How Have You resolved the Creationism vs Evolution Debate?

[Jig]

ok so God is now interfering with human biology to give them the ability to be omnivorous, why doesn't he just go ahead and create some more clean creatures while he's at it?

Either the Bible is telling us the truth or it is not.

 

[shernren]

Where does it say that in Romans 5?

This is what my ESV says:

Romans 5:12-13
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned. For sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.

Egads! That was an awful mistyping. I agree that Romans 5 says that death spread to all men after Adam's sin. I probably meant to say because.

But notice, and this was my original point, that it says that death spread to all men, and not to all life.

Correct, but I do not see how this refutes my position. We were not meant to originally eat animal meat - Adam and all the antediluvian people were vegetarian.

So why would God tell us to do something we were not meant to do?

And why does animal death magically become okay, not even right after the Fall, but right after the Flood?

And just where in the Bible anyway does it say that animal death is bad?

 

[Keachian]

Either the Bible is telling us the truth or it is not.

[rant]
Why does it have to be such a strong implication? The Bible is a patchwork of different stories, prose and poetry, prophetic, theological and apocalyptic literature. Genesis isn't even one cohesive piece of writing it is also a patchwork. Genesis 1 is a poem describing God's creation ability, Genesis 2-4 is a story of creation and the state of the world now, chapter 5 is a Geneology, before launching into in chapter 6-9 a story of God's judgement. Do we really need to get bogged down in the ideas of antediluvian carnivorism? How in heaven do you suppose that antediluvian carnivorism has any bearing on salvation? Oh wait it's part of the same patchwork where we bring the ideas of a coming Messiah, (Gen 3, Other parts of the Torah, Nevi'im) and the story of the Messiah (The gospels)
[/rant]

So we were made to be vegetarian rather than omnivorous? Then surely this comes under the ideas that Paul gives us in

"All things are lawful for me," but not all things are helpful. "All things are lawful for me," but I will not be enslaved by anything.

It is lawful for us to be omnivorous but it's not as beneficial to us as vegetarianism, after all look at the story of Daniel and his friends in Daniel 1:8-16

 

[razeontherock]

ok so God is now interfering with human biology to give them the ability to be omnivorous, why doesn't he just go ahead and create some more clean creatures while he's at it?

You've never learned the problem with making assumptions?

 

[Keachian]

You've never learned the problem with making assumptions?

Ok you have many situations:

1. Humans are originally vegetarian
2. Humans are originally omnivorous

The first one leads us to the conclusion that God interferes with human biology in Genesis 9 in order that they can now take advantage of the new blessing God has given us.
The second leads us to question why didn't God give us the animals to eat outside of the garden, or indeed if we are supposed to be vegetarian why are we able to digest meat?

 

[Jig]

Egads! That was an awful mistyping. I agree that Romans 5 says that death spread to all men after Adam's sin. I probably meant to say because.

But notice, and this was my original point, that it says that death spread to all men, and not to all life.

Do you believe Adam would have lived forever if he had not sinned?

So why would God tell us to do something we were not meant to do?

Because of sin our original purpose has been lost. Adam was meant to live in the Garden, but after sin God told him to live outside the Garden. Your asking why God would tell us to do something we weren't originally meant to do. The answer is obviously because sin has changed the original intention of creation.

Because of sin all of creation, along with our biological bodies, have been corrupted. The reason God allows Noah and his descendants to eat meat is not obvious. But perhaps the more rigorous environment in the new world required the animal protein in meats for man’s sustenance to a degree not normally available in other foods. While that is speculation, the fact God made this command is not.

And why does animal death magically become okay, not even right after the Fall, but right after the Flood?

When did I invoke magic? What God does is not magic. What sin produces is not magic.

Animal death is not "okay" in the sense of their original purpose. However, after sin entered creation, this "original purpose" was corrupted. Right after Adam and Eve sinned God killed an animal for its skin so that He could cloth the shamefully naked couple. That animals death was directly related to man's sin.

And just where in the Bible anyway does it say that animal death is bad?

Where in the Bible is "death" ever something other than bad?

 

[shernren]

Do you believe Adam would have lived forever if he had not sinned?

