Paradise Cafe Discussions - A Place For Bible Research And Christian Encouragement

Paradise Cafe Discussions - A Place For Bible Research And Christian Encouragement > The Bible's Authenticity ... Can It Be Proven Using Non-Biblical Sources? > Science & Archeology > Evolution
Full Version: Evolution
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.

Mavos

06-29-2010, 04:32 PM
The following is an excerpt from an article called "Genesis, Science, and Creation". It was written by Mike Strauss, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Physics, in the University of Oklahoma. Mike is also a Christian.

Here was his treatment of Evolution, which I thought was fair and balanced.

Quote:
What about evolution? Christians have come to many different conclusions about this very controversial topic. When scientists speak about evolution, they usually mean that all life has come from a common ancestor through natural, unguided processes, with no purpose or plan. Certainly, this is opposed to what the Bible says, that God has a purpose for creation and that humans are an integral part of that purpose. Scientists usually assume that there is nothing outside of the natural world, and so evolution is wrapped up in a philosophy of naturalism, that there is no supernatural. Certainly, as believers in God, we reject naturalism. Most Christians and even some secular scientists agree that 4.5 billion years is not enough time for naturalistic processes to create life or the diversity of life we see on the earth. So in some sense, evolution is incompatible with Christianity, if we use the definition of evolution that most scientists would use, one that is synonymous with naturalism.

Still, the answer to this question of evolution may not be so simple because the Bible says very little about the mechanism that God used to create different life forms, and humans. The Bible says that God made humans from the dust of the earth, but that doesn’t really tell us much about the mechanism. If I say that my car is made from the iron ore of the earth, that doesn’t tell you if it was built by hand in my garage or built by robots on an assembly line. Since the Bible is not clear on the mechanism, it would make sense to look at the record of nature for hints about the mechanism.

The record of nature is clear that early life on earth was very simple, and that as time progressed, life became more complex. What the record of nature doesn’t indicate is whether or not every new life form that appears is a supernatural creation of God, or the result of some kind of guided evolution. Most Christians believe that every new life form that appears in the fossil record is a supernatural creation by God, but some believe that the diversity of life is the result of some kind of guided, or theistic, evolution. Most scientists would say that “theistic evolution” is an oxymoron since evolution, by their definition, is unguided naturalism. Yet, even C.S. Lewis, in his book The Problem of Pain, proposes a scenario in which God uses some kind of guided evolution to create a human body, then breathes into that body the “breath of life” and creates the first spiritual beings on earth, Adam and Eve. Lewis realizes that what separates humans from all other animals is that we are created in the image of God. We have a spirit that can commune with God, who is also a spirit. In some sense it is not important how God made our physical bodies. It is important to realize that humans are a special creation by God and that our spirit separates us from all other created things on earth.

Scripture teaches certain things that are definitely opposed to modern evolutionary theory.

1. Naturalism cannot account for the origin or diversity of life.
2. The entire universe is created by God, and not the result of simply naturalistic processes.
3. Humans are a special creation of God, created in his image with a spirit.
4. Adam and Eve were literal people, the first humans.

It seems to me that the mechanism God used to create our physical bodies is not that important. What is important is to realize that humans are more than just our physical bodies. We are spirit. It is also important to realize that whatever mechanism was employed, God was intimately involved in the process. Humans are not the result of purely unguided, naturalistic process. The Bible and science agree about some crucial aspects of humanity. Humans are the most recent animal to appear on the earth and the culmination of everything that came before them. The Bible says that God created humans as his final creation on earth. In addition, modern science and the Bible both agree that humans are unique among all of the creatures on the earth. Christians extend that uniqueness to the spiritual aspect of humanity.


