how can anyone believe in creationism

[Wayne-o]

Creationism / Evolution / Creationism / Evolution / Creationism / Evolutio...

"But anyway, creation or evolution doesn't matter anymore."

Rom 5:12-15
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned-- 13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
15 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. (NASB)

Actually it means everything...

If this passage above is not literal, then Adam was not a real person who was created on the 6th day (when counting the the ages and genealogies) about 6000 years or so ago. If Adam was not a literal man, then neither did sin enter the world through him. If sin did not enter the world, then we have no need of Jesus, who is also referred to in the same passage.

This issue is the very heart of Christianity.

(I don't have enough posts yet to show a great link from Answers in Genesis...

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Creationism / Evolution / Creationism / Evolution / Creationism / Evolutio...

"But anyway, creation or evolution doesn't matter anymore."

Rom 5:12-15
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned-- 13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
15 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. (NASB)

Actually it means everything...

If this passage above is not literal, then Adam was not a real person who was created on the 6th day (when counting the the ages and genealogies) about 6000 years or so ago. If Adam was not a literal man, then neither did sin enter the world through him. If sin did not enter the world, then we have no need of Jesus, who is also referred to in the same passage.

That doesn't logically follow.
If the passage is not literally true, then it is not 100% literally true, that's all: it doesn't mean it's completely and utterly false in all things.

Exactly how and when sin entered the world is irrelevant, the mere fact that it did is enough. Whether it was through the transgressions of the very first human 6000 years ago, or through the sins if humanity in general once imbued with a spirit several hundred thousand years ago (as several of my TE friends attest), or whatever, it doesn't matter: as far as Christians should be concerned, sin exists in the world, and Jesus exists to counter that.

(I don't have enough posts yet to show a great link from Answers in Genesis...

Don't bother with AiG. No one pays any attention to AiG around here.

 

[Wayne-o]

Wiccan_Child"
That doesn't logically follow.
If the passage is not literally true, then it is not 100% literally true, that's all: it doesn't mean it's completely and utterly false in all things.

Exactly how and when sin entered the world is irrelevant, the mere fact that it did is enough. Whether it was through the transgressions of the very first human 6000 years ago, or through the sins if humanity in general once imbued with a spirit several hundred thousand years ago (as several of my TE friends attest), or whatever, it doesn't matter: as far as Christians should be concerned, sin exists in the world, and Jesus exists to counter that.

Don't bother with AiG. No one pays any attention to AiG around here."

It grieves me to hear things like this. If you negate the parts of the bible that you do not like, then of what worth/trust is the saving grace of God, through the ultimate sacrifice of His Son Jesus, also found in the bible?

I hope this does not reflect the thoughts of the entire forum. If so, they might as well take the word "Christian" out of the title. This kind of thinking goes well past the times of the judges when "every man did that which is right in his own eyes" to original sin, with the wish to "be like God."

I will try to stick around for a bit to see. In the mean time, I wonder why no one pays attention to AiG, is it because their science is more sound than most scientists?

 

[brinny]

is anyone forcing you to? :o

 

[Psudopod]

It grieves me to hear things like this. If you negate the parts of the bible that you do not like, then of what worth/trust is the saving grace of God, through the ultimate sacrifice of His Son Jesus, also found in the bible?

If you set the bible up so that it needs to be literally true, you run the risk of showing Christianity to be false. If you need a literal Adam to be the first man 6000 years ago for Christianity, then clearly it is wrong, because man existed much longer than 6000 years ago. Of course if you take the bible as containing truth in the form of metaphors, poetry, parables etc written by people who did not have our understanding of the world, then the messages remain true and unfalsified.

I hope this does not reflect the thoughts of the entire forum. If so, they might as well take the word "Christian" out of the title. This kind of thinking goes well past the times of the judges when "every man did that which is right in his own eyes" to original sin, with the wish to "be like God."

Most Christians around the world do not take the bible literally.

I will try to stick around for a bit to see. In the mean time, I wonder why no one pays attention to AiG, is it because their science is more sound than most scientists?

No, it’s because their science is dreadful. For a start they start off with the assumption that the bible is literally true and anything that goes against this must automatically be wrong. No self-respecting scientist should work like this. Why don’t you put up your favourite argument from them (in your own words as you can’t post links) and we can show you where they went wrong.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It grieves me to hear things like this. If you negate the parts of the bible that you do not like, then of what worth/trust is the saving grace of God, through the ultimate sacrifice of His Son Jesus, also found in the bible?

What indeed. The point isn't that we throw out the bits we don't like, but that we acknowledge that some parts simply don't fit the facts. The Bible, when taken literally, may indirectly imply that the Earth is 6000 years old, but that doesn't fit the facts. So, somewhere along the line, there's a bit of a fudge. But so what? Surely the only part a Christian should care about is the veracity of the New Testament (specifically, the saving grave of God).

And if that itself turns out to be mere myth and legend, then Christians have done themselves a favour: they have discovered that their religion is false.

I will try to stick around for a bit to see. In the mean time, I wonder why no one pays attention to AiG, is it because their science is more sound than most scientists?

