Theistic evolutionists please explain this.

[lucaspa]

METHOD 5 Is a method that is not unique to liberal Christians. This is the final stage of deception. The person has twisted the truth so much and so often that eventually they believe their own deception. While the truth is plain to those willing to accept it, these people attack that truth and claim it is a lie.

Or you totally misunderstood what Didaskemos was saying. Go back and read what he said.

The problem here is that you have the definition of "myth = lie" None of the rest of us are using that definition in this context.

I can see how you got that definition. You have been taught about Greek and Norse myths. These are associated with gods that you believe don't exist. So you associate the word "myth" with a deity that does not exist.

But that isn't how Didaskemos used "myth" in this context. In this case a "myth" is a story about origins that is not historically true but tells other truths and is a story whom everyone knows. That's what Didaskemos meant when he said Paul could have set his message in the myth of Pandora's box. The message Paul is conveying is still true, and everyone knows the the story of Pandora's box and can use that story as a vehicle to convey Paul's message.

 

[Nicaea 325]

QUOTE=Saviourmachine]Let's go on with the matter itself. It seems the keyword here is inheritence.

A hereditary disease
It's not fair of God that He would pass something bad from father to sun. I look at sin/evil as a biological, hereditary disease. It's awfull that there is such a thing, but it's reality!
[/QUOTE]

One in 25 Northern Europeans carry the gene for cystic fibrosis. If some one gets the gene from both parents, they have cystic fibrosis. The chances of getting the gene from both parent, if they both carry it are 1 in 4. The one in 25 who carry the gene from one parent have a resistance to turberculosis because of it.

If you get the sickle cell gene off both parents you have sickle cell. If you get it from one parent you have a high resistance to malaria.

These genes were designed by God to protect from diasease but one can have to much of a good thing.

QUOTE=Saviourmachine]
Personally
And beside that, personally, I have already done enough things to doubt my 'inner goodness', enough to by stoned in ancient times... So, it's not true that I should be punished for the acts of my parents, I've messed up it myself.
[/QUOTE]

Same here. Thank God for Jesus.

QUOTE=Saviourmachine]
Innocent people
Maybe there exist people, who aren't like me, who did praise God whole their life. Maybe some 'innocent' childeren. I think it's clear from scripture that God accepts them. But it's on other grounds then because they are 'innocent'. It's because God loves all people. I think of David with his unborn child, he was praying dilligently. Don't think too easy of it, but God is merciful, rely on Him.
[/QUOTE]

Grace is what makes the Christian message unique. God is indeed merciful.

QUOTE=Saviourmachine]A last thought
A last thought: think about evil/diseases as causes to glorify God. That was Jesus saying to the accusers of the blind man.[/QUOTE]

As Jesus healed diaseases and delivered from evil, we know that sicknes is not what God wants for us. I don't believe our loving Father pputs Diaseases and sicknes on us either, because that would amount to child abuse.

 

[Larry]

EA:

How many times, and in how many different ways will it take to get it through that thick head of yours, that evolution does not have man descending from apes? Do you exagerate this on purpose? If you are such a literalist where the Bible is concerned, why do you take such liberties in exagerating the theory of evolution? If you twist and stretch what the theory of evolution states in order to force a point, how can you be trusted in anything else? Your credibility is diminished when you say such things. You have been corrected on this many times already. The fact that you continue in this manner, shows that you either do not know about the subject you are arguing against, or you are purposefully lying. Which is it?

Hello!?

 

[Nicaea 325]

EA:

How many times, and in how many different ways will it take to get it through that thick head of yours, that evolution does not have man descending from apes? Do you exagerate this on purpose? If you are such a literalist where the Bible is concerned, why do you take such liberties in exagerating the theory of evolution? If you twist and stretch what the theory of evolution states in order to force a point, how can you be trusted in anything else? Your credibility is diminished when you say such things. You have been corrected on this many times already. The fact that you continue in this manner, shows that you either do not know about the subject you are arguing against, or you are purposefully lying. Which is it?

