[_ Old Earth _] To "Christian" evolutionists

[freeway]

Who better knows? Someone that is "studying the creation" or the Creator Himself?

The creator. Unfortunately He doesn't tell us about how He created everything. Genesis was written by Moses, not God...and it has "this is a metaphor!" written all over it. It makes no sense when taken as literal history and is completely incompatible with the available evidence when taken as such.

Hence it makes sense to study the actual creation as a guide to the interpretation of genesis.

METAPHOR.....are you serious.. If we as christians start picking areas and try to make the bible fit our way of thinking just to better suit us, then what about the plan of salvation "must be born again" or that "Jesus rose up on the third day". do you take that and call it a metaphor,, this is dangerous ground and we must tread lightly...
As far as evolution and creation.. they both can only take you as far as that magic word "faith"
Science.. in its pure form tries to look and decide where it is wrong and then tries to fix or find the right answers "usually."
But science can only take you to a point to which you have to make a leap of "faith" and believe in it..
Christiantly.. for the sake of argument "tries" to explain the creation and the creator and again this can only take you to a point and then it relies on you taking the next step "faith"
So if God did create life all at once without evolution "which I believe" then Him being God that can do this I do not see why he would need a time table of billions of years instead of just 6 days, after all He is God....

God bless..... freeway

 

[Drew]

METAPHOR.....are you serious.. If we as christians start picking areas and try to make the bible fit our way of thinking just to better suit us, then what about the plan of salvation "must be born again" or that "Jesus rose up on the third day". do you take that and call it a metaphor,, this is dangerous ground and we must tread lightly...

I do agree that we must be careful not to "allegorize the gospel away to nothing".

But I do think that jwu is right here - the language and imagery of the creation account are really so suggestive of a non-literal story that I think his take is justified. We have a snake representing the devil, for example. Do you think that the devil is actually a snake?

And besides, the Scriptures are full of metaphorical imagery. What do you think of this passage from Rev 6:

I watched as the Lamb opened the first of the seven seals. Then I heard one of the four living creatures say in a voice like thunder, "Come!" 2I looked, and there before me was a white horse! Its rider held a bow, and he was given a crown, and he rode out as a conqueror bent on conquest.
3When the Lamb opened the second seal, I heard the second living creature say, "Come!" 4Then another horse came out, a fiery red one. Its rider was given power to take peace from the earth and to make men slay each other. To him was given a large sword.

5When the Lamb opened the third seal, I heard the third living creature say, "Come!" I looked, and there before me was a black horse! Its rider was holding a pair of scales in his hand. 6Then I heard what sounded like a voice among the four living creatures, saying, "A quart[a] of wheat for a day's wages, and three quarts of barley for a day's wages,[c] and do not damage the oil and the wine!"

7When the Lamb opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth living creature say, "Come!" 8I looked, and there before me was a pale horse! Its rider was named Death, and Hades was following close behind him. They were given power over a fourth of the earth to kill by sword, famine and plague, and by the wild beasts of the earth.

9When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained. 10They called out in a loud voice, "How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?" 11Then each of them was given a white robe, and they were told to wait a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and brothers who were to be killed as they had been was completed.

This text seems full of non-literal imagery, fiery horses, crowns, the Lamb, death as the rider of a horse, souls packed under an altar, white robes, etc.

Do think this is an account we should take literally?

 

[jwu]

METAPHOR.....are you serious.. If we as christians start picking areas and try to make the bible fit our way of thinking just to better suit us, then what about the plan of salvation "must be born again" or that "Jesus rose up on the third day". do you take that and call it a metaphor,, this is dangerous ground and we must tread lightly...

Even in today's use of language things like "eating from the tree of knowledge" would be a perfect metaphor for intellectual development. After all, knowledge is often represented as a tree - the trunk are the basic principles on which the other things build up.

However, Adam and Eve were punished by having to work on the fields and Eve in particular with painful childbirth. How does this particular punishment make sense as a consequence of eating from some forbidden literal tree? Not much.

As a metaphor for the intellectual development of mankind however this does make sense. It's exactly that which made men settle down and become farmers instead of hunters and gatherers, and it's exactly that which causes painful childbirth: due to the increased size of the skull, caused by the larger brain.

