• CFN has a new look and a new theme

    "I bore you on eagle's wings, and brought you to Myself" (Exodus 19:4)

    More new themes will be coming in the future!

  • Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?

    Join For His Glory for a discussion on how

    https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/

  • CFN welcomes new contributing members!

    Please welcome Roberto and Julia to our family

    Blessings in Christ, and hope you stay awhile!

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

    https://christianforums.net/forums/questions-and-answers/

  • Read the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    Read through this brief blog, and receive eternal salvation as the free gift of God

    /blog/the-gospel

  • Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need

    https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

[_ Old Earth _] Irrational Naturalism

JM said:
If God created man using abiogenesis, then God didn't create man out of nothing, but out of something that God created before He created man.

JM

I'm afraid I don't see a conflict, assuming you are using this to refute the idea outright.

And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky."

And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind."

He created the heavens and the earth and from them came life as He willed it. For one interpretation. Not to speak for Artguy, or assume his stance.
 
JM said:
Death entered the world by the fall, suffering as well, this isn't just found in Genesis but thru out Scripture. You would have to change the meaning of Romans 5:12 Romans 8:20–22 1 Corinthians 15:21–22

In 1 Corinthians 15:26 we find as an enemy, and suffering were not part of creation which will be done away with in Rev. 21:4.

Not a single one of those passages stop making sense if you view the fall as spiritual.

By using the allegorical method you miss the fall of man and the physical realities of that fall from Grace. What I find troubling about what you posted is the absence of the fall of man into sin/death.

Oh, I very much think man fell into sin. That's part of the allegory. I just don't think there were any "physical realities". The physical world is far less relevant than the spiritual, anyway. We're in this world for less than a century, whereas we live in the spiritual kingdom of God for eternity. Of what import are the "physical realities", anyway?

If God can cause a world wide flood, raise the [which is the Christian hope and we have faith in the resurrection], heal the sick and dying, why can't He intensify or use natural law to His will? The Bible doesn't always tell us how things are done, but it does tell us the reason why things are done.

Well, I don't buy the flood, either. You know, that who complete lack of evidence for it, and all. ;)

But at any rate, why would he make a bunch of rules, only later to completely ignore them, and create a world which made the "real" history look like a lie as a result? It would be so much more elegant to simply craft the rules as he knew he would need them down the road. Which is more awesome - to set up a bunch of rules, and then have to ignore them in order to do what you want? Or to set up the rules specifically to create the result you planned for billions of years ago? It's the latter means that truly speaks to the infinite power and wisdom of God.

This isn't an attack on you, but I'd like know, didn't Peligius hold the same view you do?

Not really. Pelegius denied that man was sinful in nature. I don't. I just don't think our fall from grace was due to a literal woman named Eve taking a bite out of a piece of evil fruit. The whole story is pretty silly, when you really try to imagine it.[/quote]

If God created man using abiogenesis, then God didn't create man out of nothing, but out of something that God created before He created man.

Heh, you may want to double-check your Bible. Even in Genesis, God didn't create man from nothing. He created him from clay. You know, earth. Sounds like it could well be a metaphor for abiogenesis, if you ask me. ;)
 
JM said:
by Henry Morris, Ph.D
Evolutionists still place great faith in the famous Miller-Urey experiments of a generation ago, which showed that some amino acids could be synthesized from hydrogen-rich ammonia, methane, and water.
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=art ... ew&ID=2469

What does your side have? You link only offered more questions and no solutions. Not having an answer to something does not default to a God of the gaps. It's OK not to have all the answers. Man is still looking for them. Did you ask yourself why that experiment IS famous? HMM?
 
Art, I see a lot of science and not much Bible in your posts, death was not around before the fall, have a look.
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=art ... w&page=295

Well, I don't buy the flood, either. You know, that who complete lack of evidence for it, and all.