Hi Larry,

To actually claim that there isn't any one who believes in evolution and doesn't believe we evolved from monkey's wouldn't be true either. I am not purposefully lying, What was this common ancestor? I know God is the father of all creation, but I don't think that's what evolutionist mean. If I was such a literalist with the bible, I wouldn't even be discussing this matter would I? I would state that evolution is a lie, which I have not. I am not purpposely lieing so please tell me what I fdon't understand.

 

[Larry]

Hi Larry,

To actually claim that there isn't any one who believes in evolution and doesn't believe we evolved from monkey's wouldn't be true either. I am not purposefully lying, What was this common ancestor? I know God is the father of all creation, but I don't think that's what evolutionist mean. If I was such a literalist with the bible, I wouldn't even be discussing this matter would I? I would state that evolution is a lie, which I have not. I am not purpposely lieing so please tell me what I fdon't understand.

What are you going for here? Are you addressing the uninformed, who falsely believe that the theory of evolution has man desceding from apes, or are you claiming that the theory of evolution has man descending from apes? And, if you are claiming that the theory of evolution has man descending from apes, you are among the uninformed. Also, you missed my point about you being a literalist. I did not claim that you did not take the Bible account literally. I am demonstrating the inconsistency of how you take one scource literally, and take liberties with another scource, by twisting and stretching it beyond recognition.

What was this common ancestor? I don't know. But, I'm not going to fill in the blanks by making false statements. That would be dishonest and un-Christian of me.

 

[Nicaea 325]

What are you going for here? Are you addressing the uninformed, who falsely believe that the theory of evolution has man desceding from apes, or are you claiming that the theory of evolution has man descending from apes? And, if you are claiming that the theory of evolution has man descending from apes, you are among the uninformed. Also, you missed my point about you being a literalist. I did not claim that you did not take the Bible account literally. I am demonstrating the inconsistency of how you take one scource literally, and take liberties with another scource, by twisting and stretching it beyond recognition.

What was this common ancestor? I don't know. But, I'm not going to fill in the blanks by making false statements. That would be dishonest and un-Christian of me.

I am not claiming anything on this thread yet. I'm just trieing to work some things out that's all. I'm not filling in the blanks either.

 

[Larry]

Do you claim that the theory of evolution has man descending from apes? Yes or no?

 

[praying]

Finally, their are two errors with the literalist approach:
1. It takes the text out of the time and place where it was written. That is, it ignores that God is making a particular message in a particular situation.

This is such an important statement, the literalist wants us to believe God gave us a brain to think, discover, learn, grow, reason but not to use it. We can not under estimate the importance of times the Scriptures were written. Many issues that drove people in society during Biblical times are no longer issues just through our God given blessing of being able to think, reason, and interpet through science solutions to these problems/issues. This does not take away from divine inspiration in Biblical writings or the moral concepts that were/are being taught through them. It does allow or should allow us to look at the circumstances and context from which particular scriptures are written and evaluate them, as reasonable rational human beings who belief in Christ and his teachings.

The problem with literalism is as you stated the Bible is not always meant to be iteral and more of an issue is the picking and choosing of which scriptures the literalist want to take literally.

2. Remember, it was men who picked what is scripture. That is, men picked the books they would consider Scripture. What we are saying is that the divine inspiration occurred in a particular time and place. In order to completely understand it, you have to consider that time and place. To do otherwise is to misinterpret Scripture.

Another very important point.

Not every man who had a part in the creation of the Bible as we know it, that is to say a book of books compiled by committee from transcripts written in several languages were divinely inspired. The fact that even some of the Gospels were left out, how was this decided and by whom. It is very easy to say they were divienly insprired but when and where do you draw the line. Do we accept all claims of divine intervention, Was Martin Luther divinley inspired to remove the Aphocrypha, if so how do not kow that Jospeh Smith's claims of divine intervention are untrue.