Augustine, who held to a very literal view of Genesis 1-3, said that we ought to be willing to change our minds about the interpretation of Genesis 1-3, particularly as new scientific information comes to light. He urged us to change our interpretation of Scripture, not because Scripture is to be ruled by science, but because no two truths made by God will contradict one another. All truth comes from God, whether discovered by science or by the Scripture and its interpretation of Scripture. The first question we must ask is whether a particular scientific theory is well-founded. If it is, then we must make sure we don't read the Bible in a manner that contradicts sound knowledge of nature. We don't want to be like the Church in the middle ages who said the Earth was the center of the universe, and condemned any one who provided evidence other wise. Sometimes we have to change our view.

Just my thoughts,
Matt

Seraphim

06-29-2010, 08:32 PM
Hi, im not sure I agree with the analysis of Mike Strauss, Ph.D but I do agree with Augustine.

Blithe Freshman

06-30-2010, 09:10 AM
Timely thread. Just last week I started researching info for us to use with our high school science, that would examine the different theories . Found this site, http://oldearthcreationism.blogspot.com/
I'm very excited to get started with the discussion, around here.

I have YEC materials (can't avoid them) they are everywhere in Christian homeschool curriculum. Lots of other stuff to find when you go looking!

Matt, have you read of these books?
http://www.reasons.org/catalog/teaching-...-worldview

http://www.iconsofevolution.com/

Blithe

Prodigal Son

06-30-2010, 09:13 AM

Mike Strauss Wrote:
What is important is to realize that humans are more than just our physical bodies. We are spirit.


And yet when I say this, it's the Debil talking!!

:ok::clap::thumbsup::thumbup:

Quote:
Augustine, who held to a very literal view of Genesis 1-3, said that we ought to be willing to change our minds about the interpretation of Genesis 1-3, particularly as new scientific information comes to light.


You quote this, but are you really willing to heed it? How far will you go with this Matt? Would "scientific information" include such things as, snakes don't talk? Trees don't have magic powers to impart knowledge, guilt, or eternal life? The sun existed before the earth? That humans lived on earth more than 50,000 years ago?

Just wondering.... because if those 3 chapters are representative of something a little deeper, it kinda changes our whole theological structure, doesn't it? :confused:

Mavos

06-30-2010, 10:03 AM

Prodigal Son Wrote:

Mike Strauss Wrote:
What is important is to realize that humans are more than just our physical bodies. We are spirit.


And yet when I say this, it's the Debil talking!!

:ok::clap::thumbsup::thumbup:

Quote:
Augustine, who held to a very literal view of Genesis 1-3, said that we ought to be willing to change our minds about the interpretation of Genesis 1-3, particularly as new scientific information comes to light.


You quote this, but are you really willing to heed it? How far will you go with this Matt? Would "scientific information" include such things as, snakes don't talk? Trees don't have magic powers to impart knowledge, guilt, or eternal life? The sun existed before the earth? That humans lived on earth more than 50,000 years ago?

Just wondering.... because if those 3 chapters are representative of something a little deeper, it kinda changes our whole theological structure, doesn't it? :confused:


Prodigal son,

If all you ever meant was that God takes up his residence by his spirit in the believer, then I apologize for mistreating you or misrepresenting you. Please accept this as an apology.

Well let me tackle the rest of some of this briefly:

Snakes don't talk. What about Baalam's Donkey? The Angel caused Baalam's donkey to talk? Did the donkey actually talk? Perhaps the Angel just used the donkey as a puppet, much like a ventriloquist. It isn't the snake that is talking, it's the Devil. The snake represents the Devil. The curse on the snake is the curse on the Devil. You don't need a literal snake talking for the story to be true, it could be an allegorical way of referring to the Devil.

The tree was just a tree. There was nothing special about it at all. The "knowledge" that was imparted was not imparted by the tree. The whole idea of the fall was essentially a question on who has the right to determine right from wrong? Does God, or do we? Instead of trusting that God has the right to determine right from wrong, Adam and Eve decided THEY had the right to determine for themselves what was right and wrong. That is the knowledge of good and bad. The tree doesn't give guilt, the guilt is a legal action taken by God because of the rebellion against God's authority. Eternal life is what God would have given to Adam and Eve had they obeyed. The "tree of life" is a symbol for the possibility of God's granting eternal life upon obedience.