I disagree: http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=hom ... _any=flood :wink:

But at any rate, why would he make a bunch of rules, only later to completely ignore them, and create a world which made the "real" history look like a lie as a result? It would be so much more elegant to simply craft the rules as he knew he would need them down the road. Which is more awesome - to set up a bunch of rules, and then have to ignore them in order to do what you want? Or to set up the rules specifically to create the result you planned for billions of years ago? It's the latter means that truly speaks to the infinite power and wisdom of God.

That's kind of a scary thought Art, why would God kill His son for the sins of the world and then reverse that natural law of death to raise Christ again, or is that just a spiritual meaning as well?

Not really. Pelegius denied that man was sinful in nature. I don't. I just don't think our fall from grace was due to a literal woman named Eve taking a bite out of a piece of evil fruit. The whole story is pretty silly, when you really try to imagine it.

I double check, Pelegius did believe death was nature before the fall. Art, I think you're on a slippy slop into liberalism, I'm worried about you man. It seems you want to spiritualize want the Church has understand as a literal for 2000 years.

Heh, you may want to double-check your Bible. Even in Genesis, God didn't create man from nothing. He created him from clay. You know, earth. Sounds like it could well be a metaphor for abiogenesis, if you ask me.

The sarcasm doesn't help the thread, in fact, I believe it slows things down for a cheap laugh. I admitted I'm a newbie when it comes to science and creation, and yes, I did jump a head of myself. I haven't seen anything that would make be believe God created man with chemical evolution, I remain faithful to the Scriptures and understand man's creation to be by His spoken command.

What does your side have? You link only offered more questions and no solutions. Not having an answer to something does not default to a God of the gaps. It's OK not to have all the answers.

The Christian doesn't have the choice, if he is faithful, to presuppose anything but to default to God. The Bible never argues the fact of God's existance, it assumes it, this is the Christian/Biblical world view. We always default to God and His word.

Man is still looking for them.

Yes, we are still looking for the missing link.

Did you ask yourself why that experiment IS famous? HMM?

It's famous because fallen man's mind is hostile to God and in rebellion.

With so much on my plate right now, I really don’t have time to have an in-depth study into this topic, I’ll be taking breaks here and there but I’ll be back to continue to learn.

Thanks.

JM
 
JM said:
Art, I see a lot of science and not much Bible in your posts, death was not around before the fall, have a look.

Inasmuch as the world is the Lord's doing, I see no reason that an observation of his creation should be divorced from the process of figuring out to interpret his written word. You wish to sit in a darkened room and decipher one of the most complex works ever written without ever looking upon the outside world. I don't. In a discussion of what the Bible says, yes, we should consult only the Bible. In a discussion of what the Bible means, only a fool would close his eyes to the outside world. I don't wish to be such a fool, and I don't think you do, either.

In short, the above statement could be most favorably interpreted as a concession that the available evidence doesn't support your favored interpretation.

[quote:f63e8]Well, I don't buy the flood, either. You know, that who complete lack of evidence for it, and all.

I disagree.[/quote:f63e8]

I know you do. But you can only provide claims from other literalists in support of your contention. That's telling.

That's kind of a scary thought Art, why would God kill His son for the sins of the world and then reverse that natural law of death to raise Christ again, or is that just a spiritual meaning as well?

Man is imbued with sin. What difference does it make to the significance of Jesus's actions whether this sin was the result of a singular act involving an unfortunate piece of fruit, or was a more gradual process involving less poetically pleasing acts of pride and rebellion?

N double check, Pelegius did believe death was nature before the fall. Art, I think you're on a slippy slop into liberalism, I'm worried about you man. It seems you want to spiritualize want the Church has understand as a literal for 2000 years.

Spare me the condescension. I don't need you to worry for my ailing soul, and I certainly don't appreciate you using the l-bomb as a bludgeon to demonize any opposition to myopic literalism.

Oh, and you may want to do your homework on the history of literalism. The literalist movement didn't even exist until the seventeenth century, and didn't gain legs until the twentieth. If you want to profess your allegience to original intent, you'll have to adopt the allegorical approach.

The sarcasm doesn't help the thread, in fact, I believe it slows things down for a cheap laugh. I admitted I'm a newbie when it comes to science and creation, and yes, I did jump a head of myself. I haven't seen anything that would make be believe God created man with chemical evolution, I remain faithful to the Scriptures and understand man's creation to be by His spoken command.

That wasn't sarcasm. That was me correcting an error on your part.

Also, I submit you will never see anything that would make you believe that God created man with chemical evolution. You'd have to divorce yourself of your own sense of infallibility. You can't be convinced that you're wrong if you're not even willing to accept it as a possibility. And given that you keep accusing me of ignoring the Bible and having a liberal agenda, I'm going to guess that you're pretty much unconvinceable.

Let me know if you'd like to have a discussion where you can offer more than passive-aggressive slander.
 
Inasmuch as the world is the Lord's doing, I see no reason that an observation of his creation should be divorced from the process of figuring out to interpret his written word. You wish to sit in a darkened room and decipher one of the most complex works ever written without ever looking upon the outside world. I don't.

You perfer to add in whatever comes along, this is called popular theology.

In a discussion of what the Bible says, yes, we should consult only the Bible. In a discussion of what the Bible means, only a fool would close his eyes to the outside world. I don't wish to be such a fool, and I don't think you do, either.

Only a fool would turn to a fool for his reasoning, which you have done by consulting atheists for your information.

In short, the above statement could be most favorably interpreted as a concession that the available evidence doesn't support your favored interpretation.

If you or anyone else would like to follow the links I provided, you will find evidence, that liberals and atheists alike deny. See also Doubts About Darwinism.

I know you do. But you can only provide claims from other literalists in support of your contention. That's telling.

What's telling is how quick you are to use allegory, it smacks of 19th century Anglican liberalism.

Man is imbued with sin. What difference does it make to the significance of Jesus's actions whether this sin was the result of a singular act involving an unfortunate piece of fruit, or was a more gradual process involving less poetically pleasing acts of pride and rebellion?

Dodge noted. If sin is gradual, then man is not responsible, it was just part of the process and the fall didn't happen and Jesus Christ didn't need to come and die...this is the logical result of your thinking.

Spare me the condescension.

And spare me as well.

I don't need you to worry for my ailing soul, and I certainly don't appreciate you using the l-bomb as a bludgeon to demonize any opposition to myopic literalism.

Your myopic liberalism isn'd hard to miss.

Oh, and you may want to do your homework on the history of literalism. The literalist movement didn't even exist until the seventeenth century, and didn't gain legs until the twentieth. If you want to profess your allegience to original intent, you'll have to adopt the allegorical approach.

You're posting about fundamentalism, not literalism. Have you read the Church fathers? Do YOUR homework, you smack not only of myopic liberalism but neo-Origenism, a mixture of Greek...

A small taste from one ECF Basil (AD 329-379):
In an instantaneous and recent creation.

‘Thus then, if it is said, “In the beginning God createdâ€Â, it is to teach us that at the will of God the world arose in less than an instant, and it is to convey this meaning more clearly that other interpreters have said: “God made summarily†that is to say all at once and in a moment.’ (Homily I:6)

Speaking of Day 3: ‘“Let the earthâ€Â, the Creator adds, “bring forth the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself.†At this command every copse was thickly planted; all the trees, fir, cedar, cypress, pine, rose to their greatest height, the shrubs were straightway clothed with thick foliage.’ (Homily V:6)

‘“Let the earth bring forth.†This short command was in a moment a vast nature, an elaborate system. Swifter than thought it produced the countless qualities of plants.’ (Homily V:10)

Speaking of Day 5: ‘“And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life†after their kind, “and fowl that may fly above the earth†after their kind.†The command was given, and immediately the rivers and lakes becoming fruitful brought forth their natural broods; the sea travailed with all kinds of swimming creatures; not even in mud and marshes did the water remain idle; it took its part in creation. Everywhere from its ebullition frogs, gnats and flies came forth. For that which we see to-day is the sign of the past. Thus everywhere the water hastened to obey the Creator’s command.’ (Homily VII:1)

