Why would a good God design a world of death?

[Notedstrangeperson]

Trying to merge atheism (evolution) with Christianity (NOT atheism!) is liking trying to mix oil and water. They don't go together. One completely undermines the other

Atheism =/= evolution.

Evolution is a process without God. What is so difficult to grasp about that?

Evolution neither proves nor disproves the existance of God, as any sensible person who understands science will tell you, whether they are atheist or theist. An alternative name for theistic evolution is evolutionary creation - that God created life, including mankind, using evolution.

 

[er72]

Atheism =/= evolution.



Evolution neither proves nor disproves the existance of God, as any sensible person who understands science will tell you, whether they are atheist or theist. An alternative name for theistic evolution is evolutionary creation - that God created life, including mankind, using evolution.

The theory was began from Darwin, who was anything but a Christian. He hated God, or at least no longer accepted the God of Christianity, since his daughter died. I would choose another to be my prophet, if I had to. His teachings were not infallible or perfect.

The fact is this: No one was present at Creation. Even Job knew enough to not argue with God. God said, "Where were YOU, Job...?" And Job kept his mouth shut. He knew that he was not present at Creation.

I don't know for certain what happened or HOW life on earth came about. All I can go with is the Bible. You, instead, choose to go with science. And that is your choice. But as a Christian, I find it puzzling to place more faith in science (of atheists) than the written Word of God. But to each his own, I guess.

 

[Mallon]

I don't know for certain what happened or HOW life on earth came about. All I can go with is the Bible. You, instead, choose to go with science. And that is your choice. But as a Christian, I find it puzzling to place more faith in science (of atheists) than the written Word of God. But to each his own, I guess.

It isn't the Bible we question. It's your equally fallible interpretation of it.

 

[er72]

It isn't the Bible we question. It's your equally fallible interpretation of it.

I would question yours, so what's the difference?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

The theory was began from Darwin, who was anything but a Christian. He hated God, or at least no longer accepted the God of Christianity, since his daughter died.

I also recall you mentioning (here or on another thread) that the Popes and St. Agustine we're worth listening to either. Is anyone, aside from the writers of the Bible, worth listening to?

Darwin was not an atheist, he was an agnostic. He wrote in a letter to Asa grey:

I have never been an atheist in the in the sense of denying the existence of a God, ... I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind.​

​

I don't know for certain what happened or HOW life on earth came about. All I can go with is the Bible. You, instead, choose to go with science.

The Bible is brief and vague about the creation of the world and living beings. It's there to record Jesus' teachings on how to live and the history of his people. It's not there to describe chemistry and physics.

 

[er72]

I also recall you mentioning (here or on another thread) that the Popes and St. Agustine we're worth listening to either. Is anyone, aside from the writers of the Bible, worth listening to?

Where did I say that? I think I said they were NOT worth listening to. (?)

I'd listen to God. I'd say man's opinion is no more, or less, valuable than my own. I, however, do not look to man made dogma to know the "truth" about God to the world. That is... beyond fallacious reasoning to me.

Darwin was not an atheist, he was an agnostic. He wrote in a letter to Asa grey:

I have never been an atheist in the in the sense of denying the existence of a God, ... I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind.​

The Bible is brief and vague about the creation of the world and living beings. It's there to record Jesus' teachings on how to live and the history of his people. It's not there to describe chemistry and physics.​

​

True.

But no Genesis, means no fall, which means no sin. No sin means no savior, so no need for Jesus (at least as saviour). That is a big problem, I'd say.

And Darwin was a Christian, but he walked away and died apart from God. That is your example? Okay then. Good luck with that. Let me know how that works out for ya.

 

[Mallon]

I would question yours, so what's the difference?

The difference is that you don't appear to recognize that yours is an interpretation, such that you feel that rejecting your interpretation is akin to rejecting the Bible itself.

 

[Mallon]

But no Genesis, means no fall, which means no sin.

Why does the reality of sin depend on the historicity of Genesis?

Does the reality of the teachings of Jesus' parables depend on their being historical?

 

[er72]

The difference is that you don't appear to recognize that yours is an interpretation, such that you feel that rejecting your interpretation is akin to rejecting the Bible itself.

No.

You are adamant that evolution is true, and do not appear any more open to it than any run of the mill atheist, so how is there a difference?

You take things the way you want to.

Nowhere did I once say that everyone MUST accept my view, that God created the world as recorded in Genesis. That is up to the individual. I frankly don't really care one way or the other what people decide to believe in their own lives.

I just know where I stand. I've yet to hear ONE remotely convincing case of why anyone (meaning I) should accept anything but a literal account of Genesis 1 - 3. Most of the reasoning I hear, is that Christians are afraid of being seen as "stupid" by secular people, so they adopt worldly beliefs, such as evolution. That is a very poor reason to accept anything, in my view.

 

[er72]

Why does the reality of sin depend on the historicity of Genesis?

Who says sin is a reality? (Aside from organized church which depends on it to run a business.)

The only way you can have sin is if you accept Genesis for what it says. Otherwise (I hate repeating myself) sin is nothing more than a function of evolutionary design, and hence, it is not wrong - and is God-given, by design.

 

[Mallon]

Who says sin is a reality? (Aside from organized church which depends on it to run a business.)

The only way you can have sin is if you accept Genesis for what it says.

Agreed. The question is: what does Genesis say?

Otherwise (I hate repeating myself) sin is nothing more than a function of evolutionary design, and hence, it is not wrong - and is God-given, by design.

Sin can't be a nothing more than a function of evolutionary design because sin is a metaphysic -- that is, it is beyond scientific explanation. You sound like Dawkins, here.

