The Stumbling Block

Vance · May 10, 2005

Fineous_Reese said:
what do we know about this God in whom we rely on for Salvation? that He "creates" through violence, decay, disease and death and calls it "very good"? that's the foundation i'm worried about.

To my mind, all of those are just natural processes, and not evil. The only thing evil is sin, and sin is disobedience. Personally, I have no problem at all with God creating in that manner and calling it "very good". I guess it is a personal thing for some people to find such things contrary to what God would do, and I don't think we should let personal feelings and subjective "what I think is the best way of doing it" enter into it.

Robert the Pilegrim · May 10, 2005

[quotation of my entire post deleted]
Would you please edit your posts so that we don't have to read through everything that was written before?

Only include that which is to the point.

Fineous_Reese said:
what do we know about this God in whom we rely on for Salvation? that He "creates" through violence, decay, disease and death and calls it "very good"? that's the foundation i'm worried about.

Birth, struggle, growth ... that allows life to adapt to hugely varying environments... incredible, miraculous even, and yes, very good.

But you don't see it that way. That's okay.

I never claimed to fully understand the ways of God, all I know is what the physical evidence says. If you prefer to believe in YECism, that's fine, just realize that you are doing it wholely on faith, not on the physical evidence.

Fineous_Reese · May 10, 2005

Robert the Pilegrim said:
[quotation of my entire post deleted]
Would you please edit your posts so that we don't have to read through everything that was written before?

sorry mom

Vance said:
To my mind, all of those are just natural processes, and not evil. The only thing evil is sin, and sin is disobedience. Personally, I have no problem at all with God creating in that manner and calling it "very good". I guess it is a personal thing for some people to find such things contrary to what God would do, and I don't think we should let personal feelings and subjective "what I think is the best way of doing it" enter into it.

and

Birth, struggle, growth ... that allows life to adapt to hugely varying environments... incredible, miraculous even, and yes, very good.

But you don't see it that way. That's okay.

I never claimed to fully understand the ways of God, all I know is what the physical evidence says. If you prefer to believe in YECism, that's fine, just realize that you are doing it wholely on faith, not on the physical evidence.

we're in the same boat of not fully understanding the ways of God. if He created through suffering then that's something new i learned about Him. i only really understand suffering as it pertains to the effect of sin on the earth and since sin didn't enter until Adam and Eve... how did the metaphors sin again? i guess i don't understand that either.

Robert the Pilegrim · May 10, 2005

Robert the PIlegrim said:
Clean up your room!

Fineous_Reese said:
sorry mom

Net.mom, that's me

Vance · May 10, 2005

Fineous_Reese said:
we're in the same boat of not fully understanding the ways of God. if He created through suffering then that's something new i learned about Him. i only really understand suffering as it pertains to the effect of sin on the earth and since sin didn't enter until Adam and Eve... how did the metaphors sin again? i guess i don't understand that either.

See, I don't see suffering and death as necessarily linked to sin. We do not suffer more because we sin more, or less because we sin less, and we certainly don't die less. What we suffer is true pain and death: separation from full communion with God. For this, we need redemption due to our sinful nature. We need something to bridge that gap. Jesus came to "undo" the damage caused by the Fall, correct? Well, what DOES that redemption do? Does it undo pain and suffering? No, those who accept that redemption still physically suffer as much as those who reject it. Does it undo physical death? No, we all still physically die. Since we KNOW that Christ's act of redemption was effective and that He did His job fully, we know that job can not have been to do away with physical death and suffering, since the redeemed still suffer and die. Instead, we see that it does away with spiritual death and suffering. It allows us to be back in full communion with God. It allows us to spend eternity in that full communion. Thus, working backward, we can see that if Jesus' work was to undo what happened at the Fall, then what happened then must have been this spiritual death, not physical. And this happens to fit as well with the "and on that day you shall surely die" (since they did not die physically on that day, but WERE separated from God). Also keep in mind that even those who reject Jesus will live forever. ALL of us have eternal physical life, it just depends on where we are going to spend it.

As for Adam and Eve being metaphors, I think of them instead as symbols or types for Mankind. Mankind sins. Mankind has fallen. And for those very reasons set out in the garden story in a very true and real way. Selfishness, pride, disobedience. A VERY true story, whether strictly historical or not.

Robert the Pilegrim · May 10, 2005

Fineous_Reese said:
i only really understand suffering as it pertains to the effect of sin on the earth and since sin didn't enter until Adam and Eve...

