s/o from evolution as a belief

[8circles]

I don't use the word to insult or injure you or anyone, I use it because the word accurately identifies what's going on. 

 

What I'm taking away from this is

1) "Animals ---> Man & Woman" is not different from "Man ---> Animals ---> Woman."

2) You have personally fulfilling experiences within the context of your faith.

 

The difficulty I'm having in knowing what to do with this reply is that by virtue of all we know of the world around us, one doesn't affect the other. Surely there are people in your own church who also experience personally fulfilling experiences within the context of their own faith (including lighting candles, participating in the sacraments, reading stories of the saints, and kissing icons) and yet know that the Genesis timeline is not one. 

 

In any case, perhaps you can see why I use the word "ignorant" in this context. It seems to me that some of these ideas are taken on faith without working through the details, ie, being ignorant of the details by virtue of simply not being familiar with them. I don't just mean you, but in general I think that happens. I don't mean you are an ignorant person. I just mean in the context of reading the bible, many people do read the same stories over and over and come away without knowledge or familiarity of what those stories really do contain (like the timeline of the creation of Adam and Eve). I hope that clears up my use of the word.

 

Albeto, I actually think that your explanations are quite respectful.  I don't agree with your assessment of things but I think it's clear that you are not trying to be disrespectful - you just don't see things from the same perspective.  But I think your assessment is accurate for anyone who doesn't share that faith.

 

I appreciate your honesty & your willingness to explain your POV in a respectful manner (I think you're accused of doing the opposite way too often).  It's actually quite refreshing given that discussions here among Christians of different persuasions so often contains words that are used to cut the others down while holding themselves up higher.

[8circles]

I used to be. Then I was an OEC, then a Christian that accepted evolution, then a vague, Tillichish "Ground of All Being" theist, then finally an atheist. So ask me anything, lol!

 

So you are, essentially, the YEC's worst fear.  LOL

[mytwomonkeys]

Albeto, I actually think that your explanations are quite respectful. I don't agree with your assessment of things but I think it's clear that you are not trying to be disrespectful - you just don't see things from the same perspective. But I think your assessment is accurate for anyone who doesn't share that faith.

 

I appreciate your honesty & your willingness to explain your POV in a respectful manner (I think you're accused of doing the opposite way too often). It's actually quite refreshing given that discussions here among Christians of different persuasions so often contains words that are used to cut the others down.

I've enjoyed her posts too. I really always do :)

 

I just wanted to give another perspective that in passionate discussions calling people ignorant can feel inflammatory. She feels it was a neutral word, but given the topic at hand, and considering all posters feel they are contributing to the conversation, using a word like ignorant can come across as hurtful.

[8circles]

I've enjoyed her posts too. I really always do. :)

 

I just wanted to give another perspective that in passionate discussions calling people ignorant can feel inflammatory. She feels it was a neutral word, but given the topic at hand and considering all posters feel they are contributing to the conversation, using a word like ignorant can come across as hurtful.

Yes, without the explanation then I agree with you as "ignorant" has very negative connotations.  With her explanation, however, I think it's clear what she means, which isn't an insult at all.

[HRAAB]

I used to be. Then I was an OEC, then a Christian that accepted evolution, then a vague, Tillichish "Ground of All Being" theist, then finally an atheist. So ask me anything, lol!

 

Thanks for answering.  I resemble your description except I was never young earth which is why I haven't been able to understand their position.  Your post helped.

[Molly]

I used to be YEC. However, I'm now OEC/ID basically because of some research I've done and studying.  Some of the reasons YEC Christians believe in this idea is because of the following scripture:

 

Romans 5:12.  However, if you thoroughly read this verse, it has nothing to do with animals or creation.  The verse specifically states that death came to all men through sin.  So this verse is often taken out of context.

 

1 Co 15:21. Proponents of YEC often site this verse as stipulating that all death came through man.  Unfortunately they forget to site the following verse, 1 Co 15:22 which states that the aforementioned is a reference to human death - not all death.  Again, the preceding verse is taken out of context.

 

Gen 1:29-30. This command is often used to show that animals ate plants before the fall.  However, you need to ask who the writer was speaking to.  He was speaking to Adam and Eve - people, not animals.  Taking the verse out of context again.

 

Animals do not sin and are not resurrected so none of the above verses could apply to them and cannot, therefore, be used as proof that there was absolutely no death before the fall. There is plenty of evidence, through scripture, throughout the Bible to substantiate that death did occur prior to the fall and this dovetails nicely with the fact that carnivores did exist prior to the fall.  Some examples would be:

 

Gen 1:24-26 - God speaks of creating the "beasts of the earth after their kind".  The Hebrew word for "beasts" is Chayah (sp?) which occurs 127 times in 98 verses of the OT.  If you analyze the context of those 98 verses, most of the time it tells us nothing, but in 31 instances, the context of the verse makes it clear that the word "chayah" means carnivore (Gen. 37:20; Lev. 26:6; Ez. 34:5; etc).  In only 4 instances does it mean herbivore. Further, if you study the Hebrew roots of the words Adam used to name the animals, you would see things like: Lion = in sense of violence; hawk = unclean bird of prey; eagle = to lacerate.  These names would lead one to believe that Adam observed these animals in the action of killing their food.

 

I mean absolutely no disrespect for YECs.  I used to be one after all.  I just happened to start listening to STR.org and their common-sense approach to how to read the Bible for context and not to read just one Bible verse, but a whole section to ensure you are getting the Word in the proper context.  In doing that exercise, and some more research, I have come to disregard many of the sacred cows, so to speak, of evangelical thinking.  For instance, I no longer believe in the pre-trib rapture either - blasphemous I know.  But, these issues are things that really don't have anything to do with salvation and shouldn't be issues we fight about.  In fact, we should more easily come together as one body in Christ realizing that we all have different views and opinions.

 

Saddlemomma, I really appreciate what you have said here.  Thank you so much for sharing some of your experience.

[albeto.]

Albeto, I actually think that your explanations are quite respectful.  I don't agree with your assessment of things but I think it's clear that you are not trying to be disrespectful - you just don't see things from the same perspective.  But I think your assessment is accurate for anyone who doesn't share that faith.

 

I appreciate your honesty & your willingness to explain your POV in a respectful manner (I think you're accused of doing the opposite way too often).  It's actually quite refreshing given that discussions here among Christians of different persuasions so often contains words that are used to cut the others down while holding themselves up higher.

 

Thank you. I appreciate that. I do try and maintain an emotional neutrality here, and find myself frustrated when intent is assigned to me that never had crossed my mind. Trying to insult Milanovy would be like kicking a puppy. Who does that? 

[albeto.]

dp 

 

[livetoread]

So you are, essentially, the YEC's worst fear. LOL

Yep, Exhibit A!

 

I honestly understand the YEC position better than any of the others, because theologically it makes the most sense. It is the most consistent with what you find in both the OT, and the NT. Paul built his atonement theology around it.

 

Even though I was a believer that accepted evolution for years, I could never rest easy with it. I still don't understand how others do. I did it through lots of mental gymnastics - thinking only so far and no further, about the ramifications. It was exhausting!

 

The further you get from a literal Genesis story, the more your theology ends up "making a virtue of necessity" as Jerry Coyne would say. I still haven't heard a good reason why this loving deity created such suffering, and I still don't know why Jesus died to somehow redeem a world he messed up in the first place.

[WishboneDawn]

Dp

[WishboneDawn]

Thank you. I appreciate that. I do try and maintain an emotional neutrality here, and find myself frustrated when intent is assigned to me that never had crossed my mind. Trying to insult Milanovy would be like kicking a puppy. Who does that?

I don't think your second last sentence there helps your case. ;)

 

You've got a very odd posting style Albeto that goes beyond emotional neutrality. I think it takes awhile to get used to it. I think I'm getting there though. :D

[milovany]

I haven't been around for a few hours and now looking through this page, this thread is confusing to me.  It seems like some posts are gone and/or some have been changed.  I don't have time to figure it out (what's been said where and what still needs an attempt at an answer) as my father is in town and my daughter is singing in a recital tonight and I'm in charge of dinner tonight, etc. etc.  Maybe I'm thinking of another thread, but I'm not seeing another one either.  Anyway, blessings to all.  Have a great evening. 

[WishboneDawn]

.

[Molly]

The further you get from a literal Genesis story, the more your theology ends up "making a virtue of necessity" as Jerry Coyne would say. I still haven't heard a good reason why this loving deity created such suffering, and I still don't know why Jesus died to somehow redeem a world he messed up in the first place.

 

This is probably the thing I don't understand how people see God as a solely loving deity (and most often people attach good to Him too).  I have just read through Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and am now working on Numbers.  My current take on it is this.  He created us to love Him, to follow Him.  Whether we choose to or not to is the question.  He tells us He is a jealous God and He sure is.  From my observations of history, what I have lived through etc, I think humans have much to answer for including the fall.  God messed the world up as a consequence for disobedience.  I do things that are a consequence to the actions my children take.  My oldest daughter often feels these consequences completely mess up her life.  We teach her that there are consequences to things to enable us to learn and grow as human beings. 

 

Jesus came to restore the relationship between God and man.  Man gets so far away from God that the relationship is not there, but right through history there are many who have maintained that relationship with Him.  There are many others who drift from God and then realise how much the relationship has been damaged.  I work on maintaining the relationship between my daughter and I, however if we weren't both willing, it would be pointless me trying.  Well, not necessarily pointless, but certainly would not get it to a loving relationship without it. 

 

God most certainly loves us all, but He can't love on us if we aren't willing to have the relationship.  I personally believe that the suffering is more to help us rely on the relationship with Him, not on ourselves. 

 

I have asked these questions myself, I ask many questions.  I have noticed the more I ask, the more I seek and the more I seek, the more I feel the relationship growing.

 

[WishboneDawn]

 

God most certainly loves us all, but He can't love on us if we aren't willing to have the relationship. I personally believe that the suffering is more to help us rely on the relationship with Him, not on ourselves.