 

[Melethiel]

The whole problem here lies when you try to read ancient documents through modern eyes...something doesn't have to be a newspaper account to be true.
For example, in my culture, if I read medieval annals of history, they will start with ancient legends and progress into clear cut history as we think of it today, with no differentiation between legend and reality.

Jesus' parables weren't literal, but they were true nevertheless.

I can affirm, with the Church Fathers, that God created the heavens and the earth, and that humanity through Adam and Eve disobeyed God and fell, without buying into the whole six-day young-earth spiel.

 

[er72]

Agreed. The question is: what does Genesis say?


Sin can't be a nothing more than a function of evolutionary design because sin is a metaphysic -- that is, it is beyond scientific explanation. You sound like Dawkins, here.

Dawkins is right. He knows his evolutionary theory better than anyone of you here. That much is certain.

I actually consider you comparing me to him as a compliment (though I'm sure it's not meant that way). He's a very brilliant man. I admire him for sticking to his guns and his theory, even if I don't agree with it.

At least he is not on the fence, regarding evolution and God. He takes the theory for what it is - a godless scientific notion of a universe that randomly spawned up on its own (or if there was a god behind it, it is surely not a good one). I haven't read the God Delusion, but I am becoming more and more tempted, after our discussions here. I don't know how I'd feel about it.

The point is, evolution does NOT need or warrant, the existence of deity to be true. That is a fact. If you want to insert your own image of a deity into the theory, you can... but no one in the scientific community will support you.

I studied evolutionary psychology in university and earned a degree in it. I'll admit, it sounds interesting... but to say "evolution" designed man to be this way or that way, I didn't buy it. But then, I was a Christian in university, so I just rolled my eyes whenever the godless profs mentioned their convenient "excuse" known as evolution.

 

[er72]

The whole problem here lies when you try to read ancient documents through modern eyes...something doesn't have to be a newspaper account to be true.
For example, in my culture, if I read medieval annals of history, they will start with ancient legends and progress into clear cut history as we think of it today, with no differentiation between legend and reality.

Jesus' parables weren't literal, but they were true nevertheless.

I can affirm, with the Church Fathers, that God created the heavens and the earth, and that humanity through Adam and Eve disobeyed God and fell, without buying into the whole six-day young-earth spiel.

Then the whole Bible is a myth and untrue then?

Where is it stated Genesis is a parable? Which scripture says this again?

I don't buy into a six day Creation either. But that does not mean man is a monkey or a ape either.

 

[Melethiel]

Then the whole Bible is a myth and untrue then?

Where is it stated Genesis is a parable? Which scripture says this again?

I don't buy into a six day Creation either. But that does not mean man is a monkey or a ape either.

The whole Bible is also not a single document. Even Genesis is not a single document.
Genesis 1 is meant to be poetic - if you look at the Hebrew it becomes quite obvious.

That is where your primary error lies.

Moreover, myth =/= untrue.

 

[er72]

The whole Bible is also not a single document. Even Genesis is not a single document.
Genesis 1 is meant to be poetic - if you look at the Hebrew it becomes quite obvious.

That is where your primary error lies.

Moreover, myth =/= untrue.

Myth does, however, mean not factually true or accurate.

Where is "my error" again? What is your source for saying Genesis is a poem? I'm interested in hearing where exactly you get this from.

Or is it, some parts of the Bible are true, while others are made up? Which is which? How do you know?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Dawkins is right. He knows his evolutionary theory better than anyone of you here. That much is certain.

I actually consider you comparing me to him as a compliment (though I'm sure it's not meant that way). He's a very brilliant man. I admire him for sticking to his guns and his theory, even if I don't agree with it.

Hm. Yeah I've said it before but, poe. Or soon-to-be atheist. I know it's not nice to have someone accuse you of not being a Christian but I have my suspicions here.

You know Dawkins admitted (in the 2006 softback edition of The God Delusion, which I own) that he didn't even bother looking at the arguments for God's existance? Don't you think a person should at least research something before criticizing it?

 

[Melethiel]

Myth does, however, mean not factually true or accurate.

Where is "my error" again? What is your source for saying Genesis is a poem? I'm interested in hearing where exactly you get this from.

Or is it, some parts of the Bible are true, while others are made up? Which is which? How do you know?

Internal clues, literary style. Although I do deplore categorizing of "true" and "made up" - a historic-style narrative can be made up, and a poem can be stylized truth. And note, I said "Genesis ONE is a poem," not the entirety of Genesis. You simply can't look at it as a homogeneous document - as a matter of fact, point me to any work of literature that contains only one literary style within it. I'm assuming that if you have a psychology degree (another note, evolutionary psychology is quite different from evolutionary science), you had to take at least a few courses in literature as part of general education.

If you're truly interested, Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview by Meredith Kline is a good place to start.

 

[er72]

Hm. Yeah I've said it before but, poe. Or soon-to-be atheist. I know it's not nice to have someone accuse you of not being a Christian but I have my suspicions here.

You know Dawkins admitted (in the 2006 softback edition of The God Delusion, which I own) that he didn't even bother looking at the arguments for God's existance? Don't you think a person should at least research something before criticizing it?

Well, if I was going to become an atheist, then shouldn't you be trying to save me? (Of course, it's spurious to say so on your part, and assumes I'm going to accept your ideology you call evolution... and frankly, I don't see that happening.)

It's actually against the rules here, to accuse someone of that. Especially when they are saying otherwise. So... is that your final position on my walk with God (since you have chosen to be judge of my relationship with Christ, and to be judge of my soul)?

Here's what I think: Christians should stop judging other people who argue better than they do. The end.

 

[Melethiel]

I'll even provide a link to the book:

http://www.god-centered.com/files/kingdomprologue.pdf

A more detailed look is provided in The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation.