Question for non-literalists

[Adammi]

Well, taking the stance you have, this is true. You have no right to correct someone who's doing the same thing you are. All you can do is sit by and hope they somehow come to the truth. You can never have the attitude of Paul.

2Cor. 5:11 Since, then, we know what it is to fear the Lord, we try to persuade men. What we are is plain to God, and I hope it is also plain to your conscience.

Maybe, but can we do anything other than hope?

Also, even though we can't and shouldn't build our faith upon another human's faith St. Augustine's conversion I find very intrguing. He, even he who shaped western theology, could only believe much of scripture to be allegorical.

 

[Calminian]

Maybe, but can we do anything other than hope?

Also, even though we can't and shouldn't build our faith upon another human's faith St. Augustine's conversion I find very intrguing. He, even he who shaped western theology, could only believe much of scripture to be allegorical.

I know you've been told this, but I really urge you to research it. Augustine was nowhere close to where TEs are today and would spin in his grave if he knew how people were misusing his teachings. He believed Genesis to be a historical narrative account. He believed in a young earth (less than 10,000 years). And this was despite the old earth theories of his day. The early church fathers were unanimous on the issue of a global flood. Some of the fathers allegorized the days of Genesis, believing they were symbolic of future 1000 year periods (not long time periods in the past). This was based on some misunderstandings of the Hebrew (none of them could read hebrew) and some jewish teachings. Many (if not most) of them believed in literal days also. None of them were what we see today, completely dismissing Adam-Terah.

 

[DailyBlessings]

I hate being right.

Yes, sometimes the truth hurts. But you have to keep at it.

As for theistic evolution being a "compromise" however... hardly. At least nothing is being compromised that I have an interest in keeping. If Scripture does not support a doctrine like original sin, why should I be chained to it? I'm not saying that sin does not exist. In fact, I hold people more accountable for their actions than does someone who blames an ancestor for all of their troubles.

 

[random_guy]

Random_guy, you've been quotemined! Congratulations! Normally only leading evolutionary scientists get their statements taken out of context, so if you get yours too, you must be up there with them!



(emphasis added)

Amazing. I'm currently in the process of publishing a paper (hopefully it'll get accepted), but I think this is a good sign that I'll soon be an official scientist. Thank you Calminian for your vote of confidence that I'm worthy enough to be quote mined. I'd like to thank everyone here for continually pushing me to learn more about science so I, too, might someday combat ignorance.

 

[Calminian]

Amazing. I'm currently in the process of publishing a paper (hopefully it'll get accepted), but I think this is a good sign that I'll soon be an official scientist. Thank you Calminian for your vote of confidence that I'm worthy enough to be quote mined. I'd like to thank everyone here for continually pushing me to learn more about science so I, too, might someday combat ignorance.

Sorry to break this to you guys, but quotemined means you rip a quote out of context. I actually quoted his entire statement and the context was biblical doctrines, particularly original sin. One TE just admitted she/he rejects it. Random likened original sin to flat earthism and geocentrism. I think if you look at the context, you'll find my assessment was accurate. Unfortunately random-guy put the proverbial foot in his mouth. Many TEs believe that if you take the Bible in a straight forward exegetical way, it teaches geocentrism and a flat earth, just as it does doctrines like original sin. Of course this is nonsense, but skeptics love it.

Anyway, nice try guys. The wit needs some work, though. Oh and Random, you may want to remove that thing.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Say goodbye to the doctrine of original sin. Another casualty of compromise.

In your opinion is the doctrine of “original sin” a salvation issue? If I accept Jesus, confess my sins, but I do not accept the idea of “original sin” am I going to hell?

 

[Calminian]

In your opinion is the doctrine of “original sin” a salvation issue? If I accept Jesus, confess my sins, but I do not accept the idea of “original sin” am I going to hell?

Absolutely not. One can reject original sin, the virgin birth and even inerrancy and still be a christian. But that doesn't mean it's not harmful and dangerous. As I mentioned earlier, when we give in to compromises on Genesis, we have no logical reason to correct other people who believe in real heresies like spiritualizing the resurrection. When we undermine the authority of the word, it's very difficult to try to use the word to correct them (2Tim. 3:15-18). We also can be on a very slippery slope ourselves and in danger of falling into to actual heresy.

Genesis is the foundation of so many doctrines. If we can allegorize it merely because we think science conflicts with it, then who's to say where this practice stops? Certainly we can't. This is why this debate is so different from other theological debates. The very authority of the Word of God is at stake.

 

[random_guy]

Sorry to break this to you guys, but quotemined means you rip a quote out of context. I actually quoted his entire statement and the context was biblical doctrines, particularly original sin. One TE just admitted she/he rejects it. Random likened original sin to flat earthism and geocentrism. I think if you look at the context, you'll find my assessment was accurate. Unfortunately random-guy put the proverbial foot in his mouth. Many TEs believe that if you take the Bible in a straight forward exegetical way, it teaches geocentrism and a flat earth, just as it does doctrines like original sin. Of course this is nonsense, but skeptics love it.