 

 

See, I have trouble with that because it seems so manipulative. We don't feel we need God so he causes suffering so that we will feel we need God? Correct me if I've gotten that wrong.

 

I haven't found an answer for suffering in the Bible yet. I'm not convinced it has one as I tend to think of it less as a book of answers and more as a place to reflect and come up with better questions. Thousands of years of a continuing dialogue on the puzzle of being human rather then the textbook and answer key.

 

If I became an atheist (auto correct wanted to change atheist to aggressor! :D) tomorrow I'd likely still be diving into the Bible with that perspective. I used to talk with an atheist biblical scholar on an atheist forum and he remarked once that the only difference between us was that I had a little bit of faith. That likely won't endear me to some of the other Christians here but there it is. :)

[Chris in VA]

It endears you to me.

[Molly]

See, I have trouble with that because it seems so manipulative. We don't feel we need God so he causes suffering so that we will feel we need God? Correct me if I've gotten that wrong.

 

 

 

Well, I don't see God as beyond manipulation, being that He is a jealous God.  The times I have been through more suffering/struggles are actually the times I have been well and fully in relationship with Him.  Interestingly, I've found in the times I have drawn away, my life just ticks away nicely.  The suffering/struggles are the times though that I find are the times my understanding grows, my understanding of God morphs again.  Also, I'm not convinced God causes all the suffering, I do believe there are other supernatural forces at play and I believe there is also much suffering that humans cause themselves.  I'm not sure I'm explaining myself all that well.  I am not the best at getting my thoughts written in the way I'm thinking them.

[WishboneDawn]

It endears you to me.

Thank you Chris.

[Laurie4b]

Why are only certain parts of the Old Testament taken seriously?  For example, why is the creation story upheld as the truth whereas just about everything in Leviticus is disregarded?  Shouldn't both Genesis and Leviticus be regarded as the word of God?

 

Or did Jesus do something to make all that stuff in Leviticus somehow "unnecessary"?

 

A simplified answer about Leviticus (this isn't related to YE) is that most Christian denominations regard the New Testament as correctly interpreting the Old Testament, which includes the purpose of the Law, Christ's fulfillment of the Law, etc. So the very simplifed way to look at it is if a command is repeated in the New Testament, it's considered still valid. (Some people will refer to these commands as creation law--moral understandings of right and wrong that existed prior to the Law being given to Moses)  If a command is not repeated in the NT, then it's not considered still binding.

 

Most of what is not repeated is ceremonial ie outward demonstrations of being set apart (such as certain foods no longer being forbidden, wearing clothing all of one kind (all cotton or all linen, not a mix) representing purity, laws about washing, etc. 

 

There is not the level of cherry picking that one might otherwise think is going on  if one looks at this way of interpreting it.

 

Here are some of the New Testament passages that are key to this belief if you're interested in seeing how the NT church understood this more deeply as time passes.

 

Jesus in Matt 15 says that it's not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth because that reflects the heart. (He discusses other ceremonial law as well.) Mark 7 is a parallel passage and specifically says that by saying that, Jesus declared all foods clean.

 

In the book of Acts in chapter 10, Peter has a vision that reinforces that all foods are now clean AND makes the extension that he's not to practice "not contaminating himself" by avoiding contact with Gentiles, either, just as he no longer has to concern himself with not contaminating himself by what he eats.

 

In Acts 15, the Council at Jerusalem ruled that Gentile converts did not have to be circumcised. That was a huge shift in the application of OT law.  They left a few commands from the OT, some of which were later made not applicable by Paul (See Romans 14, for example, about meat offered to idols, or Col 2 about celebrating certain days)

 

The book of Galatians discusses the general purpose of the Law and how the relationship with the Law changed once Christ came.

 

[Heartsjoy]

 

I think this is part of why YECists often cling so fiercely to Genesis. It's not about Genesis, it's the whole plan of salvation and the character of God in question.

The first few chapters in Genesis to me are not only God's character in video format but the substance of my faith in God's ability to save me from the punishment of sin  I deserve and the future hope of a new perfect world with all evil utterly vanquished.

 

Now, how does this play out in applying scientific discoveries. I'm researching now those 9,500 year old trees  and  ice layers in the glaciers Bill Nye mentioned, as well as the genetic research pointing to only one human ancestor Ken Ham mentioned. In teaching the kids, I tell them they are going to see evidence for both models of earth's history. Many other areas of science will have evidence pointing different directions especially over time. I think a good example would be the theory of what is under the Earth's crust, the core, or how Newtonian physics applies or doesn't apply in outer space.

 

Bottom line for me personally, without a literal interpretation of Genesis, I would be left with an impotent god who didn't know his own mind.

 

 

[MercyA]

But why? Why do some of the commandments apply, while others do not? Where does it say which ones apply and which don't, or who interpreted this? If these commandments apply or applied only to Jews, why do some apply to people who are not Jews? 

 

(This is probably too off topic, but I really want to know. And disclaimer: I am Jewish.)