Spiritual death entered through their sin, did suffering?

Pre-human animal suffering, interesting question.
I don't think animals below fish can be said to suffer, and I'm not at all sure of most fish.
Are we sure animals don't go to heaven?
Those that can know joy in the presense of others, of God?

Fineous_Reese · May 10, 2005

Vance said:
See, I don't see suffering and death as necessarily linked to sin. We do not suffer more because we sin more, or less because we sin less, and we certainly don't die less. What we suffer is true pain and death: separation from full communion with God. For this, we need redemption due to our sinful nature. We need something to bridge that gap. Jesus came to "undo" the damage caused by the Fall, correct? Well, what DOES that redemption do? Does it undo pain and suffering? No, those who accept that redemption still physically suffer as much as those who reject it. Does it undo physical death? No, we all still physically die. Since we KNOW that Christ's act of redemption was effective and that He did His job fully, we know that job can not have been to do away with physical death and suffering. Instead, we see that it does away with spiritual death and suffering. It allows us to be back in full communion with God. It allows us to spend eternity in that full communion. Thus, working backward, we can see that if Jesus' work was to undo what happened at the Fall, then what happened then must have been this spiritual death, not physical. And this happens to fit as well with the "and on that day you shall surely die". Also keep in mind that even those who reject Jesus will live forever. ALL of us have eternal physical life, it just depends on where we are going to spend it.

what do TE's do with Romans 8? v10 talks about the body being dead because of sin. vs 14-23 talk about all creation groaning in anticipation of redemption and freedom from slavery of corruption.

As for Adam and Eve being metaphors, I think of them instead as symbols or types for Mankind. Mankind sins. Mankind has fallen. And for those very reasons set out in the garden story in a very true and real way. Selfishness, pride, disobedience. A VERY true story, whether strictly historical or not.

do TE's believe that humans evolved from lower life forms like the rest of creation? if so, when do they believe we got to the part where God would've considered us formed in His image?

Vance · May 10, 2005

There is a LOT in Romans that I can't explain. Paul uses lots of imagery and difficult language. Even Peter said Paul if difficult to understand! Even in this verse, he says that "your body is dead", not your body is going to die, or is subject to death, but actually IS dead. I take this to mean that our physical bodies are still subject to the sinful nature: selfishness, pride, disobedience, etc. But our spirit is alive! This reinforces what I was saying above. The redemption in Christ does NOT overcome physical death, but gives us something dramatically more important: spiritual life.

As for the timing of Man becoming Man, in God's image, that is very difficult to say. Genesis tells us that, at some point, God "breathed" into Man, and many commentators have thought this was God giving not just "life" but a soul, or God's Spirit, since "breath" is SO often used to denote the Holy Spirit in Scripture. If this is the case, then I believe this act is what made Mankind in God's image, separating us from the rest of His Creation. It gave us the self-awareness, awareness of God, and thus the ability to sin (since animals don't sin, no matter how much they "kill"). When this happened along the way, I don't know.

BTW, consider the "breathing" verse. It is almost assured that this is a figurative phrase, since God, as spirit, does not have lungs and actual physical breath. This phrase is simply a way of describing what actually happened, but not in a literal manner. That is how TE's tend to view the entire account.

Fineous_Reese · May 10, 2005

Robert the Pilegrim said:
Are we sure animals don't go to heaven?

going on what Vance says below i'm not sure if they would or not although i would like to see my past pets again someday... if animals don't have souls that can sin and be redeemed then they can't have spiritual life, no spiritual life=no life with God after this one, yes?

Vance said:
There is a LOT in Romans that I can't explain. Paul uses lots of imagery and difficult language. Even Peter said Paul if difficult to understand! Even in this verse, he says that "your body is dead", not your body is going to die, or is subject to death, but actually IS dead. I take this to mean that our physical bodies are still subject to the sinful nature: selfishness, pride, disobedience, etc. But our spirit is alive! This reinforces what I was saying above. The redemption in Christ does NOT overcome physical death, but gives us something dramatically more important: spiritual life.

thanks for the honesty and i agree, there's a lot of hard to handle stuff in there and i won't be grasping it all this side of death for sure. were you including the part about creation awaiting redemption in your reply? it would seem to read that "all of creation" has been corrupted by sin which would lead me to conclude that things as they are now are not as they were pre-Fall. what this change includes is the devilish details

As for the timing of Man becoming Man, in God's image, that is very difficult to say. Genesis tells us that, at some point, God "breathed" into Man, and many commentators have thought this was God giving not just "life" but a soul, or God's Spirit, since "breath" is SO often used to denote the Holy Spirit in Scripture. If this is the case, then I believe this act is what made Mankind in God's image, separating us from the rest of His Creation. It gave us the self-awareness, awareness of God, and thus the ability to sin (since animals don't sin, no matter how much they "kill"). When this happened along the way, I don't know.