Quite frankly, I am not wise enough to speculate. But here's what John Stott says in his commentary on Romans 5, and I tend to agree with his view:

What was the origin of death? Was it there from the beginning? Certainly vegetable death was. God created ‘seed-bearing plants … that bear fruit with seed in it.’ That is, the cycle of blossom, fruit, seed, death and new life was established in the created order. Animal death existed too, for many fossils of predators have been found with their prey in their stomach. But what about human beings? Paul wrote that death entered the world through sin (5:12). Does that mean that, if he had not sinned, he would not have died? Many ridicule this notion.http://www.christianforums.com/#_ftn2

... [but] for his unique image-bearers God originally had something better in mind, something less degrading and squalid than death, decay and decomposition, something which acknowledged that human beings are not animals. Perhaps he would have ‘translated’ them like Enoch and Elijah, without the necessity of death. Perhaps he would have ‘changed’ them ‘in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye’, like those believers who will be alive when Jesus comes. Perhaps too we should think of the transfiguration of Jesus in this light. His face shone, his clothing became dazzling white, and his body translucent like the resurrection body he would later have. Because he had no sin, he did not need to die. He could have stepped straight into heaven without dying. But he deliberately came back in order of his own free and loving will to die for us.

http://www.christianforums.com/#_ftnref4Stott, J. R. W. (2001], c1994). The message of Romans : God's good news for the world. The Bible speaks today (165-6). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.


​

Because of sin our original purpose has been lost. Adam was meant to live in the Garden, but after sin God told him to live outside the Garden. You're asking why God would tell us to do something we weren't originally meant to do. The answer is obviously because sin has changed the original intention of creation.

Because of sin all of creation, along with our biological bodies, have been corrupted. The reason God allows Noah and his descendants to eat meat is not obvious. But perhaps the more rigorous environment in the new world required the animal protein in meats for man’s sustenance to a degree not normally available in other foods. While that is speculation, the fact God made this command is not.

When did I invoke magic? What God does is not magic. What sin produces is not magic.

Animal death is not "okay" in the sense of their original purpose. However, after sin entered creation, this "original purpose" was corrupted. Right after Adam and Eve sinned God killed an animal for its skin so that He could cloth the shamefully naked couple. That animals death was directly related to man's sin.

And yet creationists themselves claim that it is the original intention of creation that mandates the marriage covenant in Mark 10:4. Why didn't Jesus say "oh well, since it's after the Fall, your original purpose has been lost, I guess it's okay for you guys to divorce your wives and sleep around with whomever you choose"?

For that matter, creationists themselves also claim that it is the original intention of creation that mandates the Sabbath commandment in Exodus 20. Why didn't Moses say "oh well, since it's after the Fall, your original purpose has been lost, suits me just fine if you work right through the weekend"?

Therein lies the magic - not of sin, nor of God, but of creationist thinking. Funny how it's apparently such a big deal that mankind was originally created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve; but God can change His mind about Adam and Eve (and all the animals, if creationists are to be believed) being designed vegetarians.

What moral standing do creationists have to be horrified at the idea of a God who can use animal death to bring about His good purposes before the Fall, when they are daily using animal death to satisfy their own (often selfish) appetites? This, furthermore, when in this day and age, with the rising popularity of vegetarianism, it is easier than ever to change one's diet - while it remains no easier to change one's sexual orientation.

And if you say that there is something moral in marriage or sexuality or resting, but not in killing animals, then you are proving exactly my point: since animal death has no moral weight, there is nothing morally wrong with a world in which animals die.

Where in the Bible is "death" ever something other than bad?

Arise therefore, go to your house. When your feet enter the city, the child shall die. And all Israel shall mourn for him and bury him, for he only of Jeroboam shall come to the grave, because in him there is found something pleasing to the Lord, the God of Israel, in the house of Jeroboam. (1Kgs 14:12-13, ESV)​

 

[Papias]

Jig wrote:

Adam was born a human but didn't have human parents.

I don't know when he was given a soul and became the first human, so we don't know. Or are you referring to some other criteria for what you call human? Either way, I'm sure you agree that we aren't exactly like our parents, and the first German didn't have German parents, right?

You may personally not ascribe to the theological view, of Adam as a transitional form, the first human, but to imply that it is nonsensical is not good for Christian unity, and the Pope and millions of Catholics, among others, support it.