What a great question.  I'm sorry I don't have more time, but my short answer is this:  Christians are not under the law given to the nation of Israel.  They are not bound to obey any Old Testament commandments except those specifically repeated in the New Testament.  Why?  Because:

 

"...Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." Romans 10:4

 

Here is a succinct article on the topic:  http://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-law.html

[Laurie4b]

But why? Why do some of the commandments apply, while others do not? Where does it say which ones apply and which don't, or who interpreted this? If these commandments apply or applied only to Jews, why do some apply to people who are not Jews? 

 

(This is probably too off topic, but I really want to know. And disclaimer: I am Jewish.)

 

I answered this a post or two above. You can use Biblegateway.com to read the New Testament progression on this.

[mommymilkies]

I think an equally interesting question (one I do not know the answer to) is why some people who claim to be Christians pick and choose what in the Bible they want to believe. Is it out of convenience? I don't know the answer to that.

That's a mischaracterization. Believing that the origins story in The Bible is metaphorical or symbolic does not mean they pick and choose what they want to believe.

This. Ok, so I can't speak for the "Christian" bit as I was raised Jewish. But I haven't ever met a single person who didn't "pick and choose" in their beliefs. For a rather humorous take on this, read The Year of Living Biblically. I'm sure many people disregard bits of the Bible, no matter how Orthodox they claim to be. Quite simply, some of the rules seem contradictory and some are downright ridiculous. No offense, there, but I think most of us can assume Leviticus 20:10 should not be followed for obvious legal and moral reasons. Not that adultery is good, but that's quite an overreaction. I have NO problem with people picking and choosing, btw. One of my issues with some religions is blind faith in following every rule, no matter who strange, dangerous, or hurtful. I don't see the world as black and white.

 

ETA: as for it speaking ill of a creator for there to be evolution...that's one I don't get. How would it be somehow beneath a creator to change, evolve, adapt, and set things into motion. I suppose it brings up the topic of panentheism. If you believe in a wonderfully amazing and complex universe, isn't it that much more amazing of an achievement by a Creator? To me it's like...knitting. You can create one wonderful and completely perfect stockinette scarf. Or you can take your time, change, adapt as you go, add, frog, and eventually end up with a warm patchwork knitted quilt that's a feast to behold. That doesn't make you a bad knitter. That was a horrible analogy, my apologies.

[livetoread]

I would really be interested to hear from Christians who accept evolution about how they reconcile some of these questions. How do you interpret Paul in Romans 5:12-21, who clearly argues that Adam was a real person who was responsible for sin and death entering the world? To make it more clear, let's stipulate the death is a second, spiritual death.

 

Evolution tells us that humans were not specially created, and there was never a first human who was responsible for sin entering the world. If some human somehow did something that was different from the humans that came before, what was it? All along humans and human-ish ancestors were, well, being human-ish, loving each other and fighting each other, hunting, gathering, being selfish, doing good and bad things etc. At what point would any of that be called sin when it wasn't before? And why would humans be so responsible for this that God had to die, when it was how they were created in the first place?

 

Why create humans with both selfish and loving drives, and then turn around and say they are all sinners who can only achieve salvation through the sinless life of Jesus? We never had any choice not to be sinners. God created us imperfect and separate, so why go through such elaborate things, like taking human form and dying? Paul's opinion on that is clear, but that's because he took the major part of the creation story literally. He thought there was an Adam who fundamentally altered the entire world by disobeying God. There wasn't. He thought there was a real Noah, too, and I know non YEC/YLCists disagree with that. So what else was Paul wrong about?

 

Why did God use violence and suffering to create sinful humans, and why should we consider this deity loving? Will this deity create differently at some point doing away with the physical death and suffering that he instituted to begin with? Why, (and how would we know)?

[livetoread]

I think it speaks ill of a creator to create suffering when the creator doesn't have to. It's the promise of heaven and a new earth that condemns the Christian God. If this deity is capable of creating a space free from suffering and death, and promises to do so, why didn't he from the get go?

 

There is no excuse for purposefully creating a world where animals suffered for millions of years, where children died screaming from cancer and infections and diseases, when you could have prevented that in the first place, and ended it at any point.

[MercyA]

He thought there was a real Noah, too, and I know non YEC/YLCists disagree with that. So what else was Paul wrong about?

 

I'm an old-earth creationist and I believe there was a real Noah.  :confused:   Not all old-earth creationists are also evolutionists.  I confidently believe Paul wasn't wrong about anything.  I'll be interested to read other replies.

[mytwomonkeys]

I'm an old-earth creationist and I believe there was a real Noah. :confused: Not all old-earth creationists are also evolutionists. I confidently believe Paul wasn't wrong about anything. I'll be interested to read other replies.

I think many OEC believe in a literal Adam too, just not a literal 6 days. At least that is what I've read here. Maybe they'll chime in. I believe it all, so I really have nothing to add that won't irritate the majority :)

[mytwomonkeys]

But why? Why do some of the commandments apply, while others do not? Where does it say which ones apply and which don't, or who interpreted this? If these commandments apply or applied only to Jews, why do some apply to people who are not Jews?