We have to examine the existing text and apply their wisdom to our lives in our time to apply a truth that was held 3000 years ago which no longer accurately reflects time and place is as Lucaspa puts is to "misinterpret Scripture".

3. Jesus is the LIVING WORD. Not just something written in a book. This one is worshipping the Bible, not God. Yes, we can gain a further insight into God through our own experience and reason.

Ditto

 

[praying]

This is such an important statement, the literalist wants us to believe God gave us a brain to think, discover, learn, grow, reason but not to use it. We can not under estimate the importance of times the Scriptures were written. Many issues that drove people in society during Biblical times are no longer issues just through our God given blessing of being able to think, reason, and interpet through science solutions to these problems/issues. This does not take away from divine inspiration in Biblical writings or the moral concepts that were/are being taught through them. It does allow or should allow us to look at the circumstances and context from which particular scriptures are written and evaluate them, as reasonable rational human beings who belief in Christ and his teachings.

The problem with literalism is as you stated the Bible is not always meant to be iteral and more of an issue is the picking and choosing of which scriptures the literalist want to take literally.




Another very important point.

Not every man who had a part in the creation of the Bible as we know it, that is to say a book of books compiled by committee from transcripts written in several languages were divinely inspired. The fact that even some of the Gospels were left out, how was this decided and by whom. It is very easy to say they were divienly insprired but when and where do you draw the line. Do we accept all claims of divine intervention, Was Martin Luther divinley inspired to remove the Aphocrypha, if so how do not kow that Jospeh Smith's claims of divine intervention are untrue.

We have to examine the existing text and apply their wisdom to our lives in our time to apply a truth that was held 3000 years ago which no longer accurately reflects time and place is as Lucaspa puts is to "misinterpret Scripture".



Ditto

Of course all of these things as we know are only my humble opinion.

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

mhatten, good post.

Way to many Christians of the more fundamentalist persuasion seem to be Bible cultists more than anything else.

 

[lucaspa]

To actually claim that there isn't any one who believes in evolution and doesn't believe we evolved from monkey's wouldn't be true either. I am not purposefully lying, What was this common ancestor?

It wasn't a monkey! Thus, no evolutionist claims we came from monkeys like you said in the OP: "can you Christians who believe we came from monkeys explain yiour way round this please?"
Monkeys are our evolutionary cousins. Not our grandfathers!

And that is what Larry is complaining about. If your knowledge of evolution is so wrong on the fundamentals, it casts doubt in your ability to discuss in the area.

So your statement "To actually claim that there isn't any one who believes in evolution and doesn't believe we evolved from monkey's wouldn't be true either." is wrong on two counts.

1. We accept evolution, not believe in it.
2. Anyone who accepts evolution does not think we came from monkeys.

I know God is the father of all creation, but I don't think that's what evolutionist mean.

Evolution, like all scientific theories, is agnostic. It doesn't comment on God and his role in creation at all. The scientific theory neither affirms nor denies that "God is the father of all creation". It can't comment. However, Darwin thought just as you do.
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450.
Also: "To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual." pg. 449.

It appears that those against evolution haven't ever read anything about it! Isn't that sad that you are against a position and don't even know accurately what that position is?

 

[lucaspa]

mhatten, ditto Captain Jack Sparrow's opinion!. Good post! Let's hope Micaiah listens.

 

[Didaskomenos]

You really have to decide what you want to follow: God's authority or your interpretation of his testimony in the Scriptures. It has become much too common in the last few centuries (especially with the rise of rationalism) to assume that the most obvious and superficial reading taken by the modernist mind must be the correct one. The immediate target readership of the books of the Bible was not a group of 21st century scientists. If God chose to have men from the pre-scientific world write their testimony of God's dealings with them, how can we insist on interpreting it with our own modernist, literalist mindset? Isn't that the very definition of a carnal mind?

Sure, it'd be nice if everything in the Scriptures were written as concisely and unambiguously as in your car manual, but then what would we need the Holy Spirit for?