Papias

 

[mark kennedy]

You may personally not ascribe to the theological view, of Adam as a transitional form, the first human, but to imply that it is nonsensical is not good for Christian unity, and the Pope and millions of Catholics, among others, support it. Papias

The Pope and Church tradition has always affirmed that Adam was the first man, the biological parent of us all:

But this man [of whom I have been speaking] is Adam, if truth be told, the first-formed man....(ST. IRENAEUS c. 180 AD)​

Before you try to bury this in empty rhetoric and fallacious ad hominems Irenaeus considered Adam, 'the first man formed'. Other Church Fathers taught along those lines and the idea that Adam was a spiritually modified ape is unknown in Christian theology prior to the advent of Darwinism

The Pope does not endorse evolution and you know it, your just counting on others not knowing the truth:

Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question. (Humani Generis 36)​

If the RCC actually endorses evolution then why didn't you argue that in our debate? The reason is obvious, the position is indefensible. Rome allows for conjecture and speculation along these lines, it is permissible for Catholics to hold these views. That is, when divine revelation have nothing to say on the matter. That's why the Pope advised moderation and caution, an admonition you have so recklessly abandoned.

Does the Roman Catholic Church Condemn Evolution?

Rome neither condemns nor does it endorse evolution and you know it. This blatantly false statements are typical of evolutionist rhetoric that is designed to one thing only. Undermine this pointed statement:

"To omit the creation would be to misunderstand the very history of God with men, to diminish it, to lose sight of its true order of greatness..."The sweep of history established by God reaches back to the origins, back to creation...If man were merely a random product of evolution in some place on the margins of the universe, then his life would make no sense or might even be a chance of nature," he said. "But no, Reason is there at the beginning: creative, divine Reason." (VATICAN CITY, APRIL 23, 2011, Zenit.org)​

Pope Benedict XVI is directly connecting the creation with the resurrection, there is a very good reason for that.

Faith in God and in the events of salvation history must necessarily begin with a belief in God's role as Creator, says Benedict XVI​

Must, not may! Rome makes it clear that God's role as Creator is directly linked to God's role in salvation. What you attack with reckless abandon is foundational to Christian theism and Pope Benedict is explicit on this point.

37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own. (Humani Generis 37)​

These people you celebrate as theistic evolutionists reject the clear testimony of Scripture and ignore the admonitions of the Pope. This is intelligent design in no uncertain terms:

284 The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin: is the universe governed by chance, blind fate, anonymous necessity, or by a transcendent, intelligent and good Being called "God"? (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 284)​

This is Darwinian evolution and opposed to the clear testimony of Scripture and the teaching of the RCC:

We know that our ancestors were never at any time just two individuals. Modern genetic analysis allows us to conclude that through millions of years of our history, there have been always at any time at the very least several thousand individuals. So we don't descend from a single pair. (Dr. Francisco Ayala)​

How is that not polygenism? At least 'several thousand individuals is not monogenism and Catholics are not at liberty to hold this 'conjectural opinion'. Far from being an endorsement of evolution Humani Generis clearly recognized that original sin and universal common descent (aka evolution) cannot be reconciled to the clear testimony of Scripture.

You have abandoned the former in favor of the latter, you choose Darwinian evolution over sound Christian theism. Now you may well think you have reconciled the two but this is impossible. With regards to the book of Genesis you either believe it or you don't.

It's either special creation or it's the a priori assumption of evolution by exclusively naturalistic causes. I didn't start this debate but one thing is sure, you don't get to pretend the matter was settled by Rome in favor of Darwinian evolution when the RCC clearly condemns it.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[razeontherock]

Ok you have many situations:

1. Humans are originally vegetarian
2. Humans are originally omnivorous

The first one leads us to the conclusion that God interferes with human biology in Genesis 9 in order that they can now take advantage of the new blessing God has given us.
The second leads us to question why didn't God give us the animals to eat outside of the garden, or indeed if we are supposed to be vegetarian why are we able to digest meat?

Or you could merely deal with what the story presents, that our species went from originally vegetarian to omnivorous in 10 generations,which is far too quickly for evolution to take place.

The only possible conclusion to that is God knew the end from the beginning, and has everything in control. Why is that so difficult?

 

[Jig]

I don't know when he was given a soul and became the first human, so we don't know. Or are you referring to some other criteria for what you call human? Either way, I'm sure you agree that we aren't exactly like our parents, and the first German didn't have German parents, right?