 

(This is probably too off topic, but I really want to know. And disclaimer: I am Jewish.)

In the NT they asked Jesus about the commandments. Here was his reply

 

 

Matthew 22:36-40

New International Version (NIV)

 

 

36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?â€

 

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 ALL the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.â€

[Cricket]

Evolution tells us that humans were not specially created

This is an interesting concept. Isn't there debate among scientists now whether or not humans were an inevitable result of evolution? That humans were the only possible outcome given the environment, starting genetics, etc. I thought I read an article on the somewhere. I'll google.

[livetoread]

I'm an old-earth creationist and I believe there was a real Noah. :confused: Not all old-earth creationists are also evolutionists. I confidently believe Paul wasn't wrong about anything. I'll be interested to read other replies.

Sorry, I should have been more clear with my terms. I said YLC (Young Life Creationist) to distinguish those who think the earth is old, but life is more recent, specially created, and not from common descent. Maybe OEC would have been the better term. Thanks for clarifying!

[livetoread]

This is an interesting concept. Isn't there debate among scientists now whether or not humans were an inevitable result of evolution? That humans were the only possible outcome given the environment, starting genetics, etc. I thought I read an article on the somewhere. I'll google.

I think almost all scientists in fields related to evolution would say humans were not inevitable, because mutations are random. Start back at the first life molecules, run the clock again and it is almost certain things would end up differently. However, this is one of those things that doesn't contract evidence (unlike, say a young earth), so if someone wanted to think at various points along the way, those mutations were "helped" in a certain direction for a certain desired outcome, there isn't direct contradictory evidence. There just isn't any to support it either.

[MercyA]

I think many OEC believe in a literal Adam too, just not a literal 6 days. At least that is what I've read here. Maybe they'll chime in. I believe it all, so I really have nothing to add that won't irritate the majority :)

 

Thank you, mytwomonkeys.  I should have been more clear.  I am an OEC, and I also believe in a literal Adam and Eve.  I think God certainly could have and perhaps did create everything in six literal days, but if He did, it appears that He created it looking very old.  I think it's more likely that it actually is really old, but it's not that significant of an issue for me.  It's enough for me to know:

 

"Whatsoever the LORD pleased, that did he in heaven, and in earth, in the seas, and all deep places." Psalm 135:6

 

"And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?"  Daniel 4:35

 

[MercyA]

Sorry, I should have been more clear with my terms. I said YLC (Young Life Creationist) to distinguish those who think the earth is old, but life is more recent, specially created, and not from common descent. Maybe OEC would have been the better term. Thanks for clarifying!

 

Thanks for your clarification!  I've never heard the term YLC before.  I should have looked it up, so that's on me.

 

Interesting.  I don't believe I'd call myself a YLC, since I think dinosaurs likely lived millions of years ago.  However, I do believe all life is specially created and not from common descent.

[NASDAQ]

Now, that was convenient!

 

It's really hard to understand someone else's religion with this attitude.

 

I say that as a non-Christian.

[EKS]

It's really hard to understand someone else's religion with this attitude.

 

I say that as a non-Christian.

 

This has nothing to do with understanding someone else's religion.  I would think that as a practical matter it would be very convenient not to have to do all that stuff in Leviticus.  Frankly, it seems to me that adhering to all of it would be totally overwhelming.

[WishboneDawn]

I would really be interested to hear from Christians who accept evolution about how they reconcile some of these questions. How do you interpret Paul in Romans 5:12-21, who clearly argues that Adam was a real person who was responsible for sin and death entering the world? To make it more clear, let's stipulate the death is a second, spiritual death.

It's probably because I've always had my liberal Christian filters on but it never occured to me that Paul was arguing that Adam was a real person. To me, he's making a point about JC by referencing the Hebrew Scriptures, interpreting the meaning of Christ's death through the older story of Adam. It's pretty consistent with the tradition of Jewish interpretation and discussion of the time. Paul may well have believed Adam had been a real person. Or maybe not. I can easily imagine a modern day writer interpreting the accomplishments of some recent hero by referencing Odysseus without making it clear whether he/she thought Odysseus was a historical or mythical figure.

 

Evolution tells us that humans were not specially created, and there was never a first human who was responsible for sin entering the world. If some human somehow did something that was different from the humans that came before, what was it? All along humans and human-ish ancestors were, well, being human-ish, loving each other and fighting each other, hunting, gathering, being selfish, doing good and bad things etc. At what point would any of that be called sin when it wasn't before? And why would humans be so responsible for this that God had to die, when it was how they were created in the first place?

You mean I should think there was a specific point in the development of humans when humans experienced the fall? Another thought that hadn't occurred to me. :D I don't know. I tend to think of the story of the fall as a myth that explains the way humans can do bad things, put their own concerns above that of other or their communities, feel shame and guilt, etc. Not that it expresses fact but rather a big T Truth. And I think that's likely an idea that humans have always been aware of and the first time tales like the Fall started being told those stories were set in the past. Even the first telling was of something the had happened long ago to distant people.

