[_ Old Earth _] Christians, why not evolution?

[Drew]

The gospel of Jesus is 100% literal.

Solo, you still are simply claiming things without supporting them with underlying argument. The texts you quote seem to have no bearing at all on the matter at issue. Do you agree that, in a serious debate, claims need to be actually defended, and not just asserted?. That metaphor and allegory is used in the Scriptures is really beyond debate (but if you insist that I provide examples, I will). Given that some text is literal (e.g Jesus born in Bethlehem) and some is allegorical (the parable of the sower), one cannot just claim that a certain item of text is literal (e.g. the creation account). One has to defend such a claim.

 

[dad]

...
And dad, pardon my incredulity, but you are saying that somewhere below the surface of the Earth there lies Satan and a bunch of demons, and that we could dig a whole and actually go down there right now and walk around Hell. This is what you're saying?

Being a spiritual place, you digging down would not help you see the spiritual. There is a prison down there yes, of course, Jesus went and preached for three days there. If you can't see angels here, how would you see devils there? We are seperate at the moment from that realm. When our body dies, yes, our spirit will see other spirits in heaven. (or hell heaven forbid)

 

[dad]

The gospel of Jesus is 100% literal.

Ignoring for a moment that Jesus told many parables that were clearly meant to be taken metaphorically - the good Samaritan, the shephard and his flock, etc.

I believe they are all true stories. They illustrate aa truth, yes, but are also true.

[quote:c52fc]..Others say that God has guided them to believe that much of the "historical" accounts given therein are meant as allegory.

[/quote:c52fc]

So what? Others say God guided them to drop a nuclear bomb, or blow up a village, etc etc. All we have to do is see what He says and did.

 

[ArtGuy]

I believe they are all true stories. They illustrate aa truth, yes, but are also true.

May I ask why? The way in which the story was told is identical to how a parent would tell, for example, the story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf. There is nothing to be gained from it actually being a literal account - that is, the point of the story stands regardless. The people aren't even named, and it was specifically a story told by someone, as opposed to an allegorical account such as the Flood. There's no real reason to believe that they were real people, other than just wishing it were so. So why do you maintain they were real? Do you think that Jesus was incapable of making up a story to convey a point? Do you think that he never did over the course of his life?

 

[Khristeeanos]

The idea of an old earth is pretty common, even among Christians. Why, even in the post about what we believed, only three people who answered believed in a young Earth. Perhaps we're right and you're mistaken, and you'll someday be guided to the truth.

Guess we'll have to wait until we're all in heaven to find out for sure.

We can either wait until we get to heaven, or we can just believe the Bible.

And be assured that majority opinion is usually never correct. How many people bowed down to Nebuchadnezzar?

All but three people!

 

[ArtGuy]

We can either wait until we get to heaven, or we can just believe the Bible.

Every time I hear someone say, "We should just believe the Bible" as if that's any kind of answer as to how we should interpret the Bible, it makes me want to jab sharp implements into my brain.

And be assured that majority opinion is usually never correct. How many people bowed down to Nebuchadnezzar?

All but three people!

The majority of the US is Christian. The majority of people accept Newton's Law of Gravitation. The majority of people accept all manner of ideas that we would both deem correct.

You're correct in that the majority believing something doesn't make it true. But it at least makes a reasonable person give honest consideration to the possibility that they (the majority) may be right. Refusing to consider the possibility makes one closed-minded, not "true to his faith", or whatnot. God doesn't expect us to do without the wonderful minds he gave us.

 

[dad]

...
May I ask why? The way in which the story was told is identical to how a parent would tell, for example, the story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf. There is nothing to be gained from it actually being a literal account - that is, the point of the story stands regardless. The people aren't even named, and it was specifically a story told by someone, as opposed to an allegorical account such as the Flood. There's no real reason to believe that they were real people, other than just wishing it were so. So why do you maintain they were real? Do you think that Jesus was incapable of making up a story to convey a point? Do you think that he never did over the course of his life?

His word was truth, He was the way the truth and the light, and in Him was no darkness. I can not hink of a single reason to assume they were not true stories He related.

 

[ArtGuy]

...
May I ask why? The way in which the story was told is identical to how a parent would tell, for example, the story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf. There is nothing to be gained from it actually being a literal account - that is, the point of the story stands regardless. The people aren't even named, and it was specifically a story told by someone, as opposed to an allegorical account such as the Flood. There's no real reason to believe that they were real people, other than just wishing it were so. So why do you maintain they were real? Do you think that Jesus was incapable of making up a story to convey a point? Do you think that he never did over the course of his life?

His word was truth, He was the way the truth and the light, and in Him was no darkness. I can not hink of a single reason to assume they were not true stories He related.

Aside from all of the points that I just mentioned that you apparently ignored, you're right, there's no reason to think that at all.

Do you really think that God and Jesus are physically incapable of speaking in metaphor? I mean, do you suppose they don't possess this basic skill? Is speaking in metaphor lying, or something? I just really don't get why you're so frightened of the idea that the Bible contains such literary devices as allegory.

 

[dad]

Aside from all of the points that I just mentioned that you apparently ignored, you're right, there's no reason to think that at all.

Do you really think that God and Jesus are physically incapable of speaking in metaphor? I mean, do you suppose they don't possess this basic skill?

Can you demonstrate a few of these that are based on not true stories even in the old Testament? Maybe there are some, I can't think of any off hand. If there was a deception some man did, it is usually related as such. Example David sending a man to the front lines to die, so he could have his wife. Or was it Abraham, or one of those guys, who deceived a king of a land they passed through, that he wasn't married, cause his wife was so cute, he didn't want the king to kill him for her. (Sorry I don't remember the details on this one)
But where is God telling stories based on things that never really happened?

Is speaking in metaphor lying, or something? I just really don't get why you're so frightened of the idea that the Bible contains such literary devices as allegory.

If it were clearly such a thing, fine. But why would I assume the parables were not based on true stories? This smacks of a general philosopy where people relegate the bible to the same level as lying men.

 

[ArtGuy]

If it were clearly such a thing, fine. But why would I assume the parables were not based on true stories? This smacks of a general philosopy where people relegate the bible to the same level as lying men.

Going back to the Good Samaritan et al, it's told as parables usually are, and the actors aren't even given any names. They're told very much in the same spirit as Buddhist koans, which are just short pseudo-stories meant to illustrate a general point. In short, there's no reason at all, short of stubborn adherence to literalness uber alles, to think that it's a historical account. None. It adds nothing to the lesson to assume it's literal, it's told in a different manner than historical accounts, and it's left deliberately vague. Do you have specific evidence to show that it is an actual account? Or just your groundless belief that Jesus wouldn't use allegory?

And may I ask what would make it "clearly such a thing"? Does Jesus have to preface every allegory he uses with, "Okay, this is allegorical, so don't take it as a literal historical account" for you to accept that maybe it's not meant to be an actual account of an actual person?

 

[dad]

...
Going back to the Good Samaritan et al, it's told as parables usually are, and the actors aren't even given any names. They're told very much in the same spirit as Buddhist koans, which are just short pseudo-stories meant to illustrate a general point.

I assume that it was a true story, with a great moral. What Buddists believe, I would not assume to be the same. They are man's tales, and should be treated as such.

[quote:2e49e]In short, there's no reason at all, short of stubborn adherence to literalness uber alles, to think that it's a historical account. None.

Wrong, I know the Author, and that is just the way He is. On the other hand there is NO reason to assume they are untrue parables. Get over it.

It adds nothing to the lesson to assume it's literal, it's told in a different manner than historical accounts, and it's left deliberately vague.

It's kind of nice to know how true they really are.

And may I ask what would make it "clearly such a thing"? Does Jesus have to preface every allegory he uses with, "Okay, this is allegorical, so don't take it as a literal historical account" for you to accept that maybe it's not meant to be an actual account of an actual person?

[/quote:2e49e]
Because we should assume it is true, unless some reason is there to indicate something else is going on.

 

[ArtGuy]

Wrong, I know the Author, and that is just the way He is. On the other hand there is NO reason to assume they are untrue parables. Get over it.

Really? Very well, please provide your evidence that using allegory would be against Jesus's nature. And if you somehow equate the use of allegory with telling lies, you lose.

So far, all you've been able to come up with is, "I like it better that way." Also, rather than simply pretending that I've offered no reasons to support my side, could you please actually address them and explain why they're not valid?

 

[planb]

Wrong, I know the Author, and that is just the way He is. On the other hand there is NO reason to assume they are untrue parables. Get over it.

Really? Very well, please provide your evidence that using allegory would be against Jesus's nature. And if you somehow equate the use of allegory with telling lies, you lose.

From what I know of Him, He is very much a teller of the truth. If you want to challenge that, you must provide evidence. If I said your mother was a liar, if she were alive, and that she really wasn't your mom, but only told you that story as an allegory or something, what would you say? Hopefully, you would say that she wasn't or isn't like that, and you know that is not possible. Same thing here, millions who know Him as true would need evidence of anything else. Not just because it is conveinient to some old ager's opinion of God, or the bible.
[quote:df448]...I've offered no reasons to support my side, could you please actually address them and explain why they're not valid?

[/quote:df448]
You think it kinda is similar to what Buddists do? You gotta be kidding. You have offered no reason whatsoever to evidence that Jesus' parables were not true. Or any other part of the bible, that I recall here. There is no reason to assume they are not true. Those who have assumed the flood and Eden were not true did it largely to try to fit what they thought was science. There is no need for that, cause science tells us nothing of the past being the same.

 

[ArtGuy]

From what I know of Him, He is very much a teller of the truth. If you want to challenge that, you must provide evidence. If I said your mother was a liar, if she were alive, and that she really wasn't your mom, but only told you that story as an allegory or something, what would you say? Hopefully, you would say that she wasn't or isn't like that, and you know that is not possible. Same thing here, millions who know Him as true would need evidence of anything else. Not just because it is conveinient to some old ager's opinion of God, or the bible.

What? That makes no sense. Let's try again.

My mom is very honest. Yet when I was a child, she told me bedtime stories. She also told me stories to teach me lessons - I heard the tale of the Boy Who Cried Wolf, and The Three Bears, and others. Are you saying that my mom would be a liar if those weren't historical accounts of actual events?

Look, telling someone a story about made-up people doesn't make you a liar unless you specifically say it's a real story about real people. Jesus didn't do that. He did not say, "Okay, now I'm going to tell you a story, and it's about real people who really did these things."

I accept that you don't understand what a Koan is, but you may want to educate yourself on the matter. If you knew what I was talking about, you wouldn't be quite so indignant. At any rate, the practice of telling parables is ancient, and has been used by people for as long as there have been people. It's a useful way to convey an idea. Saying that there's no way Jesus could possibly have done this, or trying to claim that telling a parable is somehow dishonest or dishonorable, is simply bizarre.

I mean, do you know what a parable is? Or do you also consider it a sin to tell someone a bedtime story? I mean, that's a lie right?

 

[Khristeeanos]

We can either wait until we get to heaven, or we can just believe the Bible.

Every time I hear someone say, "We should just believe the Bible" as if that's any kind of answer as to how we should interpret the Bible, it makes me want to jab sharp implements into my brain.

That is not a kind way to discuss anything, is it? :

The majority of the US is Christian. The majority of people accept Newton's Law of Gravitation. The majority of people accept all manner of ideas that we would both deem correct.

You're correct in that the majority believing something doesn't make it true. But it at least makes a reasonable person give honest consideration to the possibility that they (the majority) may be right. Refusing to consider the possibility makes one closed-minded, not "true to his faith", or whatnot. God doesn't expect us to do without the wonderful minds he gave us.

Are you trying to suggest that we can just pick and choose what we believe the Bible to say and it is true?

That is called relativism and is not a good way to intrepret the Bible.

I just have one question for you if you would please answer it.

Do you think that God's purpose for telling us how He created was to explain billions of years?

 

[Drew]

Do you think that God's purpose for telling us how He created was to explain billions of years?

If I may stick my snout in here as one who basically agree with everything that ArtGuy has said in this thread.

No. God had a purpose other than teaching us about natural history. The intent of the creation account in Genesis is not to tell us about the timeline of events. The intent is to communicate important truths to us about the nature of man, God and the relationship between the two. Allegory and myth have been used countless times in human history to convey valuable truths.

 

[ArtGuy]

We can either wait until we get to heaven, or we can just believe the Bible.

Every time I hear someone say, "We should just believe the Bible" as if that's any kind of answer as to how we should interpret the Bible, it makes me want to jab sharp implements into my brain.

That is not a kind way to discuss anything, is it?

It's no more or less kind then implying that someone is deliberately disregarding the words of the Bible. It's difficult to respond to argument-by-soundbite.

Are you trying to suggest that we can just pick and choose what we believe the Bible to say and it is true?

That is called relativism and is not a good way to intrepret the Bible.

No, it's not relativism. Not at all. Every word of the Bible is truth, but recognition of that fact tells us very little. And it tells us even less when we're not even using the original texts, but rather translations of translations.

The Bible, in the story of Noah, refers to the "floodgates of the sky". Does this require that there was a literal pair of giant doors in the sky that opened? Of course not. But deducing this fact requires an interpretation outside the literal - it requires the recognition of metaphor. That statement can be 100% true in that God could have made a whole lot of water come out of the sky, yet it still doesn't require the existence of a set of tangible doors floating about in the troposphere. Do you see what I'm getting at? There is "truth" even in non-literal interpretations. It is up to us, as falliable humans, to figure out which truths are literal and which are metaphorical. It's not a matter of relativism at all - relativism is a completely different concept that really has nothing to do with the current conversation.

I just have one question for you if you would please answer it.

Do you think that God's purpose for telling us how He created was to explain billions of years?

Gladly.

I think that the purpose of the first bit of Genesis was to establish that God was the origin of all things in the universe. I think it was to establish that the universe was designed with us in mind, and that all things in it are in some way tied to us. The stars are there for a purpose. The plants and animals are there for a purpose. Nothing is random or by chance, but rather it's all part of a grand design. I think God was smart enough not to try to saddle a primitive people with a poor grasp of science with a long treatise on quantum mechanics and advanced cosmology.

When my daughter gets old enough to ask me where she came from, I will tell her that her mommy and I loved each other very much, and decided to make a little girl so that we could also love her. This is very much true, even if it sidesteps the biological details of how she came to be. She will not be ready to grasp the complete truth, just as early man was not ready to grasp the actual scientific origins for the universe. It was something we were meant to explore on our own, as we saw fit.

In short, I believe that the Biblical account of creation was meant to be an answer to "Why?", not an answer to "How?" In that sense, it is very much true. And I think that is enough.

Now, I hope you can accept that answer without feeling the need to make a snide remark about not "believing in the Bible".

 

[dad]

..
My mom is very honest. Yet when I was a child, she told me bedtime stories. She also told me stories to teach me lessons - I heard the tale of the Boy Who Cried Wolf, and The Three Bears, and others. Are you saying that my mom would be a liar if those weren't historical accounts of actual events?

I tell some of the same tales, but of course let the listener know they are just stories, and not actually true. Hopefully you mom did that too! I have seen some kids who actually believe in Santa.


[quote:d6895]I accept that you don't understand what a Koan is, but you may want to educate yourself on the matter.

I am not that interested in the finer points of Buddism. I think you said it was a part of that?

If you knew what I was talking about, you wouldn't be quite so indignant. At any rate, the practice of telling parables is ancient, and has been used by people for as long as there have been people. It's a useful way to convey an idea.

Of course, so what? Does this somehow mean God is limited to false stories?

Saying that there's no way Jesus could possibly have done this, or trying to claim that telling a parable is somehow dishonest or dishonorable, is simply bizarre.

Again, why would I assume Jesus was not telling a true story with a good moral? He's just that capable.

I mean, do you know what a parable is? Or do you also consider it a sin to tell someone a bedtime story? I mean, that's a lie right?

[/quote:d6895]
Man's stories usually are fables, I expect a little better from the Almighty!

 

[dad]

... The intent of the creation account in Genesis is not to tell us about the timeline of events. The intent is to communicate important truths to us about the nature of man,

Important truths like He was fibbing about Adam and Eve and the flood? Important truths like we evolved actually, and His creation malarky is just humor? Don't think so. What reason can you provide why the bible indicates this? Why are these things mentioned again in the New Testament? There is no indication in the bible of a claim that it is just fables, on the contrary.

[quote:40bf4]God and the relationship between the two. Allegory and myth have been used countless times in human history to convey valuable truths.

[/quote:40bf4]
So what, the question is does God use em?

 

[reznwerks]

timeline

Do you think that God's purpose for telling us how He created was to explain billions of years?

If I may stick my snout in here as one who basically agree with everything that ArtGuy has said in this thread.

No. God had a purpose other than teaching us about natural history. The intent of the creation account in Genesis is not to tell us about the timeline of events.
However that is what he did. From the first words in Genesis it starts out in "the beginning". If that is not a timeline I don't know what is. The whole of Genesis is nothing but a timeline of events.


The intent is to communicate important truths to us about the nature of man, God and the relationship between the two.
Well if thats the case then why did the serpent have it right in the garden caper and the assumptions that man would die when he ate from the tree was false. The nature of man to God would be one of deception not honesty.The serpent was correct in what would happen not was promised from God.

Allegory and myth have been used countless times in human history to convey valuable truths.
It is true that allegory and myth are as prevalent as ever but are they conveying truth?