As for the sun existing before the Earth, both Genesis and science can agree here. The first light that appears is on the surface of the earth as the planetary and interplanetary dust clears. The light on the fourth day is when the atmosphere becomes transparent, making the sun, moon, and stars visible.

Mark Strauss, earlier in his article, comments on the Sun thing, I quote it here at length.

Quote:
At first glance, the answer to the question, “Is the order of creation in Genesis consistent with current scientific ideas,” may seem to be “no.” After all, in the creation account both light and plants appear before the sun, which seems to totally contradict all modern scientific idea. But the key to understanding the story of creation is to notice the perspective described in Genesis. The story of creation must be told from the perspective of someone who was there at the creation. It must be told from God’s perspective. Most people think that God’s perspective would be from outside the universe looking in, but that is not the case. Genesis itself tells where God is and what his perspective is. Genesis 1:2 states, “And the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.” The Spirit of God is moving, or hovering, over the surface of the waters. He is near the surface of the earth. The story of creation is told from God’s perspective, on the surface of the planet earth, not from out in the universe looking down at the planet earth. We must interpret the events of the six days of creation from God’s perspective on the surface of the earth.

In verse 16, we again see that the story of creation is told from the perspective of someone on the surface of the earth. The verse says, “God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night.” These two “great lights” are, of course, the sun and the moon. But are the sun and the moon really “great lights?” After all, the sun is just an ordinary star and the moon is a tiny rock in the cosmos. The two objects only appear as great lights from one place in the whole universe, from on the earth. The story of creation only makes sense when you realize that it is told from the perspective of the surface of the earth.

From this perspective on the surface of the earth, the order of events in the story of Genesis perfectly coincides with the order of events as science understands them. For instance, Genesis 1:2 tells us the conditions that existed on the surface of the earth, not those that existed throughout the entire universe. It says that the earth is formless and void, and darkness is over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God is hovering over the surface of the earth that is covered with water. Although the universe and the earth are created in verse 1, most of the story of creation is about what God did to the earth to prepare it for humans.

Now this condition of being formless and empty, with darkness over the surface of the earth is identical to current scientific theories about the conditions on the early earth. When the earth first formed about 4.5 billion years ago, it was formless because it was still very hot and somewhat fluid. It was void because no life existed on it. It was dark on its surface because dust and debris in the atmosphere blocked out the sun, moon, and stars. The sun, moon, and stars, were already created and were in the heavens, but because of dust and debris, they were not visible on the surface of the earth. Just as the Bible says, we now know that when the earth was first formed, darkness covered its surface. In outer space it would not have been dark at this time. The sun, moon, and stars would have been visible. But the Bible doesn’t speak about what the conditions were like in outer space. The Bible only says that it was dark on the surface of the earth. We clearly see God’s hand in inspiring these words that it was dark on the surface of the earth, but not necessarily dark in outer space. This careful attention to detail is quite noteworthy. Why would the writer of Genesis chose such careful words, that agree with modern science, unless they are truly inspired of God? If Moses had written that it was dark throughout the universe, skeptics might have dismissed this account of Genesis as a fabrication without reading any farther than verse 2. As it is, we have a remarkable statement about conditions on the earth when God first created it. When we understand that the story of creation is told from God’s perspective, as he sees it on the surface of the earth, we see an indication of the inspiration of the Bible and a remarkable agreement between the words of Scripture and the record of nature. Both the Bible and observations of nature agree that the early earth was formless, empty, and dark on its surface.