Anyway, nice try guys. The wit needs some work, though. Oh and Random, you may want to remove that thing.

You sure did rip it out of context. I clearly pointed out that if you take a literal interpration like some fundamentalist groups do, then those groups would believe in a Flat Earth, geocentrism, etc... However, point out where in my quotes did I mention that I believe the Bible teaches the Earth is flat or condones racial segration? It's the interpretation of fundamentalist groups that believe in such, not me. So yes, you did take my quote out of context because no where did I mention those views actually reflect how I believe the Bible is interpretated.

Of course, the evidence is quite clear for other people to see. I'll let them judge themselves whether or not you took my statement out of context.

 

[Deamiter]

Genesis is the foundation of so many doctrines. If we can allegorize it merely because we think science conflicts with it, then who's to say where this practice stops? Certainly we can't. This is why this debate is so different from other theological debates. The very authority of the Word of God is at stake.

Of course, if the idea that God dictated (not inspired as Timothy alludes) the Bible and did it within an ultra-factual modernist framework conflicts with something you call a doctrine... maybe your understanding of the writing of scripture is in error.

Either way, the slippery slope argument is never good logic no matter WHO uses it! Just because the first chapters of Genesis are written as a poem doesn't in the least detract from the truth in other books, written in other centuries. Heck, it doesn't in the least detract from the truth of Genesis!

And on the subject of geneologies, if you do a little study of the cultures surrounding the ancient near east, you'll find that it was very common for people to track their geneologies back to mythical figures. Off hand I know this was done in Babylon, Assyria, Egypt and later in Greece and Rome... A family's earliest ancestors defined a family's allegiance and role models, but were hardly seen as literal ancestors!

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Absolutely not. One can reject original sin, the virgin birth and even inerrancy and still be a christian. But that doesn't mean it's not harmful and dangerous. As I mentioned earlier, when we give in to compromises on Genesis, we have no logical reason to correct other people who believe in real heresies like spiritualizing the resurrection. When we undermine the authority of the word, it's very difficult to try to use the word to correct them (2Tim. 3:15-18). We also can be on a very slippery slope ourselves and in danger of falling into to actual heresy.

Genesis is the foundation of so many doctrines. If we can allegorize it merely because we think science conflicts with it, then who's to say where this practice stops? Certainly we can't. This is why this debate is so different from other theological debates. The very authority of the Word of God is at stake.

If you would reject the important messages of the Bible over trivial matters then that is your problem. Please do not transpose your personal weaknesses on the rest of us.
If your issue is not a salvation issue please discuss the issue with us instead of casting aspersions about our faith.


If you would reject the Lord because the idea of “original sin” is wrong, that is an issue for you to deal with; I have yet to see any one in here coming close to that. If someone here actually commits a heretical act then correct us, but please stop lighting the bonfires before we have done such. I would like not to be burned at the stake because I might slide down a “slippery slope” thank you very much.

 

[Deamiter]

I know you've been told this, but I really urge you to research it. Augustine was nowhere close to where TEs are today and would spin in his grave if he knew how people were misusing his teachings. He believed Genesis to be a historical narrative account. He believed in a young earth (less than 10,000 years). And this was despite the old earth theories of his day. The early church fathers were unanimous on the issue of a global flood.

Indeed you are right that without evidence to the contrary, a global flood was generally accepted. However to claim that Augustine was firmly in the camp of today's young-earth creationist would also be a severe misrepresentation.

In reading Augustine and a couple biographies, I noticed that he argued strongly, and from a theological standpoint, that God created the universe in an instant, and not in 6 24-hour days. Augustine had no reason to question a global flood, but he in no way considered Genesis 1 and 2 to be literal/factual accounts of the beginning of the Earth!

 

[Calminian]

You sure did rip it out of context. I clearly pointed out that if you take a literal interpration like some fundamentalist groups do, then those groups would believe in a Flat Earth, geocentrism, etc... However, point out where in my quotes did I mention that I believe the Bible teaches the Earth is flat or condones racial segration? It's the interpretation of fundamentalist groups that believe in such, not me. So yes, you did take my quote out of context because no where did I mention those views actually reflect how I believe the Bible is interpretated.

Of course, the evidence is quite clear for other people to see. I'll let them judge themselves whether or not you took my statement out of context.

I think the problem is you actually weren't aware of the context. We were speaking of biblical teachings, particularly original sin. Perhaps you also deny it. If this is a fundamentalist doctrine, I'm guilty as charged. I'm proud to be of that shady group. But that was the context. I'll trust you weren't aware of the context when you chimed in with your hit n run strawman. No worries.

 

[kiwimac]

I do not accept the 7 literal days of creation being literal 24 hour periods. I consider that God put in place such laws as God knew would bring about all that is, as it is today.

Kiwimac

 

[Calminian]

Indeed you are right that without evidence to the contrary, a global flood was generally accepted. However to claim that Augustine was firmly in the camp of today's young-earth creationist would also be a severe misrepresentation.

