stoned to death.

 

[Vance]

Because I have seen souls lost to the Kingdom because they have been taught the YEC dogmatism. I am not attacking any YEC personally, or even their personal beliefs, only their insistence on teaching that this issue is one of "either/or", that evolution and an old earth are wholly incompatible with Scripture. That is all. This teaching is extremely damaging to Christianity, plain and simple.

Many YEC's on the other hand, attack those who believe differently than they do on a personal level. They insinuate, or even state outright, that TE's lack faith, do not believe God's Word, are compromising their beliefs, etc, etc. These are PERSONAL attacks, even when aimed at a group, since it is going to their personal beliefs and making judgments about their relationship with Christ.

If YEC's simply did as TE's do and state that they disagree with our presentation of TE'ism in some way, even that they thought it was dangerous to Christianity, I would not be offended in the least. I would disagree but I would not be offended.

There is a BIG difference.

As for those who have lost their faith due to YEC'ism, it is not as simple as you would make it sound. They are humans, and are being presented with the evidence for an old earth and for evolution on the one hand and then being told that if that evidence IS true, then the Scripture must be false. This would be fine if it was true, and if it was a salvation issue, since people will often have to make such essential choices for God.

But it is neither, which is the tragedy.

 

[Bushido216]

The point, 1denomination, is that you're creating a conflict where there is no need for one.

 

[tryptophan]

I read the article. I still don't see where the conflict is.Why can't one believe that Jesus died for our sins and yet accept that the creation accounts were not literal?

 

[1denomination]

I read the article. I still don't see where the conflict is.Why can't one believe that Jesus died for our sins and yet accept that the creation accounts were not literal?

I think it has something to do with original sin, as im sure this issue has been discussed here before, go ahead and explain why the original sin thing, doesnt work in the favor of YEC, because(in all seriousness)I'm curious. Which is one of the main reasons I posted this article.

 

[Vance]

Yes, we have covered original sin in great detail in many threads. Here is the bottom line: many, many Christians (possibly the majority) believe in the concept of original sin, but don't believe Genesis 1 and 2 are literal. So, the belief of original sin can not be said to be dependent upon a belief in a literal Adam.

Again, almost every YEC theological argument comes down to "well, if you don't believe X, then there is no way you can believe Y." in which Y is an essential, salvation issue. This is proven wrong by the simple fact that we DO believe Y, even though we don't believe X (which seems to irk many YECs to no end). The fact that YEC's find it difficult to accept that someone can believe Y without believing X is really their own issue, since the only important point is that all these Christians who deny X are still there believing Y, and heading off to Heaven!

My approach to most YEC's is that if they find it necessary to believe in a literal Adam in order to believe in a literal resurrection, let's say, that is fine. But why put this straight-jacket around any other Christians over which you have influence? Why indoctrinate them with this "either/or" approach which can be so dangerous? YEC's don't have to change their belief one little bit, or even refrain from letting others know what they believe on this narrow issue, but why not make sure that the hearer understands that Bible-believing, Spirit-filled Christians differ on this point?

I don't think that is too much to ask.