BTW, consider the "breathing" verse. It is almost assured that this is a figurative phrase, since God, as spirit, does not have lungs and actual physical breath. This phrase is simply a way of describing what actually happened, but not in a literal manner. That is how TE's tend to view the entire account.

the OT speaks of instances of the pre-incarnate Jesus walking among men and appearing human so it's not implausible that it's not figurative. mouth-to-mouth suscitation as it were

mythbuster · May 10, 2005

As an aside to the above great post by Vance on the breathing of God into man.
There are two instances of this. One in Genesis and the other in John 20:22 where the Lord breathed into the disciples and said receive the Holy Spirit.
My understanding is that the first breathing in Genesis was the Lord forming the spirit in man (Zech. 12:1), and the second instance was the Lord regenerating man's spirit by His life.
Shalom

Marshall Janzen · May 10, 2005

mythbuster said:
As an aside to the above great post by Vance on the breathing of God into man.
There are two instances of this.

There's another instance that is a bit different:

2 Timothy 3:16-17: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

The word here translated "God-breathed" by the NIV is theopneustos, and it's made up of the Greek words for God (theos) and breath (pneo).

Again, it is not necessary to take this as being literal breath to acknowledge that it means something very real.

Vance · May 10, 2005

There are some other clues that must be considered when looking at this text overall to come to the right interpretation.

First, when it is describing Adam and the Garden, it says that God placed Adam into the Garden. Thus, Adam was created outside the Garden, and then placed into it. This raises questions, even for the literalist. This means that the Garden was distinct from the rest of the earth. What was the distinction? What was going on in the Garden that was not going on outside, and vice-versa? What does it mean that Adam was created outside of this Garden environment?

When Adam and Eve came out of the Garden (again, whether figuratively or literally), the text gives us VERY strong indications that there are other people around. Yes, there have been lots of convoluted work-arounds for this, but if literalists insist upon a straightforward reading, then you've got other humans on the ground.

All of these factors created a very complicated set of scenarios for a strict literalist, and some very interesting variations and possibilities for everyone else. The point is that, just like so much else of Scripture, we follow Augustine's advice and not cling so tightly to any particular dogmatic intepretation.

Robert the Pilegrim · May 10, 2005

Fineous_Reese said:
do TE's believe that humans evolved from lower life forms like the rest of creation? if so, when do they believe we got to the part where God would've considered us formed in His image?

I don't think being formed in his image has a lot to do with our physical structure.

There are signs of population bottlenecks, between a few thousand and a few tens of thousands at roughly 150,000 years ago and 80,000 years ago. Somewhere around 100,000 years ago many signs of modern homo sapiens, in terms of decoration, more advanced tools ...

My best guess would be somewhere in there God did something that made us what we are.

But that is just speculation

grmorton · May 10, 2005

Fineous_Reese said:
thanks for the reference but please keep the ad homs to yourself. speaking of research, anyone know who it was that said "slinging mud only gets you dirty and causes you to lose ground"? i've lost a bit of ground in this thread due to it and it's my intent to cease. if it continues from 'the other side' then i reckon that shows something.

You don't know what an ad hominem is. A criticism does not automatically fall into the category of ad hominem. If I say your shirt is wrinkled. It isn't an ad hominem. If I say you do sloppy research, that isn't an ad hominem. But if I say that you are a YEC and therefore can't ever be correct about anything, that is an ad hominem. Please before you toss around terms you don't understand, look them up.

An ad hominem often used by YECs is that of course an atheist would believe in evolution, he has to. Such a response always ignores the evidence that the atheist is presenting. I have seen this used many times by YECs.