On day one, God said “let there be light” and light appeared on the surface of the earth. The Hebrew word “bara,” which means to create something that hasn’t existed, is not used in this verse. Nothing new was created on this day. Instead, light appeared on the surface of the earth so that daytime could be distinguished from night time. Before day one, atmospheric and interplanetary debris filled the sky so that it was always dark on the surface of the earth. However, as that debris settled, the sky began to clear. Instead of being completely dark all the time on the surface of the earth, you could now distinguish daytime from night time. But like a cloudy day, you could still not see the sun, moon or stars. God calls the light “day” and he calls the darkness “night.” We now have days and nights that are distinguishable on the surface of the earth. The Biblical record of day one completely agrees with the scientific record regarding one of the first events on the early earth. The sky changed from being completely opaque, allowing no light to reach the surface of the earth, to being translucent, allowing light to reach the surface, but still not clear enough to see the heavenly bodies that existed in outer space.

On day four, the sun, moon, and stars appear in the sky. Armed with the knowledge that the story is told from this perspective on the surface of the earth, the mystery of why the sun and moon appear on day four when light appeared on day one can be resolved. It is because the sun, moon, and stars first appeared to someone on the earth on day four even though they had been created by God when he created the heavens and the earth in verse 1. But because the earth had an atmosphere that resembled that of a cloudy day, they could not be seen on its surface until day four. Notice that the Bible does not say that God actually created the lights on day four. It says, “God said, ‘Let there be lights in the expanse….’” Dr. Scofield affirms this idea in his Bible notes that describe the appearance of light on day one, “(1:3) Neither here [the appearance of light] nor in vv. 14-18 [the appearance of the sun, moon, and stars] is an original creative act implied. A different word is used. The sense is made to appear, made visible. The sun and the moon were created ‘in the beginning.’ The light came from the sun, of course, but the vapor diffused the light. Later the sun appeared in an unclouded sky.”

From the perspective on the surface of the earth, the order of creation events completely agrees with the order that nature reveals to scientists. That order is:

1. The creation of the heavens and the earth. The earth is formless, void, and dark on the surface.
2. Light appears on the surface of the earth as the planetary and interplanetary dust clears
3. The water cycle begins
4. Continents form
5. Plants sprout from the ground
6. The atmosphere becomes transparent, making the sun, moon, and stars visible
7. Fish and birds fill the sea and air
8. Higher life forms fill the sea
9. Large mammals that will interact with humans fill the land
10. Humans are created

Seraphim

06-30-2010, 10:44 AM
I would say that the creation account was never meant to be taken as literal history in the way modern people understand history. The relevance to human beings remains undiminished whether ones takes it as literal or a symbolic depiction of history, in order to convey issues of relevance to man.

For instance the biggest lesson of the creation account is that humanity needs help and some sort of rescue from death due to fundamental impulses and weaknesses inherited from our ancestors. Both people like me who believe in a completely natural form of evolution, or those who reject evolution would agree on the same lessons from Genesis on this fundamental points. Some Christians might describe it in religious terms but even an atheist can see that human impulses need to be regulated or the results would be harmful to others and themselves. That is what some Christians call sin.

Even an atheist can see that man is increasingly in danger of extinction from off the planet if they continue in the path they are going. Of course an atheist wont see the need for a trusting relationship with God or the need to find ways to hear his voice but many Christians who believe in evolution do get these lessons from the creation account as well as those who take it literally. In fact those who take the creation account literally are in probably more danger of missing the deeper lessons, symbols, and meanings in Genesis due to an over literal reading.

When it comes to lessons of any practical importance, including matters of faith in God, both the Christian who believes in a literal reading of Genesis and Christians who except evolution agree on all points. Its amazing how little difference it makes in my view. Where I draw the line is when a Christian tells someone they cant be a Christian and believe in evolution. That is wrong and against God in my view. Unfortunately the literalistic view has not only blinded many to the deeper lessons of the creation account but also blocked the path to God for many who except the evidence for evolution.

If truth is the path ones follows, and because of that one has excepted evolution but then a literalistic Christian says they cant do that, then truth itself becomes the victim in favor of Christianity and thats not true Christianity. Its also pointless because any lessons of practical value in the Genesis creation account will be more or less agreed on by both Christian evolutionists or literalistic Christians.

Interpretum

06-30-2010, 11:37 AM
Hi Seraphim

Seraphim Wrote:
I would say that the creation account was never meant to be taken as literal history in the way modern people understand history.


How would you reconcile that statement with the following verse?

"Six days you shall labor, and do all your work; but the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your manservant, or your maidservant, or your cattle, or the sojourner who is within your gates; for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it." (Exodus 20:9-11)

Did the Jews take this six day working, one day rest literally, or figuratively?

If they took it literally, why would they do that, when God's statement was never meant to be taken as literal history?

I can hear the Jew picking up sticks on the sabbath: "But Lord... the six days were obviously not meant as literal history, so what's the problem?"... just before the stones were hurled at him... as commanded by God himself:

"While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the sabbath day. And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation. They put him in custody, because it had not been made plain what should be done to him. And the LORD said to Moses, "The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp." (Numbers 32:35)

Of course, since this doesn't sit well with our modern scientific viewpoint, it's better to rewrite the meaning of God's word, isn't it?

"This is a history of the heavens and the earth..." (Genesis 2:4)

"The book of the history of Jesus Christ..." (Mathew 1:1)

Maybe the history of Jesus Christ wasn't meant to be taken as literal history as well?

Personally, I prejer to go with the opinion of Jesus Christ, who took the creation account literally:

"He answered, "Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?" (Mathew 19:3-5)

What? No gradually development of single celled organisms over millions of years? You mean, He just made them, from the beginning?

< sound of scientist's heads exploding >

Seraphim

06-30-2010, 01:05 PM
We are not under the Sabbath, now so although a literalistic view would imply that the sabbath is so all encompassing that even creation itself is made after its pattern, and that such a law should apply to all humans for all time, one would think, it being given that status. However that is not the case. The lesson from Genesis I take from Genesis is that one needs to take time out to rest from their normal routine and place ones mind on spiritual things as opposed to just survival pursuits on a regular basis.

I don`t follow the logic that one who believes in evolution and has the view that the creation account is symbolic must also deny that Jesus was literally real and true and from God. Otherwise I would have to except according the same logic, that Revelation must be literally true because Jesus was real, yet even literalistic Christians don`t do that so why should those Christians who believe in evolution do that with Christ? Plus there is much evidence that Jesus really existed.

Now the Jews applied the Sabbath laws in a literal way as you say probably linked from the creation story. However they also had clean/unclean animal distinction classes which they also took literally. This idea also seems to be linked to the creation account. However these food laws were supposed to a symbolic law in order to remind the Jews about the coming Christ. Such laws were to be kept unless life was at stake. The same with the Sabbath laws. However when Jesus did come he did away with the food laws on the common sense ground that unclean animals don`t make people unclean, because what goes into to the stomach doesn't affect the heart. What Jesus says gives a clue as to the intended deeper meaning of the animals distinctions in the creation account itself. It wasn't a literal meaning but a symbolic one.

Now a point on recoding history is that history never used to be recorded in a linear way in ancient times, so I understand it. It wasn't a case that A happened before B. It was apparently more of a case that if B was more important or bigger then A then B became A in the stream of time.

A for what Jesus said here:

"He answered, "Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?" (Mathew 19:3-5)

The lesson from Genesis and Jesus` words is clear no matter if one believes in evolution or literal creation. God thinks its best for Children to have two parents where possible and that marriage is ideally between two people in a hopefully equal relationship. Of course if one was being overly literalistic about Genesis and Jesus quotation of Genesis, it would also mean that the only acceptable grounds for a man to move out of his parents house would be in order to get married as with arranged marriages. It would also cause a problem with the animal kingdom as they were created male and female as well. That unlike with man doesn't mean they should act monogamously, although some animals do. However if one was being very literal animals should if they were created male and female. Again even atheists can work out the wisdom of an equal spousal relationship.

Derek

06-30-2010, 01:25 PM
Hi Matt,
I, like Brian, do not agree with the learned gentleman's assessment.

I know many good Christians who believe in evolution and I do not find they have less real faith than fundamentalist creationists.

Perhaps, rather than doctrine and black and white, it would be better to tease out the central issues.

Like for example,
Where does the Bible speak of special creation...does it not speak about God 'forming' creation?

AND, Why is there a commonality of DNA pattern in species, even down to the corruptions, if creatures are not related in time?

Genesis 1 is about God speaking order and life on Earth, it is not about maths that would not get us past the adding up of unitary numbers stage.
regards
Derek

Mavos

06-30-2010, 01:27 PM

Seraphim Wrote:
We are not under the Sabbath, now so although a literalistic view would imply that the sabbath is so all encompassing that even creation itself is made after its pattern, and that such a law should apply to all humans for all time, one would think, it being given that status. However that is not the case. The lesson from Genesis I take from Genesis is that one needs to take time out to rest from their normal routine and place ones mind on spiritual things as opposed to just survival pursuits on a regular basis.

I don`t follow the logic that one who believes in evolution and has the view that the creation account is symbolic must also deny that Jesus was literally real and true and from God. Otherwise I would have to except according the same logic, that Revelation must be literally true because Jesus was real, yet even literalistic Christians don`t do that so why should those Christians who believe in evolution do that with Christ? Plus there is much evidence that Jesus really existed.

Now the Jews applied the Sabbath laws in a literal way as you say probably linked from the creation story. However they also had clean/unclean animal distinction classes which they also took literally. This idea also seems to be linked to the creation account. However these food laws were supposed to a symbolic law in order to remind the Jews about the coming Christ. Such laws were to be kept unless life was at stake. The same with the Sabbath laws. However when Jesus did come he did away with the food laws on the common sense ground that unclean animals don`t make people unclean, because what goes into to the stomach doesn't affect the heart. What Jesus says gives a clue as to the intended deeper meaning of the animals distinctions in the creation account itself. It wasn't a literal meaning but a symbolic one.

Now a point on recoding history is that history never used to be recorded in a linear way in ancient times, so I understand it. It wasn't a case that A happened before B. It was apparently more of a case that if B was more important or bigger then A then B became A in the stream of time.

A for what Jesus said here:

"He answered, "Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?" (Mathew 19:3-5)

The lesson from Genesis and Jesus` words is clear no matter if one believes in evolution or literal creation. God thinks its best for Children to have two parents where possible and that marriage is ideally between two people in a hopefully equal relationship. Of course if one was being overly literalistic about Genesis and Jesus quotation of Genesis, it would also mean that the only acceptable grounds for a man to move out of his parents house would be in order to get married as with arranged marriages. It would also cause a problem with the animal kingdom as they were created male and female as well. That unlike with man doesn't mean they should act monogamously, although some animals do. However if one was being very literal animals should if they were created male and female. Again even atheists can work out the wisdom of an equal spousal relationship.


I think there is a false dichotomy that is often set up here when it comes to the interpretation of Genesis. Usually its either all symbolic, or all literal. I think a balance is the best. Even if I was to accept evolution, I would still be able to view Genesis 1 and 2 and mainly historical. (Albeit allegorical and stylized history.)



Derek Wrote:
Hi Matt,
I, like Brian, do not agree with the learned gentleman's assessment.

I know many good Christians who believe in evolution and I do not find they have less real faith than fundamentalist creationist.

Perhaps, rather than doctrine and black and white, it would be better to tease out the central issues.

Like for example,
Where does the Bible speak of special creation...does it not speak about God 'forming' creation?

AND, Why is the commonality of DNA pattern in species, even down to corruptions, if creatures are not related in time?

Genesis 1 is about God speaking order and life on Earth, it is not about maths that would not get us past the adding up of unitary numbers stage.
regards
Derek


The learned gentleman allows for a theistic evolution, if you reread him. He just doesn't allow for a naturalistic evolution. Because we believe in God it would be a supernatural evolution. Remember he said, "It seems to me that the mechanism God used to create our physical bodies is not that important."

Derek

06-30-2010, 01:35 PM
Hi Matt,
I certainly agree with what NT Wright said and also believe in Biologos.

God spoke life through his Son.

Beau Wetini

06-30-2010, 01:37 PM
I dont see any difference between believing in Evolution or the traditional Christian interpretation of events.


It doesnt effect the "here and now" - we still need Jesus, we still need Grace, and we still have to wipe our rear ends after we take a dump.


Some things, while seeming important, really arent that important. :friends:

ablebodiedman

06-30-2010, 01:56 PM

digital_punk Wrote:
I dont see any difference between believing in Evolution or the traditional Christian interpretation of events.


It doesnt effect the "here and now" - we still need Jesus, we still need Grace, and we still have to wipe our rear ends after we take a dump.


Some things, while seeming important, really arent that important. :friends:


dp,

Reminds me of a scripture which seems to refer to what happens if we don't wipe our rear ends.

Jude
22 Also, continue showing mercy to some that have doubts; 23 save [them] by snatching [them] out of the fire. But continue showing mercy to others, doing so with fear, while YOU hate even the inner garment that has been stained by the flesh.

Suggesting perhaps that a time may come when we don't have to wipe our rear ends.


Evolution?



In Christ

abe

Beau Wetini

06-30-2010, 02:11 PM

ablebodiedman Wrote:
dp,

Reminds me of a scripture which seems to refer to what happens if we don't wipe our rear ends.

Jude
22 Also, continue showing mercy to some that have doubts; 23 save [them] by snatching [them] out of the fire. But continue showing mercy to others, doing so with fear, while YOU hate even the inner garment that has been stained by the flesh.

Suggesting perhaps that a time may come when we don't have to wipe our rear ends.


Evolution?



In Christ

abe



Well....anything is possible bro! :friends:


I suppose the point I was trying to make was, that a Christian who believes in Evolution, or a Christian who believes in traditional creation are virtually the same -- the effects in having differences in interpretation in this respect are arbituary at best. If they both believe in Jesus, and have faith in Him, THAT superceeds any arguement that one is any less or greater than the other. Another point, is that regardless of how it all came about - it doesnt change much in our day to day dealings with life - you still have to eat breakfast, wash yourself, work, pay bills, etc.

But, it really depends on how tightly people cling to their theological framework of reference. Some people dont like to go outside the boundaries of their own interpretations - and that can be both a safe place, and a dangerous place ---- safe, because it can keep one grounded -- dangerous, because we end up outcasting those who believe differently to ourselves.


I believe in Jesus, and have faith in Him....everything else is up for grabs! :funnyface::thumbsup::grouphug:

:friends::friends::friends:

Seraphim

06-30-2010, 02:21 PM
Hi Mavos:

" I think there is a false dichotomy that is often set up here when it comes to the interpretation of Genesis. Usually its either all symbolic, or all literal. I think a balance is the best. Even if I was to accept evolution, I would still be able to view Genesis 1 and 2 and mainly historical. (Albeit allegorical and stylized history.)"

I agree with you actually. I would say to be more accurate that I tend to towards the allegorical side of that equation, but I see that the literalistic s tend to be more judgmental than the other side in which side is acceptable. An evolutionist Christian wont normally say that the literal view of Genesis denies Jesus and ones faith but a literalistic Christian is far more prone to judge a Christian who believes in evolution. Ironically though I think that this judgmental side can bar one from heaven as it were, because such block the path to Christ making Christianity a literalistic and anti science only option. Thats what I object to. Blocking the path to Christ does tend to bar those who do the blocking ironically.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Paradise Cafe Discussions - A Place For Bible Research And Christian Encouragement > The Bible's Authenticity ... Can It Be Proven Using Non-Biblical Sources? > Science & Archeology > Evolution
Reference URL's