I'd prefer not to play semantic games with you. We share a mixture of our parents exact genetics unless mutations occur. Adam would have been well over 99.9999999999 percent genetically similar to his parents - IF he had parents.

You may personally not ascribe to the theological view, of Adam as a transitional form, the first human, but to imply that it is nonsensical is not good for Christian unity, and the Pope and millions of Catholics, among others, support it.

Papias

Support it on what basis? Is this found in the Bible?

 

[Jig]

Quite frankly, I am not wise enough to speculate. But here's what John Stott says in his commentary on Romans 5, and I tend to agree with his view:
What was the origin of death? Was it there from the beginning? Certainly vegetable death was. God created ‘seed-bearing plants … that bear fruit with seed in it.’ That is, the cycle of blossom, fruit, seed, death and new life was established in the created order. Animal death existed too, for many fossils of predators have been found with their prey in their stomach. But what about human beings? Paul wrote that death entered the world through sin (5:12). Does that mean that, if he had not sinned, he would not have died? Many ridicule this notion.

... [but] for his unique image-bearers God originally had something better in mind, something less degrading and squalid than death, decay and decomposition, something which acknowledged that human beings are not animals. Perhaps he would have ‘translated’ them like Enoch and Elijah, without the necessity of death. Perhaps he would have ‘changed’ them ‘in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye’, like those believers who will be alive when Jesus comes. Perhaps too we should think of the transfiguration of Jesus in this light. His face shone, his clothing became dazzling white, and his body translucent like the resurrection body he would later have. Because he had no sin, he did not need to die. He could have stepped straight into heaven without dying. But he deliberately came back in order of his own free and loving will to die for us.

Stott, J. R. W. (2001], c1994). The message of Romans : God's good news for the world. The Bible speaks today (165-6). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.

Notice how he already subscribes to evolutionary theory. "Animal death existed too, for many fossils of predators have been found with their prey in their stomach." He obviously believe these animals lived well before Adam and is interpreting Scripture based on this assumption.

Also, Stott fails to notice the different Hebrew words that describe plants and animal life. Plants are not "alive" in a biblical sense of nephesh chayyah (the living creature) as the animals and man are. My car can die on me, but it was never alive like me.

From the Bible we learn that there was no death of any nephesh chayyah before sin—both humans and animals ate plants, which do not die in the biblical sense. Therefore any animal or human fossils must have come after sin. And the Bible spends three whole chapters explaining a watery cataclysm that would explain this—the globe-covering Flood of Noah’s day.

And if you say that there is something moral in marriage or sexuality or resting, but not in killing animals, then you are proving exactly my point: since animal death has no moral weight, there is nothing morally wrong with a world in which animals die.

This is a false dilemma.

Arise therefore, go to your house. When your feet enter the city, the child shall die. And all Israel shall mourn for him and bury him, for he only of Jeroboam shall come to the grave, because in him there is found something pleasing to the Lord, the God of Israel, in the house of Jeroboam. (1Kgs 14:12-13, ESV)

This does not prove death was good.

 

[Keachian]

Or you could merely deal with what the story presents, that our species went from originally vegetarian to omnivorous in 10 generations,which is far too quickly for evolution to take place.

Yes which is why God had to interfere and change our biology in order for us to now eat meat, miraculous intervention I'm fine with, are you?

The only possible conclusion to that is God knew the end from the beginning, and has everything in control. Why is that so difficult?

This is theologically problematic though, people were created "perfect" right? They were also created vegetarian, I see no mention of Noah going, oh I'd like to eat meat, if you've spent your entire life eating only vegetables and knowing that the people around you eat vegetables, what is going to make you think, oh it'd be nice to eat that cow over there?

 

[Jig]

Yes which is why God had to interfere and change our biology in order for us to now eat meat, miraculous intervention I'm fine with, are you?

I certainly believe God miraculously has intervened in history, sometimes for our benefit and sometimes out of His divine justice. Trying to understand all the intricacies is utterly impossible - just ask Job. All we can know is that it happened - God's Word is true and accurate.

Biological change within nature, animals, and man is evident in God's curse. We see an immediate biological transformation of the serpent, Eve's physical pain is increased during childbirth, and the ground became unforgiving and now produced thorns and thistles for Adam.