It's because their articles are tedious and repetitive, trotting out the same old fallacies again and again. Their research is biased, their methods underhanded, and their arguments trite. More than that, do you really think they'd be honest enough to post an article that damages Creationism? They place the Bible above any and all possible scrutiny, making it impossible for their position to be refuted: if the evidence contradicts it, the evidence is wrong! That's not science, my friend.

 

[mpok1519]

The bible uses metaphors and symbolism all throughout it's pages. ALL throughout.

 

[Wayne-o]

I find that this is not a debate as you are a relativist. A person that believes in Evolution/Spontaneous life has no basis for morality, cannot be orthodox. Each decides for themself what to do based on what works (pragamatist), what feels exciting (hedonist) , whatever (anarchist) etc.

A person like this cannot be debated because rules and logic become irrelevant. Truth is a myth in this mythical world. Without good vs evil, true vs incorrect, truth cannot be discerned. It's not about winning a debate, it's about glorifying God by discerning truth, and the truth shall set you free, but not "totally free" as a relativist might like!


Thanks for the discussion.

 

[mpok1519]

As Wiccan child said, if someone's evidence is "tha bahbel sahys", it's not evidence at all.

 

[brinny]

The bible uses metaphors and symbolism all throughout it's pages. ALL throughout.

Is God a metaphor or symbolic?

 

[mpok1519]

A person that believes in Evolution/Spontaneous life has no basis for morality,

except for survival. Morality is inherently important to our survival as a species

Is God a metaphor or symbolic?

everyones' interpretatioN of God is different. I don't see God as some anthropomorphized bearded old guy patriarchal figure in the clouds as everyone else. What the bible uses to depict God are VERY symbolic and metaphorical.

Or well I shouldn't say "what the bible uses". What people use is a better way to describe it.

 

[Wayne-o]

If there is a God, according to you, how did/does He reveal Himself to you?
Who gets to set the rules on this, you or God?

If it is you, then you appear to have more power than God!

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny
Is God a metaphor or symbolic?

except for survival. Morality is inherently important to our survival as a species



everyones' interpretatioN of God is different. I don't see God as some anthropomorphized bearded old guy in the clouds as everyone else. What the bible uses to depict Gid are VERY symbolic and metaphorical.

Is God a metaphor or a symbol? How does God define Himself?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Is God a metaphor or a symbol? How does God define Himself?

He is that he is, no more, no less.

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny
Is God a metaphor or a symbol? How does God define Himself?

He is that he is, no more, no less.

that's very similar to a Bible verse on how God defines Himself, my friend.

 

[mpok1519]

If there is a God, according to you, how did/does He reveal Himself to you?
Who gets to set the rules on this, you or God?

If it is you, then you appear to have more power than God!

I'm pretty sure people made the rules based on what they could only justify as "what God told them".

Seems that people have been pretending to be God for a very long time now.

 

[Wayne-o]

A statement was made earlier that morality is necessary for the survival of a species.

I again submit that morality is a concept foreign to evolution. Morality implies good or evil. According to evolution, it's all just chemical reactions. A species might succeed or fail based on those chemical reactions, but it has no basis on which to talk about emotions, soul, good, evil etc.

Somehow, emotions sprung up. Could it be because man is created in he image of God?

If that is the case, then God gets to set the rules or we have just set ourselves up as little gods.

 

[SithDoughnut]

A statement was made earlier that morality is necessary for the survival of a species.

I again submit that morality is a concept foreign to evolution. Morality implies good or evil. According to evolution, it's all just chemical reactions. A species might succeed or fail based on those chemical reactions, but it has no basis on which to talk about emotions, soul, good, evil etc.

Somehow, emotions sprung up. Could it be because man is created in he image of God?

If that is the case, then God gets to set the rules or we have just set ourselves up as little gods.

Or evolution led to the creation of a mind that was capable of coming up with the idea of morality.

 

[mpok1519]

I don't know if believing oneself as a "little god" is a healthy disposition to have.

God uses chemical reactions though, right? Our morality could be the result of our "chemical reactions". You'd be amazed if you studied in depth allele change frequency rate and how it applies to tissue and cell developement. It's really amazing stuff, all pointing toward evolutionary theory, all possible and a hundred percent true. Developments and findings within the scientific community have accelerated like never before since the technological revolution began. We're beginning to see how our very bodily chemical processes function for specific purposes. The chemical equation for compassion and love could be encoded in our biologies.

I know that's a very monistic approach but I'm still in study.

 

[Wayne-o]

Absolutely God uses chemical reactions, just as he uses DNA. These are the "building blocks of life. And life is more than just chemical reactions or what is consciousness? Take the consciousness (pneumas or breath) away from the body (meat) and you just have meat.

But actually cell theory says that life comes from life, or cells come from cells. There is no such thing as a simple cell, which you know if you are a student of biology.

So it is impossible to evolve a cell. All of its myriad parts would have to co-evolve simultaneously. That is absolutely impossible. The more you speak of code and emotions you speak of written and active intelligence.

All of this points to a creator and the tracks that my creator left behind is the bible.