The days of Genesis Chapter 1 were 24-hour days.
‘“And there was evening and there was morning: one day.†And the evening and the morning were one day. Why does Scripture say “one day the first dayâ€Â? Before speaking to us of the second, the third, and the fourth days, would it not have been more natural to call that one the first which began the series? If it therefore says “one dayâ€Â, it is from a wish to determine the measure of day and night, and to combine the time that they contain. Now twenty-four hours fill up the space of one dayâ€â€we mean of a day and of a night; and if, at the time of the solstices, they have not both an equal length, the time marked by Scripture does not the less circumscribe their duration. It is as though it said: twenty-four hours measure the space of a day, or that, in reality a day is the time that the heavens starting from one point take to return there. Thus, every time that, in the revolution of the sun, evening and morning occupy the world, their periodical succession never exceeds the space of one day.’ (Homily II:8)

The order of events in Genesis Chapter 1, days one to six are as it happened. For example, plants were created before the sun.
‘“And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, and to divide the day from the nightâ€Â. Heaven and earth were the first; after them was created light; the day had been distinguished from the night, then had appeared the firmament and the dry element. The water had been gathered into the reservoir assigned to it, the earth displayed its productions, it had caused many kinds of herbs to germinate and it was adorned with all kinds of plants. However, the sun and the moon did not yet exist, in order that those who live in ignorance of God may not consider the sun as the origin and the father of light, or as the maker of all that grows out of the earth. That is why there was a fourth day, and then God said: “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven.â€Â’ (Homily VI:2)

Evolutionary ideas are contrary to Scripture.
‘Avoid the nonsense of those arrogant philosophers who do not blush to liken their soul to that of a dog; who say that they have been formerly themselves women, shrubs, fish. Have they ever been fish? I do not know; but I do not fear to affirm that in their writings they show less sense than fish.’ (Homily VIII:2)

The Creation was originally ‘very good’ and completely lacking in evil.
‘“And God saw that it was good.†God does not judge of the beauty of His work by the charm of the eyes, and He does not form the same idea of beauty that we do. What He esteems beautiful is that which presents in its perfection all the fitness of art, and that which tends to the usefulness of its end. He, then, who proposed to Himself a manifest design in His works, approved each one of them, as fulfilling its end in accordance with His creative purpose.’ (Homily III:10)

‘“In the beginning God createdâ€Â. He did not make the thing itself the cause of its existence. Being good, He made it an useful work. Being wise, He made it everything that was most beautiful. Being powerful He made it very great. Moses almost shows us the finger of the supreme artisan taking possession of the substance of the universe, forming the different parts in one perfect accord, and making a harmonious symphony result from the whole.’ (Homily I:7)

Speaking of Day 3: ‘But then the rose was without thorns; since then the thorn has been added to its beauty, to make us feel that sorrow is very near to pleasure, and to remind us of our sin, which condemned the earth to produce thorns and caltrops.’ (Homily III:6)

The words are to be understood by their plain meaning, not allegorized.
‘I know the laws of allegory, though less by myself than from the works of others. There are those truly, who do not admit the common sense of the Scriptures, for whom water is not water, but some other nature, who see in a plant, in a fish, what their fancy wishes, who change the nature of reptiles and of wild beasts to suit their allegories, like the interpreters of dreams who explain visions in sleep to make them serve their own ends. For me grass is grass; plant, fish, wild beast, domestic animal, I take all in the literal sense. “For I am not ashamed of the Gospel†[Rom. 1:16].’ (Homily IX:1)

To interpret Scripture otherwise is to put ourselves above God, the Holy Spirit, who inspired its writing.
‘It is this which those seem to me not to have understood, who, giving themselves up to the distorted meaning of allegory, have undertaken to give a majesty of their own invention to Scripture. It is to believe themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit, and to bring forth their own ideas under a pretext of exegesis. Let us hear Scripture as it has been written.’ (Homily IX:1)

That wasn't sarcasm. That was me correcting an error on your part.

You'd have to divorce yourself of your own sense of infallibility before I'd be able to continue. ;-)

Also, I submit you will never see anything that would make you believe that God created man with chemical evolution. You'd have to divorce yourself of your own sense of infallibility. You can't be convinced that you're wrong if you're not even willing to accept it as a possibility. And given that you keep accusing me of ignoring the Bible and having a liberal agenda, I'm going to guess that you're pretty much unconvinceable.

Let me know if you'd like to have a discussion where you can offer more than passive-aggressive slander.

By your above quote I think it's safe to assume you've been called a liberal before :lol: I can almost see the hair on the back of your neck standing up! I'm not slandering anyone, what you've posted is considered liberal theology, it's not modern conservative...and not fundamental...it's liberal.

I'll continue to worry,

JM
 
JM said:
Man is imbued with sin. What difference does it make to the significance of Jesus's actions whether this sin was the result of a singular act involving an unfortunate piece of fruit, or was a more gradual process involving less poetically pleasing acts of pride and rebellion?

Dodge noted. If sin is gradual, then man is not responsible, it was just part of the process and the fall didn't happen and Jesus Christ didn't need to come and die...this is the logical result of your thinking.
I will stick my schnozz in at this point.....

Artguy's statement is not a dodge. Nor is there anything problematic at all with his statement.

It simply does not follow that "if sin is gradual, then man is not responsible." Consider someone who becomes addicted to junk food. This addiction can be the cumulative result of numerous "small" acts of giving into the temptation to eat the wrong food. It does not have to result from a single act of mass ingestion of junk food. This man "fell" either way.

I understand the temptation to want to locate a discrete event to associated with the Fall - but this is an artifact of making things simple to understand, not a necessary state of affairs to establish that Man, in fact, fell. None of the theologically significant substance is lost by arguing for a "poetic" interpretation where the eating of the fruit symbolizes mans collective descent into disobedience over time.

The easiest account man's fall is one where it is occasioned by a single event. The easiest account may not be the correct one, and other considerations (such as putative evidence for evolution) need to be brought to bear.
 
JM said:
You perfer to add in whatever comes along, this is called popular theology.

I wasn't aware that wisdom demanded the discarding of all information that didn't support one's preconceived notions. Popular theology? Try "intellectual honesty." At the end of the day, despite frequent bloviation about how you "trust in what GOD says over what MAN says hur hur hur", you're simply placing a falliable man-made interpretation in front of another falliable man-made interpretation. And to this, you can only respond, "Oh yeah? Well God says I'm right, neener neener." And this is generally the part where you tell me I'm not a real Christian, and when I become truly saved, I'll know that you're right and I'm wrong, and you weep for my soul. I've been through this dance before.

Only a fool would turn to a fool for his reasoning, which you have done by consulting atheists for your information.

Oh really? Are you saying that there are no qualified scientists in support of evolution who are also Christians? See, your problem - which is a common one - is that you conflate secularism with atheism.

If you or anyone else would like to follow the links I provided, you will find evidence, that liberals and atheists alike deny. See also Doubts About Darwinism.

I've seen it all before. And it's all been answered before.

What's telling is how quick you are to use allegory, it smacks of 19th century Anglican liberalism.

There's the l-word again. The first, last, and everywhere-in-between resort of the defensive fundie. It's telling that you treat the word as a pejorative.

Dodge noted. If sin is gradual, then man is not responsible, it was just part of the process and the fall didn't happen and Jesus Christ didn't need to come and die...this is the logical result of your thinking.

Dodge? How so? And how would man not be responsible? Just as the evil of man was less pronounced at the time of Adam than at the time of Noah, it was less pronounced at the dawn of man (that is, it was zero) than at the time God condemned all manking to damnation.