Whether the command to eat meat was also followed with a miracle in which our biological bodies changed to better accommodate digestion of meat may be an interesting thought, but it is not a pertinent one.

 

[Keachian]

I certainly believe God miraculously has intervened in history, sometimes for our benefit and sometimes out of His divine justice. Trying to understand all the intricacies is utterly impossible - just ask Job. All we can know is that it happened - God's Word is true and accurate.

Is eating meat for our own benefit, or out of his justice?
If for our benefit then, how is it beneficial, I've shown in a previous post that God blessed Daniel and his friends even though they ate only vegetables.
If it is out of his divine Justice, how is it Justice, was anyone wronged in this situation?

Whether the command to eat meat was also followed with a miracle in which our biological bodies changed to better accommodate digestion of meat may be an interesting thought, but it is not a pertinent one.

As soon as you decided that the antedilugian people were vegetarian, the mechanics of the omnivorous nature of the postdilugian people became pertinent.

 

[Jig]

Is eating meat for our own benefit, or out of his justice?
If for our benefit then, how is it beneficial, I've shown in a previous post that God blessed Daniel and his friends even though they ate only vegetables.

It was probably for our benefit. I speculated in one of my past posts that the conditions of the post-Flood world may have required a different nutritional diet for humans. It appears God graciously helped us adapt.

The reason God blessed Daniel had nothing to do with the vegetables he ate. It had to do with Daniels desire to follow God's law. The meat and wine the king was providing was not kosher - it was sacrificed to idols and was not prepared according to the Mosaic conditions.

As soon as you decided that the antedilugian people were vegetarian, the mechanics of the omnivorous nature of the postdilugian people became pertinent.

Why is the How important?

 

[mindlight]

I would like to read discussions of how other Christians have thought about this debate. Serious and theological discussions only, please.

Creation begins the universe and the bible account and in many ways sets the pattern for how we will interpret scripture.

What swayed me to a Creationist position was working in Israel as a missionary in acquaintance with Christian scholars at work on the dead Sea scrolls. These guys knew all the biblical languages without being naive to the theological issues surrounding difficult passages and I asked one of them what he thought about creation. At the time I believed that God created by Theistic evolution as does most of the Western church. He however convinced me from scripture that this position was erroneous and assured me that those closest to original languages held the same view.

Further research revealed that various attempts to portray the first chapters of Genesis as a literary framework with alternate purposes to a historical description of events were also erroneously founded. So for example the neoPlatonic allegorical view was founded on imported Greek thought and the misuse of various deuterocanonical scriptures by Augustine.

The mainstream global historical church has traditionally believed in 6 day creation at a fairly recent time in history. That Adam and Eve are the first humans etc

I believe this is essential to read scripture as a whole and for example the contrast in Romans of the man of disobedience with the man of obedience requires a historical Adam and Jesus.

But I think actually this comes down to a matter of epistemology and faith. Whom do you trust. If you believe in a God of miracles then anything is possible. Jesus walked on water , ascended to the heavens and brought bread and fish out of thin air. If you believe only what you see and can deduce from creation then a different picture seems to emerge. But the evidence for this picture is incomplete, often corroded by time and factors we do not know of, and we study it with limited and broken intellects. Also I believe creation has been broken by the fall and that what we read is therefore a broken picture.

Also I know a lot of people in the scientific community and am aware of the issues they often have with pride and lack of faith and an apparent ignorance of the power of the unseen realm and a God of miracles. Many of these people are honest within the boundaries they have set for truth to be found in. But the machine they work for has grown so large it now has its own momentum and the age of the polymath has long since gone. In short they are victims of a colossus that sweeps them along with its own self reinforcing logic and blinds them to their assumptions. They can only speak with authority inside their own little area and if they speak out of turn then they are quickly silenced and lose their funding. It is a one dimensional arrangement and the underlying assumptions are no longer being challenged.

So YEC is the position for me.

 

[shernren]

Notice how he already subscribes to evolutionary theory. "Animal death existed too, for many fossils of predators have been found with their prey in their stomach." He obviously believe these animals lived well before Adam and is interpreting Scripture based on this assumption.

Actually, he is an old-earth creationist, but you are right about what he believes. But Scripture backs up what he says as well. After all, God tells birds and fish and livestock to multiply. Why should they multiply unless they will die? And what would we do with the teeming multiplied animals when they started to outcompete us for resources?

Oh, I know, we could eat them! God could surely make it okay for animals to die if He wanted to, right?

Also, Stott fails to notice the different Hebrew words that describe plants and animal life. Plants are not "alive" in a biblical sense of nephesh chayyah (the living creature) as the animals and man are. My car can die on me, but it was never alive like me.

From the Bible we learn that there was no death of any nephesh chayyah before sin—both humans and animals ate plants, which do not die in the biblical sense. Therefore any animal or human fossils must have come after sin. And the Bible spends three whole chapters explaining a watery cataclysm that would explain this—the globe-covering Flood of Noah’s day.

If you can be so specific as to tell me that only animals and man are considered nephesh chayyah, then I'm sure you can be so specific as to give me the verse where God tells all nephesh chayyah, before the Fall, that they will never die. Or give me the verse where God tells all nephesh chayyah, after the Fall, that they will die.

Now there is plenty of Bible evidence that the death of humans has to do with sin. And I will agree with you that human fossils must have come after sin. But animal fossils as well? You're reading too much into the Bible there.

This is a false dilemma.

Actually, it is a true trilemma.

Either all creation obligations are binding on humans even after the Fall, in which case it is plain wrong to eat meat and God commanded the impossible after the Flood;
or no creation obligations are binding on humans even after the Fall, in which case verses like Exodus 20:8-11 and Mark 10:6-9 lose their force and are either unintelligible or reduced to "wouldn't it be nice if you behaved?" suggestions;
or some creation obligations are binding on humans even after the Fall while others aren't,
in which case it is only natural to assume that the obligations not binding on humans after the Fall are obligations with little or no moral consequence,
in which case animal death has little or no moral consequence.

In any case, the force of my original argument still stands. I might as well have Jack the Ripper tell me that human death is evil and horrible.

(Lest you think this is an exaggeration, remember that animal death before the fall is the single argument creationists have for saying things like this:

​

It's hard for me to believe that you honestly think that pile of bones is such a big deal if you are personally and unnecessarily adding to it with abandon.)

This does not prove death was good.

I have always found this particular argument of animal death before the Fall weak and particularly modernistic / humanistic. At least there actually is a verse saying "For in six days God created the heavens and the earth", or "In the beginning God created male and female", or "And it rained upon the earth forty days and forty nights". Disagree though I may with your interpretation of those verses, we can agree that the text is right there.

But there simply isn't any verse saying that animals would not have died before the Fall. It's all extrapolation and interpolation between verses that can be interpreted sensibly without referring to animal death. Indeed, immortality is never explicitly mentioned in God's original purpose for creation - animals and humans are told to "multiply and fill the earth", not "live forever". (Yes, creation was "very good"; then again, God took the only child with anything good in him in Jeroboam's family, and decided that the most fitting result was the "privilege" of dying a peaceful death as an innocent child.)

We only (though rightly) infer the original immortality of humans because of the way the New Testament speaks of death as the enemy, for in the Old Testament little is said about death being good or bad after Genesis 3, and any fear of death when examined is really a fear of the unknown after death, the fear of shadowy Sheol. (It goes without saying that for animals, without immortal souls, such fear is irrelevant, which is why there is no moral effect to animal death, and no power to cleanse sin in the sacrifice of bulls and goats.) But for those left alive who succeed the bereaved kings of Kings and Chronicles, the newly departed king is simply "sleeping with his fathers".

And in the New Testament, this fear of the unknown after death is sharpened and shown for what it truly is: hell. The (only) sting of death is sin. Whenever death is the enemy, it is the enemy because it causes the ultimate separation between sinful humanity and their Creator and Judge; and whenever death is defeated, it is defeated because it is forced into uniting Christians with their Father and their King. You see? The Bible's treatment of death is nuanced and pastoral, and it certainly says almost nothing about whether the supposed horror of animal death.

Contrast this with what DA Carson (a noted conservative theologian, and firm critic of liberal theology) observes as the current mood about death:

... Death has become the last taboo. I can write about sex and breasts, discuss homosexuality in public, and debate the ethics of abortion, but I must not mention death in civilized company.

Corpses are whisked off to the undertakers' where family members will not see them until they have been "prepared". Even the bereaved themselves find candor difficult. Many is the grieving family that refuses to talk out its grief, even within the family - with incalculable loss of comfort and perspective. Meanwhile, incredible advances in medical science have convinced us we have the right to live.

... We are more likely to lionize Dylan Thomas's counsel to his dying father: "Rage, rage against the dying of the light." Indeed, after we have accepted our place in God's world and grasped the desperate realities of sin and its consequences, rage may be called for. But Dylan Thomas's rage is not called for. He still wants to be the center of the universe, and is frustrated to the point of rage that he cannot be.
​

I have some amount of respect for the other creationist arguments from the Bible, but the argument from animal death basically devolves into "If Adam hadn't sinned, my puppy wouldn't have died, boo hoo" for me. It reflects our modern fear of death more than a Biblical attitude towards death. The shameless groping for immortality - especially from those who are all too involved in shortening many animals' mortal lives - is more befitting amidst the fantasies of Gilgamesh than the realities of Genesis.

 

[artybloke]

To be honest, I've never really seen the point of these discussion. If the story of creation is symbolic, then so is the story of the fall. I don't really see the fall as a single event. We have all fallen short of the glory of God, so the fall happens every day to every one of us. And so does the salvation of God.

 

[Papias]

mark wrote:

The Pope does not endorse evolution and you know it, your just counting on others not knowing the truth:

Some however, .......question. (Humani Generis 36)​

Sigh. mark, you have yet again changed the words in the discussion and posted misleading information to fit your own distortions. To argue against my point that the Pope supports evolution, you quoted someone other than the current Pope, from a document over a half century old! Who did you think I meant when I said "The Pope"? Did you think no one would notice your bait and switch?

And did you think that no one would notice you again change my statement that "the Pope supports evolution" into saying that he "endorses" it, without saying what you mean by that? I've always maintained that the Pope supports evolution, clearly lays it out in a strictly theistic understanding of evolution, but does not require followers to shun creationism, since it is not a salvation issue. Do you disagree with that?

The Pope and Church tradition has always affirmed that Adam was the first man, the biological parent of us all:

Duh. Of course they do. I've never disagreed with that. Again you are making up strawmen to fight, after changing my statements.

Rome allows for conjecture and speculation along these lines, it is permissible for Catholics to hold these views.

Being that your whole position in the debate was the exact opposite - that Rome does not allow theistic evolution as a possible position, it seems you admit here that you were wrong in the debate, and therefore that you learned something. I'm glad to see you learned something, as I stated was my hope at the beginning of the debate. For readers, you can see the whole debate here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7554304/

Rome neither condemns nor does it endorse evolution and you know it.
This blatantly false statements are typical of evolutionist rhetoric that is designed to one thing only.

Yep, that mischaracterization of my statement is certainly blatantly false. Can you show where I said that Rome endorsed evolution? Or maybe you'd like to admit that you are yet again making up strawman arguments?

Undermine this pointed statement:

"To omit the creation would be to misunderstand the very history of God with men, to diminish it, to lose sight of its true order of greatness..."The sweep of history established by God reaches back to the origins, back to creation...If man were merely a random product of evolution in some place on the margins of the universe, then his life would make no sense or might even be a chance of nature," he said. "But no, Reason is there at the beginning: creative, divine Reason." (VATICAN CITY, APRIL 23, 2011, Zenit.org)​

Pope Benedict XVI is directly connecting the creation with the resurrection, there is a very good reason for that.

Faith in God and in the events of salvation history must necessarily begin with a belief in God's role as Creator, says Benedict XVI​

Must, not may! Rome makes it clear that God's role as Creator is directly linked to God's role in salvation.

Of course. All of that is fully consistent with the theistic evolution Pope Benedict describes.

What you attack with reckless abandon is foundational to Christian theism and Pope Benedict is explicit on this point.

The only thing I've attacked is the denial of evolution, which is certainly not foundational to Christian theism, well, except maybe for mark's version of Christianity in his own head.

It's either special creation or it's the a priori assumption of evolution by exclusively naturalistic causes. I didn't start this debate but one thing is sure, you don't get to pretend the matter was settled by Rome in favor of Darwinian evolution when the RCC clearly condemns it.

There goes mark again with his dancing definitions. The RCC clearly allows theistic evolution, and doesn't require a literal reading of Genesis - on that we seem to agree.

Papias