 

Why create humans with both selfish and loving drives, and then turn around and say they are all sinners who can only achieve salvation through the sinless life of Jesus? We never had any choice not to be sinners. God created us imperfect and separate, so why go through such elaborate things, like taking human form and dying? Paul's opinion on that is clear, but that's because he took the major part of the creation story literally. He thought there was an Adam who fundamentally altered the entire world by disobeying God. There wasn't. He thought there was a real Noah, too, and I know non YEC/YLCists disagree with that. So what else was Paul wrong about?

I just don't think it's so obvious that Paul took the story as literally as you claim.

 

The kind of literalism we're talking about is a modern idea. Paul came out of a Hebrew tradition that preserved different and inconsistent versions of stories. He lived in a world where one could hear a myth told in different ways with different details depending on which village or town one was in at the time. They were a lot more comfortable communicating in symbols and myths and were less concerned with an objective reporting of facts. None of this means Paul didn't think the was a historical Adam of course but it also points to the probability that he wasn't approaching the creation story with the model of literalism we're familiar with 2000 years later.

 

I'm not sure if I addressed your concerns with that? Probably not. I'm not trying to duck your questions, it just seems you're making into a very modern man when he was very much a man of his times.

 

Why did God use violence and suffering to create sinful humans, and why should we consider this deity loving? Will this deity create differently at some point doing away with the physical death and suffering that he instituted to begin with? Why, (and how would we know)?

I don't know. I have a hard time with a lot of that myself. Down the road it may lead to me leaving Christianity...Or not. I haven't got it all sorted and I rather doubt I ever will.

[NASDAQ]

This has nothing to do with understanding someone else's religion.  I would think that as a practical matter it would be very convenient not to have to do all that stuff in Leviticus.  Frankly, it seems to me that adhering to all of it would be totally overwhelming.

 

Jews do it, and have a 72 volume riff to go with it.

[WishboneDawn]

This has nothing to do with understanding someone else's religion. I would think that as a practical matter it would be very convenient not to have to do all that stuff in Leviticus. Frankly, it seems to me that adhering to all of it would be totally overwhelming.

Obedience is key in the Jewish view of righteousness.

For Christians righteousness comes with accepting Christ's sacrifice on the cross.

 

One path requires the laws, one can do without.

 

Modern Judaism comes almost exclusively from the Pharisees. I'm not sure if other groups of Jews, like the Zealots and Samaritans were so focused on the laws?

[EKS]

Jews do it, and have a 72 volume riff to go with it.

 

Some Jews do it.  My husband is Jewish, and just getting Passover together properly is more than I can manage.

[NASDAQ]

Some Jews do it.  My husband is Jewish, and just getting Passover together properly is more than I can manage.

 

Passover is an event. It's harder than the Exodus version though. At least they could eat corn . . . if they'd had corn . . . n/m.

 

I let my husband do Passover kitchen cleaning for that reason ;)

[mommymilkies]

Jews do it, and have a 72 volume riff to go with it.

 

Erm....not all. In fact, I'd say "not a lot" just from my very own experience. Thank goodness for interpretation.

[livetoread]

It's probably because I've always had my liberal Christian filters on but it never occured to me that Paul was arguing that Adam was a real person. To me, he's making a point about JC by referencing the Hebrew Scriptures, interpreting the meaning of Christ's death through the older story of Adam. It's pretty consistent with the tradition of Jewish interpretation and discussion of the time. Paul may well have believed Adam had been a real person. Or maybe not. I can easily imagine a modern day writer interpreting the accomplishments of some recent hero by referencing Odysseus without making it clear whether he/she thought Odysseus was a historical or mythical figure.

 

 

You mean I should think there was a specific point in the development of humans when humans experienced the fall? Another thought that hadn't occurred to me. :D I don't know. I tend to think of the story of the fall as a myth that explains the way humans can do bad things, put their own concerns above that of other or their communities, feel shame and guilt, etc. Not that it expresses fact but rather a big T Truth. And I think that's likely an idea that humans have always been aware of and the first time tales like the Fall started being told those stories were set in the past. Even the first telling was of something the had happened long ago to distant people.

 

 

I just don't think it's so obvious that Paul took the story as literally as you claim.

 

The kind of literalism we're talking about is a modern idea. Paul came out of a Hebrew tradition that preserved different and inconsistent versions of stories. He lived in a world where one could hear a myth told in different ways with different details depending on which village or town one was in at the time. They were a lot more comfortable communicating in symbols and myths and were less concerned with an objective reporting of facts. None of this means Paul didn't think the was a historical Adam of course but it also points to the probability that he wasn't approaching the creation story with the model of literalism we're familiar with 2000 years later.

 

I'm not sure if I addressed your concerns with that? Probably not. I'm not trying to duck your questions, it just seems you're making into a very modern man when he was very much a man of his times.

 

 

I don't know. I have a hard time with a lot of that myself. Down the road it may lead to me leaving Christianity...Or not. I haven't got it all sorted and I rather doubt I ever will.