Fineous_Reese · May 10, 2005

grmorton said:
You don't know what an ad hominem is. A criticism does not automatically fall into the category of ad hominem. If I say your shirt is wrinkled. It isn't an ad hominem. If I say you do sloppy research, that isn't an ad hominem. But if I say that you are a YEC and therefore can't ever be correct about anything, that is an ad hominem. Please before you toss around terms you don't understand, look them up.

An ad hominem often used by YECs is that of course an atheist would believe in evolution, he has to. Such a response always ignores the evidence that the atheist is presenting. I have seen this used many times by YECs.

ah, my apologies. guess i mistook your bitter words for ad homs.

your shirt is wrinkled.

now perhaps while you iron it you can take notes from the other posters in this thread on how to write persuasive posts. they've given me more to think about in a few short posts than anything in the multiple pages of your long drawn out combative tirades.

mythbuster · May 11, 2005

Vance said:
... The point is that, just like so much else of Scripture, we follow Augustine's advice and not cling so tightly to any particular dogmatic intepretation.

edited by moi.

His words, the breath of God, what proceeds out from Him is Spirit and life.
He has the words of eternal life. The Jews in John 5 searched the scriptures but did not come to Him.
We (including me of course!) should not make the same mistake. There is more to the word than objective truth, it is there of course, but there is more.

grmorton · May 11, 2005

Fineous_Reese said:
ah, my apologies. guess i mistook your bitter words for ad homs.

your shirt is wrinkled.

now perhaps while you iron it you can take notes from the other posters in this thread on how to write persuasive posts. they've given me more to think about in a few short posts than anything in the multiple pages of your long drawn out combative tirades.

You seem to think that if someone is combative, they must be bitter. I am not bitter I can assure you. I will, however, stand my ground and call a spade a spade. If you can't handle that, I am truly sorry, but if you are going to involve yourself in public debates, don't think that everyone is going to be soft on you and agree with you with fawning words.

Maybe you YECs are too sensitive to engage in debates and only want to discuss things with people who say 'yes' to you. I won't do that and thus I spoil your view of yourself. I try to remind you that truth matters.

Robert the Pilegrim · May 11, 2005

grmorton said:
You seem to think that if someone is combative, they must be bitter. I am not bitter I can assure you. I will, however, stand my ground and call a spade a spade. If you can't handle that, I am truly sorry, but if you are going to involve yourself in public debates, don't think that everyone is going to be soft on you and agree with you with fawning words.

Maybe you YECs are too sensitive to engage in debates and only want to discuss things with people who say 'yes' to you. I won't do that and thus I spoil your view of yourself. I try to remind you that truth matters.

He isn't asking for fawning words or agreement.
Plenty of YECs are quite capable of being thickskinned jerks.
You might try reminding them slightly less ferociously

Fineous_Reese · May 11, 2005

grmorton said:
You seem to think that if someone is combative, they must be bitter. I am not bitter I can assure you. I will, however, stand my ground and call a spade a spade. If you can't handle that, I am truly sorry, but if you are going to involve yourself in public debates, don't think that everyone is going to be soft on you and agree with you with fawning words.

Maybe you YECs are too sensitive to engage in debates and only want to discuss things with people who say 'yes' to you. I won't do that and thus I spoil your view of yourself. I try to remind you that truth matters.

i think you're bitter due to your word/phrase choices

before you lay into those who you believe aren't as wise or knowledgable of the observations as yourself, check below for some truth that matters, or continue as you will. as always, it's your choice.

[bible]1 corinthians 13:1-3[/bible]

verse 2 seems to jump out and scream your name because as you can see i've been having a fine discourse with folks who are definitely not saying 'yes' to me.

grmorton · May 11, 2005

Robert the Pilegrim said:
He isn't asking for fawning words or agreement.
Plenty of YECs are quite capable of being thickskinned jerks.
You might try reminding them slightly less ferociously

Maybe, but I do find it really odd that telling someone that they do sloppy research is a major social faux pas. His response that it is an ad hominem was not quite on target either. Let's try this: Fineous, you do less than optimal research.

Somehow I doubt it will get his attention like the other, but ok, have it your way.

The Stumbling Block

Contributor

Senior Veteran

Striving to be like the men of Issachar

Senior Veteran

Contributor

Senior Veteran

Striving to be like the men of Issachar

Contributor

Striving to be like the men of Issachar

Senior Member

Formerly known as Mercury

Contributor

Senior Veteran

Senior Member

Striving to be like the men of Issachar

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Veteran

Striving to be like the men of Issachar

Senior Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency