YECists attempt to dig into sheol

[gluadys]

As an atheist or agnostic what is it that I ought to be? What experience or knowledge tells me this?

Your own experience. Your own ethical and moral system together with your own knowledge that you have failed to live up to your own standards of right and wrong.

Atheists may not use the word "sin" but they have the same experience of personal moral failure as we all do.

Like ah, wow, now your talking my lingo, you're telling me like...I can experience god?

Yep. And you don't need drugs either.

O.K. I had a little fun here, but I hope you got my meaning.

Sure. But seriously, ask an atheist who is not high on something, about whether or not they have always lived up to their personal ethical standards and never ever done anything they were ashamed of, and without ever using the word "sin", I think you will get a confession of sin. After all, it is not just a Christian concept. All religions have some version of sin and salvation, even a non-theistic Buddhist tradition. And all philosophies have something to say about ethics and morals. Such a widespread idea surely has roots in universal human experience.

If Adam wasn't real and his story wasn't either, then why would I believe what you would tell me about his sin to be real?

Because you share that universal human experience, and the story of Adam is a representation of that experience. You can identify yourself as a child of Adam who shares the experience of the fall.

 

[The Lady Kate]

I could be mistaken but somehow the first story ever being told being presented as an allegory that not only requires an expert who has specific knowledge to interpret it, but typically an expert who doesn't believe in God, doesn't sound like a story God would tell. This same story is the one held by a majority of atheists/agnostics and yet a significant percentage of His children have a problem with it.

PLEASE tell me you're not referring to Genesis as "the first story ever being told..."

 

[The Lady Kate]

I'm sorry but I do see evolution as an allegory for creation. If it isn't then I don't know how you can adequately explain creation given the billions of years that evolution requires. Are you saying the evolution isn't an allegorical representation of creation?

Of course not -- it's a scientific theory explaining the diversity of life on this planet. If you've been told otherwise, you've either misunderstood, or you've been lied to.

 

[vossler]

The only Christians for which evolution has any bearing on their faiths are creationists; for every one else, evolution has about as much bearing as black holes, spinning galaxies, etc.

I don't know of a single creationist for whom evolution has any bearing whatsoever, much less their faith.

Regardless of whether you've heard of any of them, your appeal to numbers is a logical fallacy that does not support your point.

I asked for well known and respected pastors, not a list of pastors. I would have hoped you knew there was a difference.

And how does believing the story to be allegorical change the moral that we are all sinners and in need of a saviour?

Like I said to gluadys, if the story is fiction and the characters are fiction then its hard to convince me of my sin nature originating from a fictional character.

Subscribing to evolution doesn't stop one from being saved, either.

No but it makes things more difficult.

 

[steen]

How do I even know that sin is real? Maybe what I think is sin is just a feeling? Sin could just be a mythological expression of a feeling I sense. How can I believe it's real when there is the mythological figure named Adam who committed an act called sin that never really happened? What then would keep me from thinking that the God of the Bible wasn't Himself a mythological god?

Nothing. Nothing would "keep" you from doing just that. Which is why this is about Faith, not evidence. We don't prove God, we have faith in God. Why would we require some form of proof or need all evidence to confirm Faith? I see absolutely no purpose for this.

 

[vossler]

Your own experience. Your own ethical and moral system together with your own knowledge that you have failed to live up to your own standards of right and wrong.

By his very nature man isn't ethical and moral, therefore would be a poor candidate to ask about standards of right and wrong.

Atheists may not use the word "sin" but they have the same experience of personal moral failure as we all do.

Most atheist I know are quite happy in their 'moral failures,' just ask them. I saw a series of interviews with people in prison who repeatedly to a man stated they were good people. The unrepented man is hardly a barometer of what is good and evil.

Sure. But seriously, ask an atheist who is not high on something, about whether or not they have always lived up to their personal ethical standards and never ever done anything they were ashamed of, and without ever using the word "sin", I think you will get a confession of sin.

I'll get a confession of them not living up to everything they wanted, but then again the same holds true for me. That doesn't mean they have a concept of sin and that they're guilty of it.

After all, it is not just a Christian concept. All religions have some version of sin and salvation, even a non-theistic Buddhist tradition. And all philosophies have something to say about ethics and morals. Such a widespread idea surely has roots in universal human experience.

You give far too much credit to man.

Because you share that universal human experience, and the story of Adam is a representation of that experience. You can identify yourself as a child of Adam who shares the experience of the fall.

O.K. whatever you say...

 

[steen]

Don't allegories typically teach a moral lesson or tell of a personal struggle but not history? How can our origins be considered such an abstract idea that it needs an allegorical explanation??

Who says genesis is teaching us about origin? Genesis tells us about God and why God matter. Genesis is not trying to be a Science textbook

Even if you can somehow present it as such, how does the reader ever take a day to mean trillions, especially when evening and morning are used and no means are used to adequately explain the allegory?

How not. We are now, through science, discovering the relevance of the allegory of Genesis 1, the overall pattern of the formation of the universe and the progression of life and Evolution. yes, it is not 100% accurate, nor is it specific, but then it doesn't need to be. It is not a science textbook. It is a text showing the relevance and glory of God in the world we have discovered through science.

It is in my opinion quite a stretch to associate Genesis with an allegory.

It is in my opinion perfectly sensible to associate Genesis 1 with an allegory because it is one.

As evolutionists like to repeatedly say, why state something to sound one way when it actually is something entirely different?

But Genesis 1 doesn't do that. It is just what it sets out to be, a demonstration of God's glory and relevance in our existence.

You make presumptions as to the lack of ability that the Israelite nation had to understand some rather simple concepts.

Given how many people today have trouble with comprehending the Scientific Method, Science and Evolution, why wouldn't the Israelites have even more trouble with this? We certainly see people post against Evolution with the result of merely confirming that they have no understanding of what Evolution is, or even what Science is. So why would the Israelites fare better with lack of formal scientific education? I see no real reason for your questioning of this.

I can't imagine that the understanding of long periods of time isn't something exclusive to the modern age, I'm sure the people of the Old Testament could have and did grasp such concepts without much trouble.

And?

 

[steen]

Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.

Like Genesis 1. So yes, Genesis 1 is a story about Faith, not a science textbook. Genesis 1 is not about proof or evidence, it is about God and faith. In no way does this contradict science, not does it impact science, just like Science doesn't impact the faith of Genesis 1

 

[steen]

....The drama would have made no sense if I took "days" to mean a thousand years as clearly both witch-doctor and original inhabitants would be long since dead (to use creationist analyses).

And yet, I was actually writing an allegorization of the Dark Ages. The witch-doctor represented the attitude of ascribing everything to arcane supernatural forces, the villagers were the multitude who never knew better, and the scientist represented the coming of science. And lo and behold, those darned days actually did represent a thousand years.

Did I lie to represent a thousand years as a few days? No. Why didn't I actually make those few days a thousand years, and the witch-doctor a few thousand intellectually-strangled clergymen, and write for a few million villagers, and name the scientist Newton? Because I was writing a drama designed to be delivered in five minutes, which (hopefully) would be memorable, and which would present the gist of the matter. And that drama won first place......

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to shernren again.

Great play, great work

 

[steen]

Truer words you've never stated. That is exactly what evolution is, an allegory that requires an explanation.

Nonsense. This is a serious misrepresentation of Science.

 

[theFijian]

I don't know of a single creationist for whom evolution has any bearing whatsoever, much less their faith.

The very fact you're here shows it does have a bearing. Your failure to understand evolution (and that it should not affect ones faith) is the reason you reject it. You reject it because you fear accepting it will affect your faith.

 

[vossler]

The very fact you're here shows it does have a bearing. Your failure to understand evolution (and that it should not affect ones faith) is the reason you reject it. You reject it because you fear accepting it will affect your faith.

Yes my bearing comes from the Word of God. I understand evolution and because I do I reject it. Your last sentence is somewhat true, if I accepted evolution it would have a dramatic effect on my faith.

 

[shernren]

Vossler, why is evolution an allegory? I've seriously lost you there.

 

[gluadys]

By his very nature man isn't ethical and moral, therefore would be a poor candidate to ask about standards of right and wrong.

On the contrary, by their very nature fallen humans are ethical. Remember the forbidden fruit was from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. All humans (except for some pathological individuals) have a sense of Good and Evil, of Right and Wrong, and they know they don't live according to their own sense of morality.

Most atheist I know are quite happy in their 'moral failures,' just ask them.

I am sure some are. They accept it is human not to be able to live perfectly moral lives. But they still have those ethical standards. Otherwise, they wouldn't even be aware of their 'moral failures'.

I saw a series of interviews with people in prison who repeatedly to a man stated they were good people. The unrepented man is hardly a barometer of what is good and evil.

You make my point. They could not call themselves "good" people if they did not have an idea of what "good" and "evil" are. They may be mistaken in calling themselves good, but they do have a moral conscience. Even if they don't hold themselves guilty for the crimes they have been convicted of, I expect they can name things they have done that they admit are wrong in their own eyes. What they are saying is basically "Yes, I've made mistakes, but I am still a good person."

I'll get a confession of them not living up to everything they wanted, but then again the same holds true for me. That doesn't mean they have a concept of sin and that they're guilty of it.

That is exactly what it means. Now, to move to a Christian understanding means having a deeper awareness of the seriousness of sin. But a basic awareness that one has acted wrongly is a starting point that is universal in human experience.

You give far too much credit to man.
O.K. whatever you say...

I don't know what you mean by this. Can you show me a religion or philosophy that does not inquire into ethics and morality, into the question of what is good? And what makes you think that this universal interest in ethics and morality is not due to God's providence?

 

[vossler]

Vossler, why is evolution an allegory? I've seriously lost you there.

Isn't a day suppose to represent billions of years? Isn't evolution suppose to represent the means of creation for the entire animal kingdom, including man? Do I need to go on?

 

[chaoschristian]

Isn't a day suppose to represent billions of years?

This is where the use of the word 'allegory' fails us.

In allegory, there is a one-to-one correlation between symbol and subject.

The Wonderful Wizard of Oz is allegory. Each and every character represents a specific person, type or entity.

The Genesis creation account is not allegory in this strict sense within the TE pov (if there is such a thing as a unified TE pov).

I prefer to use 'mythic.'

Genesis is establishing the mythos of God's relationship to creation, it is establishing God's relationship to man, and it is establishing the supremacy of this particular mythos over the competing ANE mythos.

Within the mythological framework, a day can be a day. Within the mythological framework the intent is imperative, wherein the intent of Genesis is not to describe how Creation came about in materialistic terms, but to prescribe God's ascendancy and supremacy over all things.

So, Vossler, a day does not represent a billion years, at least not as far as this TE is concerned.

That days were used at all is only significant when considering the original audience and how they would derive meaning.

Now, that there are seven days, now that is significant. And also subject for discussion at another time.

 

[vossler]

On the contrary, by their very nature fallen humans are ethical. Remember the forbidden fruit was from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. All humans (except for some pathological individuals) have a sense of Good and Evil, of Right and Wrong, and they know they don't live according to their own sense of morality.

Let's consider man's nature and the reason we need salvation as demonstrated in the following Scriptures:

Genesis 6:5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Genesis 8:21 The LORD smelled the soothing aroma; and the LORD said to Himself, I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of a man’s heart is evil from his youth; and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done.

Romans 8:7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

These Scriptures certainly don't describe man as ethical in God's eyes, do they?

I am sure some are. They accept it is human not to be able to live perfectly moral lives. But they still have those ethical standards. Otherwise, they wouldn't even be aware of their 'moral failures'.

I don't know where you're trying to go with this because even Godly Christians are not able to live perfectly moral lives. The problem with non-believers is that not only do they accept the fact they're immoral, they revel in it. They're ethics are based on human standards, not God's. They're usually only aware of morality because society, at times, makes them aware, otherwise most could care less.

You make my point. They could not call themselves "good" people if they did not have an idea of what "good" and "evil" are.

That's just it, they don't have a clue what a good person is, if they did they would never ever attempt to call themselves good. Isaiah 64:6 states: We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment.

God's standard for good was the 10 commandments, how many can say we've followed even 2 or 3?

They may be mistaken in calling themselves good, but they do have a moral conscience. Even if they don't hold themselves guilty for the crimes they have been convicted of, I expect they can name things they have done that they admit are wrong in their own eyes. What they are saying is basically "Yes, I've made mistakes, but I am still a good person."

How is such a person qualified to judge what is good or evil?

That is exactly what it means. Now, to move to a Christian understanding means having a deeper awareness of the seriousness of sin. But a basic awareness that one has acted wrongly is a starting point that is universal in human experience.

This sounds a lot like secular humanism to me.

I don't know what you mean by this. Can you show me a religion or philosophy that does not inquire into ethics and morality, into the question of what is good? And what makes you think that this universal interest in ethics and morality is not due to God's providence?

Of course there's plenty of religions that do exactly as you say. The problem is they are all man centered and therefore weak and ineffectual. That's what I meant when I said you give man far too much credit.

 

[vossler]

The Genesis creation account is not allegory in this strict sense within the TE pov (if there is such a thing as a unified TE pov).

Alright, I'll give you that leeway, but just so we're clear the term allegory certainly could be used to describe evolution when compared to creation.

Now, that there are seven days, now that is significant. And also subject for discussion at another time.

You beat me too it, that was the natural place to go and I was poised to do so. Given how far this has already strayed, I think you're right and, for now, I'll leave that alone.

 

[Willtor]

All who have sinned apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but the doers of the law who will be justified. When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all.

Even if it were not for the evidence I see around me, it would seem to me that acting ethically is not exclusively the purview of Christians.

 

[vossler]

Even if it were not for the evidence I see around me, it would seem to me that acting ethically is not exclusively the purview of Christians.

I can say it definitely isn't exclusive to Christians. Primarily what I'm saying is that in no way shape or form can a non-Christian be considered good.