I don't know, it just doesn't read like a literary reference to me. There are other times when I think OT hero references are more ambiguous, like when Jesus talks about how the ends times will be like it was in the days of Noah.

 

But here, Paul is using it as a basis for his argument. Sin entered the world through one man and led to condemnation for all, and the solution enters through one man too. "For just as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous." He states that concept several different ways in the Romans 5 passage - that sin came through one man and so does righteousness.

 

I agree that he is referencing it in order to highlight the meaning of Jesus' death, but the reality of it happening is what gives the significance. If sin didn't enter the world at some point (whether through one man or not), what is the meaning?

 

In Hebrews 11, Paul talks about the faith of the earlier Hebrew heros, including Noah, and points out that they all desired "a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore, God is not ashamed to be called their God; indeed he has prepared a city for them." I don't know why God would prepare a city for mythological characters.

 

I also agree that it's stating the obvious that people don't always behave well (sin if you will). To me, the key is, why? That's where I think the Biblical story differs significantly from what evolution tells us. If we were created through evolution, we were created sinful. That doesn't mean we have no choice in any of our behavior, but it does mean we had no choice about being sinful overall. So why create us that way, and then have to die because we are the way we were created? It makes no sense, and I don't think it would to Paul either.

 

I really appreciate your thoughts on this. Even though I no longer believe, I still find the theological ramifications of creationism and evolution fascinating. I hope too, that anyone following along can understand better why believers might be strongly motivated to find reasons to reject evolution. It's not just because they are scientifically ignorant (though they may very well be). It's because it offers profound challenges to the biblical narrative that goes well beyond whether God created in six days or not.

[susankenny]

Adam is mentioned like 30 times in the bible. I definitely think he was considered real and not symbolism.

[Katydid]

I'm on my phone and I can't figure out how to quote, but I wanted to respond to livetoread. I think you are asking good, important and hard questions. I was raised believing in YEC, a literal, inerrant Bible, etc. and I have rejected most of those teachings. I'm still working through what I actually believe about many things, but I did want to take a stab at the question of why God would create a world with suffering.

 

I believe that God set in motion a creation apart from himself using what we now understand as the process of evolution. Perhaps he nudged here and there a bit during the process to ensure that humans would develop as we did. And perhaps when we reached the proper stage in our development, God then "created us in his image" aka breathed his spirit into us. Then we grew in reason and developed the ability to distinguish right from wrong.

 

I believe he created us specifically apart from him because he desires a true relationship with us. In order for us to fully choose to love God and do that which is holy, we must have the freedom to not choose him and to do things that are not holy. If we were created without the freedom of choice, then we would not be relational beings, we would be robots. But when we choose to do things that are not holy (aka sin) we can no longer be in the presence of the One who is holy because that which is not holy cannot survive in God's presence.

 

So because he knew that we would make choices that would separate us from him, he came up with a rescue plan which he wrote into the very fabric of creation. The very existence of the cycle of life-death-life that we see in nature points to Jesus' redemptive act of allowing himself to die and then overcoming death, bringing life. But I think nature was allowed to develop in its own way, for the most part. Over time, perhaps the more vicious mutations were the ones that came out on top through natural selection. After all, Genesis doesn't say that God created the world to be perfectly in line with his will, it says he thought it was "good" (the word in Hebrew means "beautiful"). There is great suffering that has come about through creation's freedom to develop as we will, but there is also great beauty.

 

Lastly, I believe that God redeems even the horrible situations we find ourselves in due to "sin" (which simply means missing the mark of what God desires for us). That can happen through our own wrong choices, the wrong choices of others, or from natural disasters that result from nature doing its own thing. And I believe that God exists outside of time and therefore has a "big picture" perspective that we can even begin to understand. He knows that what has happened, and what will happen within our tiny realm of time is only one small part of a much bigger story.

 

I hope that made sense... it's kinda hard to re-read and edit on my phone

[Mrs Mungo]

Some of you might be interested in this book by Peter Enns. He is the author of the Bible curriculum from Peace Hill Press.

 

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/158743315X

[Mom in High Heels]

Out of curiosity, how to Creationists reconcile that Adam and Eve were the first and only people created, where did their son's wives come from?  Who did their children marry?

[Retired]

Out of curiosity, how to Creationists reconcile that Adam and Eve were the first and only people created, where did their son's wives come from?  Who did their children marry?

I've always heard it taught that Adam lived to around 900 years old.  There are recorded 3 sons but scholars suspected many more children in his long life.  That the beginning siblings would of married and multiplied.  I don't know if that would of also included Adam also having children with one of his dissentients.   The idea was that the beginning human race was perfect without the same flaw as we would see in incestual   relationship in current times.  There is speculation that as the generation became more corrupt their bodies also became more diseased etc. Which lead to shorter life spans with each generation.   I can't remember all the teaching but the descendants  of Adam became more sinful and corrupt up until the flood.  Then post Noah with his children and kids would of repopulated the earth.   I guess the restart was cousins marring.  This seem to go on up until the some modern cultures.

I don't want to get in the evolution/creation debate just thought I would take a shot at answering this question.