 

[Nicaea 325]

It wasn't a monkey! Thus, no evolutionist claims we came from monkeys like you said in the OP: "can you Christians who believe we came from monkeys explain yiour way round this please?"
Monkeys are our evolutionary cousins. Not our grandfathers!

And that is what Larry is complaining about. If your knowledge of evolution is so wrong on the fundamentals, it casts doubt in your ability to discuss in the area.

So your statement "To actually claim that there isn't any one who believes in evolution and doesn't believe we evolved from monkey's wouldn't be true either." is wrong on two counts.

1. We accept evolution, not believe in it.
2. Anyone who accepts evolution does not think we came from monkeys.

Evolution, like all scientific theories, is agnostic. It doesn't comment on God and his role in creation at all. The scientific theory neither affirms nor denies that "God is the father of all creation". It can't comment. However, Darwin thought just as you do.
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450.
Also: "To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual." pg. 449.

It appears that those against evolution haven't ever read anything about it! Isn't that sad that you are against a position and don't even know accurately what that position is?

OK, so as it is thought that apes evolved from monkey like ancestore and monkeys decended from lemur like ancestors, would it be right according to this, that our ancestors were lemurs? Or Lemur like? Alright rodents then? Bassically, if our ancestors according to fossil record had the physiology of apes, did not stand upright like apes and had the brain size of apes, what is it that makes them not apes? It appears to me that is evolution is true (I am not claiming it is true or false.) then some are embelishing the truth here. They wouldn't be doing it because they believe we are superior would they? Also, you are twisting what I said to suit your argument. Further more, no one who seriously studues evolution at this time quote Darwin, when it came to genetic mutation, Charles Darwin was completely clueless. He didn't even know genes exsisted, so if you take Darwin at face value, oyu dispute both The Bible and modern science. Mendal has a stronger influence on present evolutionary thought then Darwin. I am not claiming evolution is a lie. If I am not in a position to discuss this then some one who hasn't completed Alpha isn't in the position to discuss Christianity, I am of course stating an hypothetico ad absurdum.

 

[lucaspa]

OK, so as it is thought that apes evolved from monkey like ancestore and monkeys decended from lemur like ancestors, would it be right according to this, that our ancestors were lemurs? Or Lemur like?

Lemur-like. Not lemurs. Those are also our cousins, not our ancestors!

The common ancestors of apes and humans were neither. Not modern apes and not modern humans. There are adaptations in each lineage that are unique to that lineage.

However, as soon as Darwin published Origin his opponents began the "we descended from monkeys" cry. It is not an accurate reflection of evolution, but is designed to appeal to emotions. An honest discussion doesn't do that. It at least represents all sides accurately. The truth may be emotionally unappealing, but that doesn't alter it being the truth.

Bassically, if our ancestors according to fossil record had the physiology of apes, did not stand upright like apes and had the brain size of apes, what is it that makes them not apes?

According to the classification scheme, we are apes! That is, chimps, gorillas, orangutuans, and humans all belong to the Family Homonidae, or Apes. It looks like the brain size of the common ancestor was less than apes and humans. Also, all apes are only partly arboreal -- living in trees. It looks like the common ancestor was arboreal.

Further more, no one who seriously studues evolution at this time quote Darwin, when it came to genetic mutation, Charles Darwin was completely clueless.

I am not quoting him in connection with genetic mutations, am I? I am quoting him in relation to how he viewed deity and evolution. Since that view corresponds with how you view God and creation, why do you think he is incorrect?

Evolutionary biologists do indeed still quote Darwin. He was right about an amazing amount of detail in addition to being correct in the general areas of common ancestry and natural selection. For instance, the National Academy of Sciences still uses Darwin's "descent with modification" as the short definition of evolution.

He didn't even know genes exsisted, so if you take Darwin at face value, oyu dispute both The Bible and modern science.

Not really. The mechanism of heredity accepted in Darwin's time -- blended characteristics -- is such that natural selection would not work. However, Darwin thought that natural selection did work. It turns out Darwin was right and the other scientists of his time were wrong.

Mendal has a stronger influence on present evolutionary thought then Darwin.

LOL! Absolutely NOT! Mendel's contribution was finding the mechanism of heredity and it turns out that natural selection works perfectly in that mechanism. However, evolutionary thought is based firmly in Darwin. After all, the integration of Mendelian genetics into evolution is called Neo-Darwinism, not Mendelianism!

I am not claiming evolution is a lie. If I am not in a position to discuss this then some one who hasn't completed Alpha isn't in the position to discuss Christianity, I am of course stating an hypothetico ad absurdum.

If you can't represent either Christianity or evolution accurately, then you are not in a position to discuss it. Your inaccurate description of Darwin and how it relates to Mendelian genetics also shows unfortunate ignorance of the subject of evolution.

However, I do think that you showed a clever way to try to get around a theological quote by Darwin that countered your misconception that evolution is atheism. Just declare anything Darwin wrote as no longer relevant! Well, maybe not so clever after all.

 

[lucaspa]

You really have to decide what you want to follow: God's authority or your interpretation of his testimony in the Scriptures. It has become much too common in the last few centuries (especially with the rise of rationalism) to assume that the most obvious and superficial reading taken by the modernist mind must be the correct one. The immediate target readership of the books of the Bible was not a group of 21st century scientists. If God chose to have men from the pre-scientific world write their testimony of God's dealings with them, how can we insist on interpreting it with our own modernist, literalist mindset? Isn't that the very definition of a carnal mind?

Good argument! I hadn't thought of this one before. I'm interested to see if the creationists here have a counter. EastAnglican, what is your view of this argument?

 

[Didaskomenos]

I'm glad you like it, lucaspa, but allow me to anticipate a response:

"If it's not literal, it's not true. And the Bible is true. Ergo, non-literal, non-historical interpretation of some of the Bible's narratives is non-true. Wouldn't God have written the Bible's message so as to be immediately understood by everyone?"

My answer to that last would be that by and large, the spiritual truth in the Bible is somewhat obvious to the Christian, but the deeper one digs, the more one finds. It does not take a genius to read Genesis 1-2 and say, "Well, God made everything, and man is sinful because he is prideful. Humans are born out of communion with God." However, it might only be those who take the Scriptures seriously enough to "correctly divide the word of truth" to explain to modern readers that the truth meant to be conveyed in myth is not the historicity of the events of the narrative.

 

[Micaiah]

I'd encourage you to do some research on hermeneutics, and try to gain an appreciation of the way it is interpretted by those who believe the truth of Scripture. Your understanding is primitive.

 

[Didaskomenos]

I'd encourage you to do some research on hermeneutics, and try to gain an appreciation of the way it is interpretted by those who believe the truth of Scripture. Your understanding is primitive.

Are you imagining that the study of hermeneutics leads all to a common interpretation of Scripture? The truth of Scripture is Jesus, and I have sought and found him principally. It is not Scripture but God's wisdom in Scripture that I seek; may I not neglect it because in various places he did not reveal it in the most obvious form.

 

[Nicaea 325]

If you can't represent either Christianity or evolution accurately, then you are not in a position to discuss it. Your inaccurate description of Darwin and how it relates to Mendelian genetics also shows unfortunate ignorance of the subject of evolution.

That is absurd! I can''t represent an oak tree because I am not one. Does that mean I can't say what it looks like and what it does?
Is this a conspiracy to keep the ignorant, ignorant?
I would have probably been less ignorant now if it wasn't for people posting their inflated ego's.

However, I do think that you showed a clever way to try to get around a theological quote by Darwin that countered your misconception that evolution is atheism. Just declare anything Darwin wrote as no longer relevant! Well, maybe not so clever after all.

As natural selection is happenning right now in my back garden, I can't declare that as no longer relevant can I?
What I was saying was that Darwin was on to some things but he didn't get everything that is now in thought by many as scientific fact.