Yours isn't the "logical" result of my thinking. It's the illogical result of an inability to understand what the hell I'm talking about.

Your myopic liberalism isn'd hard to miss.

Ooh, a pun. Well met, sir. Well met.

You're posting about fundamentalism, not literalism. Have you read the Church fathers? Do YOUR homework, you smack not only of myopic liberalism but neo-Origenism, a mixture of Greek...

No, I'm speaking of literalism. A few scholars from way-back-when espoused an "interpretation" that was "literal" largely because there was no way to conceive of anything else, due to a lack of understanding of modern science. At the same time, others - notably St. Augustine - stated that we should not interpret the Bible in such a way as to conflict with scientific understanding. Smart fellow, St. Augustine.

By your above quote I think it's safe to assume you've been called a liberal before :lol: I can almost see the hair on the back of your neck standing up! I'm not slandering anyone, what you've posted is considered liberal theology, it's not modern conservative...and not fundamental...it's liberal.

Yes, I've been called "liberal" by irrational self-professed conservatives, just as I've been called "conservative" by irrational self-professed liberals. To the extent that fundamentalism and literalism are comparatively new phenomena, they would more accurately be described as "liberal". My interpretation is the more conservative, by several hundred years.

At the end of the day, though, my interpretation is not "liberal" or "conservative". Those words imply an agenda. I have no agenda. My world will not be shattered if I'm proven wrong. Yours will. Therein lies the difference between us, and therein lies the explanation for your inability to maintain an honest and civil discussion of the matter.
 
See, your problem - which is a common one - is that you conflate secularism with atheism.

See, your problem - which is a common one - you believe the Bible allows the believer to be secular and accecting of a worldview that is found within secularism.

Dodge? How so?

I asked a question and you didn't respond, this is called a dodge, you posted a question...

No, I'm speaking of literalism. A few scholars from way-back-when espoused an "interpretation" that was "literal" largely because there was no way to conceive of anything else, due to a lack of understanding of modern science.

Again, do your homework: On the fourth day the luminaries came into existence. Since God has foreknowledge, he understood the nonsense of the foolish philosophers who were going to say that the things produced on earth came from the stars, so that they might set God aside. In order therefore that the truth might be demonstrated, plants and seeds came into existence before the stars. For what comes into existence later cannot cause what is prior to it. Theophilus

Augustine wrote: Some hold the same opinion regarding men that they hold regarding the world itself, that they have always been . . . . And when they are asked, how, . . . they reply that most, if not all lands, were so desolated at intervals by fire and flood, that men were greatly reduced in numbers, and . . . thus there was at intervals a new beginning made. . . . But they say what they think, not what they know. They are deceived . . . by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6,000 years have yet passed.

At the end of the day, though, my interpretation is not "liberal" or "conservative". Those words imply an agenda. I have no agenda. My world will not be shattered if I'm proven wrong. Yours will. Therein lies the difference between us, and therein lies the explanation for your inability to maintain an honest and civil discussion of the matter.

Members on this forum can testify to the fact that I've changed my views on a number of topics more then once, I've been willing to accept correction, and my faith remains intact. It seems you've fooled yourself, you don't think you have an agenda, but you do. The inability to maintain honest discussion can work both ways, but until you'd have to divorce yourself of your own sense of infallibility we can't continue. :lol: You have more in common with "open-minded, moderate, freethinking, laissez-fare" Christians and secularsim then you do with historic confessional Christianity [I didn't use the L word once! While you use the F word over and over again, it doesn't bother me.]. "Due to your lack of understanding..." of Christian thought and the Bible in general there was no way to conceive of anything else but the material.

:D I'll leave this thread with Drew's words, he seems to sum up what both or you are saying, "The easiest account man's fall is one where it is occasioned by a single event. The easiest account may not be the correct one, and other considerations (such as putative evidence for evolution) need to be brought to bear."
 
JM said:
I asked a question and you didn't respond, this is called a dodge, you posted a question...

I thought I had. You should've clarified what you were asking, rather than being snarky. Are you asking why God would go to the trouble of raising Jesus from the dead physically, if spiritual death were the only thing relevant? I would say to make a point. If God had resurrected Jesus's spirit, but not his body, how would anyone have known? God raised Jesus in body to illustrate in no uncertain terms that death was not an end. As Jesus was resurrected in body, so will we be resurrected in spirit.

But I guess that's a pretty secular interpretation.

Members on this forum can testify to the fact that I've changed my views on a number of topics more then once, I've been willing to accept correction, and my faith remains intact. It seems you've fooled yourself, you don't think you have an agenda, but you do.

Really? See, funny thing - when I came here, I was a Creationist. It took chatting with a bunch of people who knew what they were talking about before I switched my stance. How does that fit into your "agenda" theory?

Also, may I ask what things of note you've changed positions on? Did you use to not tar and feather people who disagreed with you as liberals and secularists? Because if so, maybe you should consider changing back.

Oh, and lastly, I only mentioned the word "fundie" once, not over and over (you, yourself, used it at least twice, maybe more, so I assumed you identified yourself thusly). By your reasoning, this means you're defensive about something, I suppose. What might that be?
 
Drew said:
JM said:
Man is imbued with sin. What difference does it make to the significance of Jesus's actions whether this sin was the result of a singular act involving an unfortunate piece of fruit, or was a more gradual process involving less poetically pleasing acts of pride and rebellion?

Dodge noted. If sin is gradual, then man is not responsible, it was just part of the process and the fall didn't happen and Jesus Christ didn't need to come and die...this is the logical result of your thinking.
I will stick my schnozz in at this point.....

Artguy's statement is not a dodge. Nor is there anything problematic at all with his statement.

It simply does not follow that "if sin is gradual, then man is not responsible." Consider someone who becomes addicted to junk food. This addiction can be the cumulative result of numerous "small" acts of giving into the temptation to eat the wrong food. It does not have to result from a single act of mass ingestion of junk food. This man "fell" either way.

I understand the temptation to want to locate a discrete event to associated with the Fall - but this is an artifact of making things simple to understand, not a necessary state of affairs to establish that Man, in fact, fell. None of the theologically significant substance is lost by arguing for a "poetic" interpretation where the eating of the fruit symbolizes mans collective descent into disobedience over time.

The easiest account man's fall is one where it is occasioned by a single event. The easiest account may not be the correct one, and other considerations (such as putative evidence for evolution) need to be brought to bear.

Actually (the part I bolded), what you said reminds me of what I've thought before. The who first part of Genesis reads, . . . .like a story one would give to a child to put them to sleep at night, or to entertain them, . . . . or to "make them aware" of how they (the children) should learn to grow up with a fear of God. It is worded VERY simplistic . . . . . too simplistic to be considered literal.
 
Orion said:
Actually (the part I bolded), what you said reminds me of what I've thought before. The who first part of Genesis reads, . . . .like a story one would give to a child to put them to sleep at night, or to entertain them, . . . . or to "make them aware" of how they (the children) should learn to grow up with a fear of God. It is worded VERY simplistic . . . . . too simplistic to be considered literal.

The most likely reason for the structure of Genesis 1 is as a systematic rejection of polytheism, and this is how it was often construed back in the day. Consider that prior to the inception of Judaism, ythe dominant religions were things like the Roman and Greek pantheons, where you have a god to handle every aspect of life. You have your sun god, and your moon god, and your wine god, and your god of the dead, and your god of agriculture, and your god of ham-on-rye-hold-the-pickles, and so on. Genesis was a stey-by-step renunciation of that thinking. On the first day, the Bible does away with the idea of gods of light and darkness. In subsequent days, it eliminates the gods of the sea, of the earth, of the sun and moon, of animals, of plants. It establishes that there is only one God, and He is supreme over all creation.

Viewed in this light, Genesis makes a whole lot more sense.
 
Back
Top