 

I will keep reading because to be honest I never heard of the 2 creation stories of Genesis.  I've always heard thought all together.  I also never expect these threads to say nice.  There is the usual someone that rocks the boat and they get locked.  

 

I'll leave you to this interesting conversation  - time for bed at 2:00 am

 

 

[Free]

I don't know, it just doesn't read like a literary reference to me. There are other times when I think OT hero references are more ambiguous, like when Jesus talks about how the ends times will be like it was in the days of Noah.

 

But here, Paul is using it as a basis for his argument. Sin entered the world through one man and led to condemnation for all, and the solution enters through one man too. "For just as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous." He states that concept several different ways in the Romans 5 passage - that sin came through one man and so does righteousness.

 

I agree that he is referencing it in order to highlight the meaning of Jesus' death, but the reality of it happening is what gives the significance. If sin didn't enter the world at some point (whether through one man or not), what is the meaning?

 

In Hebrews 11, Paul talks about the faith of the earlier Hebrew heros, including Noah, and points out that they all desired "a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore, God is not ashamed to be called their God; indeed he has prepared a city for them." I don't know why God would prepare a city for mythological characters.

The ancients were not concerned with historical or literal accuracy as we are today. They regularly made their kings the heroes of fantastic legends and freely embellished these stories with dragons and monsters and all kinds of imaginary creatures.

 

The ancients were pretty comfortable straddling the line between truth and fiction and history and mythology. To hold ancient texts to the evidence based, scientific standards of the modern era is in my opinion a naive approach to understanding their meaning.

 

When we come across a 2000 year old story that talks about talking snakes or flying dragons the common sensical approach would be to take it as a story that was appropriate to its time.

 

I also agree that it's stating the obvious that people don't always behave well (sin if you will). To me, the key is, why? That's where I think the Biblical story differs significantly from what evolution tells us. If we were created through evolution, we were created sinful. That doesn't mean we have no choice in any of our behavior, but it does mean we had no choice about being sinful overall. So why create us that way, and then have to die because we are the way we were created? It makes no sense, and I don't think it would to Paul either.

That Paul preached the Genesis story as literal, does not in effect make it historical.

 

Even though I no longer believe, I still find the theological ramifications of creationism and evolution fascinating. I hope too, that anyone following along can understand better why believers might be strongly motivated to find reasons to reject evolution. It's not just because they are scientifically ignorant (though they may very well be). It's because it offers profound challenges to the biblical narrative that goes well beyond whether God created in six days or not.

A belief in a God requires some level of magical thinking and at some point a believer will have to choose between treating a story as allegorical or literal. For some Christians that point may be the virgin birth, or the resurrection story or the belief in Jesus's miracles. So in a way, I get it when you say that the only two internally consistent positions are to take all stories in a holy text as literally true or to forsake magical thinking altogether.

[PeachyDoodle]

Obedience is key in the Jewish view of righteousness.

For Christians righteousness comes with accepting Christ's sacrifice on the cross.

 

One path requires the laws, one can do without.

 

Modern Judaism comes almost exclusively from the Pharisees. I'm not sure if other groups of Jews, like the Zealots and Samaritans were so focused on the laws?

 

That's not it, exactly. Christians believe that Christ kept the full law on our behalf. So in his death, we receive not only forgiveness for our transgressions, but his righteousness imputed to us as well. Theologians refer to this as his "passive obedience" (paying the penalty for sin) and his "active obedience" (fulfilling the law).

[livetoread]

 

The ancients were pretty comfortable straddling the line between truth and fiction and history and mythology. To hold ancient texts to the evidence based, scientific standards of the modern era is in my opinion a naive approach to understanding their meaning.

Quite true. I think they did do that. But at the end of the day, there are still two important questions. "Did Paul actually think sin entered the world through Adam?" and I think the answer is yes. It matters, because traditional Christianity is built around the necessity of Jesus' death as redemption for our sins.

 

The other is even more important. "Did any of this actually happen, and how can we know?" At some point it actually matters what happened. Christianity is a historical religion.

That Paul preached the Genesis story as literal, does not in effect make it historical.

Agreed. But it still matters whether he thought it was, and whether he was correct or not.

 

 

A belief in a God requires some level of magical thinking and at some point a believer will have to choose between treating a story as allegorical or literal. For some Christians that point may be the virgin birth, or the resurrection story or the belief in Jesus's miracles. So in a way, I get it when you say that the only two internally consistent positions are to take all stories in a holy text as literally true or to forsake magical thinking altogether.

But I'm not saying all stories need to be literally true. Not at all. There does need to be some magical thinking, yes. But I'm arguing that Christianity as a religion rises or falls on certain foundational things being true. Did Jonah actually get eaten by a whale? Who cares! Did Jesus actually die, rise from the dead, and if so, why? Pretty important! Is there a plan of salvation, and if so, what is it, and how do we know? This is basic Christianity, and it is premised on certain things literally happening. Evolution directly challenges those things. Did Jesus have to die, and if so, why? Paul can give a ready answer, and Christianity is based on that answer.