But he was a young earther and he believed the account of Genesis was an historical narrative. All you can say is that he may not have been, IF he knew then what you know today. But that’s a big IF. There were indeed many in his time that believed in an old earth. If there was some reason to believe that scripture was equivocal in this area, why didn't he say so?

In reading Augustine and a couple biographies, I noticed that he argued strongly, and from a theological standpoint, that God created the universe in an instant, and not in 6 24-hour days. Augustine had no reason to question a global flood, but he in no way considered Genesis 1 and 2 to be literal/factual accounts of the beginning of the Earth!

Yes he believed the creation was instantaneous, not a long process of waiting for natural processes to produce things slowly. He believed creation was a miracle! How is he then more helpful to your view than mine? He derived from the text God didn't use scientifically verifiable natural processes. He believed in a poof!

I'm not saying you need to believe what he believed, I just don't understand why you look to him for support. He’s much more helpful to me.

 

[Calminian]

If you would reject the important messages of the Bible over trivial matters then that is your problem. Please do not transpose your personal weaknesses on the rest of us.
If your issue is not a salvation issue please discuss the issue with us instead of casting aspersions about our faith.


If you would reject the Lord because the idea of “original sin” is wrong, that is an issue for you to deal with; I have yet to see any one in here coming close to that. If someone here actually commits a heretical act then correct us, but please stop lighting the bonfires before we have done such. I would like not to be burned at the stake because I might slide down a “slippery slope” thank you very much.

Oh pahlease! You are just dying to be a martyr. No one called you a heretic. I flat out said a TE who rejects Genesis outright can be a christian. But that does not mean the church shouldn't be concerned over doctrinal matters. Scripture is vitally important to the health of the church. It is the tool by which we sharpen, encourage and yes rebuke one another. Thus we shouldn't just sit around and let inerrancy go down the drain to prevent someone from getting offended.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I believe the Adam and Eve story works quite well as a metaphore for intelignce and humans arising from primates, then settling into settled communities...

 

[EnemyPartyII]

What Calminian said

 

[theFijian]

Simply speaking, if we're just evolving, we don't need Christ. If there was no Adam, sin never entered the world. What do you non-creationist believers say about this?

Fact: we are evolving
Fact: we do need Christ

I believe Adam was a hisrotical person and I hold to the framework interpretation of Genesis 1 & 2. So there is no necessary conflict between Genesis and the theory of Evolution.

 

[random_guy]

I think the problem is you actually weren't aware of the context. We were speaking of biblical teachings, particularly original sin. Perhaps you also deny it. If this is a fundamentalist doctrine, I'm guilty as charged. I'm proud to be of that shady group. But that was the context. I'll trust you weren't aware of the context when you chimed in with your hit n run strawman. No worries.

I was perfectly aware. Some groups hold that Adam and Eve were literal, some do not. Some groups believe that those who believe that those who think Adam and Eve were not literal are compromisers. I was pointing out that views change with time and that different groups hold different values. Just like Bob Jones University used to believe that there should be no interracial dating due to their interpretation of the Bible and that people who do so are compromising God's will.

If this is a strawman, please give me evidence otherwise. Show me that different groups don't hold different interpretations, and some groups hold even more literal view than others. Show me that these groups don't think that not believing in their views isn't compromising.

 

[Deamiter]

Yes he believed the creation was instantaneous, not a long process of waiting for natural processes to produce things slowly. He believed creation was a miracle! How is he then more helpful to your view than mine? He derived from the text God didn't use scientifically verifiable natural processes. He believed in a poof!

I'm not saying you need to believe what he believed, I just don't understand why you look to him for support. He’s much more helpful to me.

I think you missed the point. Augustine did not accept a 6-day creation. He did not believe that God created light, then plants, then humans. Therefore, he clearly did not accept Genesis as a literal, historical narrative. He believed that the point of Genesis is allegorical and that God must have created in a SINGLE instant (not in six separate events). Note here that Augustine is rejecting the reading of Genesis that is central to the young-earth creationist insistance on a young earth!

No matter the theological reasoning behind his views, Augustine interpreted Genesis more like today's TEs than todays young-earth creationists. In fact, his rejection of literal days and literal creation in Genesis in favor of a view of spiritual and allegorical creation is all the more powerful BECAUSE he could not have been considering modern evidence but only his careful study of the scriptures.
In Augustine's words:

In this narrative of creation Holy Scripture has said of the Creator that He completed His works in six days, and elsewhere, without contradicting this, it has been written of the same Creator that He created all things together . . . Why then was there any need for six distinct days to be set forth in the narrative one after the other? The reason is that those who cannot understand the meaning of the text, He created all things together, cannot understand the meaning of the Scripture unless the narrative proceeds slowly step by step . . . For this Scripture text that narrates the works of God according to the days mentioned above, and that Scripture text that says God created all things together, are both true."

More to the point, you are flat-wrong when you say that Augustine believed that God did not use scientifically verifiable processes. I firmly believe that this passage cannot be quoted enough times -- it seriously drives many intelligent non-Christians to ultimately and permenantly reject Christ when Christians hold to views that are demonstratably wrong.

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?