 

[Packrat]

METAPHOR.....are you serious.. If we as christians start picking areas and try to make the bible fit our way of thinking just to better suit us, then what about the plan of salvation "must be born again" or that "Jesus rose up on the third day". do you take that and call it a metaphor,, this is dangerous ground and we must tread lightly...

Even in today's use of language things like "eating from the tree of knowledge" would be a perfect metaphor for intellectual development. After all, knowledge is often represented as a tree - the trunk are the basic principles on which the other things build up.

However, Adam and Eve were punished by having to work on the fields and Eve in particular with painful childbirth. How does this particular punishment make sense as a consequence of eating from some forbidden literal tree? Not much.

As a metaphor for the intellectual development of mankind however this does make sense. It's exactly that which made men settle down and become farmers instead of hunters and gatherers, and it's exactly that which causes painful childbirth: due to the increased size of the skull, caused by the larger brain.

There is a lot of later tree and fruit symbolism in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures. Some examples deal with comparing trees and fruit to specific people or more abstract concepts such as wisdom. The wisdom one can be found somewhere in Proverbs I think. I tend to hold the belief that the Tree of Life in the Garden was God and that the fruit of the Tree of Life symbolized the closeness of being with God, thus giving eternal life. They were expelled from God's presence because of their sin and the fruit of the favor or grace of God was then withheld from them. That's just my take on it.

 

[Jayls5]

METAPHOR.....are you serious.. If we as christians start picking areas and try to make the bible fit our way of thinking just to better suit us, then what about the plan of salvation "must be born again" or that "Jesus rose up on the third day". do you take that and call it a metaphor,, this is dangerous ground and we must tread lightly...
As far as evolution and creation.. they both can only take you as far as that magic word "faith"
Science.. in its pure form tries to look and decide where it is wrong and then tries to fix or find the right answers "usually."
But science can only take you to a point to which you have to make a leap of "faith" and believe in it..
Christiantly.. for the sake of argument "tries" to explain the creation and the creator and again this can only take you to a point and then it relies on you taking the next step "faith"
So if God did create life all at once without evolution "which I believe" then Him being God that can do this I do not see why he would need a time table of billions of years instead of just 6 days, after all He is God....

God bless..... freeway

Certainly there is a ton of metaphorical use in the Bible.

People who say the Bible should be taken literally, word for word need only reference John 6.35 where Jesus says "I am the bread of life"

He's not a walking piece of baguette. The bible is meant to be interpreted metaphorically.

 

[Guest]

Certainly there is a ton of metaphorical use in the Bible.

People who say the Bible should be taken literally, word for word need only reference John 6.35 where Jesus says "I am the bread of life"

He's not a walking piece of baguette. The bible is meant to be interpreted metaphorically.

That's the problem tho, my interpretation of the bible and yours may be COMPLETELY different! I can't agree with someone's interpretation of the bible, because I think mine is correct and his is not, but only God is right...but the only tangible thing "from" God is the bible, and we can't even agree on that. Now we have a Catholic interpretation, a Protestant, a Puritan, a Baptist, a Southern Baptist, an Evangelist, etc... Would you fly in a plane if the manual for flying is under interpretation? You get on the plane one day and the pilot's interpretation is that if he puts the throttle in reverse at 30,000 ft, the plane will go forward... how comfortable will you be in that plane?

There are interpretations of the bible has lead to completely opposite ideas: from monasticism to capitalism and "Why God wants you to be rich"... As we have seen in the past, people's interpretation of the bible have taken us upon many horrible paths:
1. Burning at the stake.
2. Hanging.
3. Drowning.
4. Pressing.
Those were all methods of killing "heretics" and "witches", not to mention the endless tortures... today we do not interpret the bible in that way anymore, but it makes me wonder: what should and should not be interpreted literally in the bible? If some things can be interpreted literally, and others can't, then who decides? Is that open to interpretation too? So I guess we need someone to interpret how we should interpret the bible... OH, I'M GETTING SO CONFUSED NOW !

 

[freeway]

freeway01 wrote:
METAPHOR.....are you serious.. If we as christians start picking areas and try to make the bible fit our way of thinking just to better suit us, then what about the plan of salvation "must be born again" or that "Jesus rose up on the third day". do you take that and call it a metaphor,, this is dangerous ground and we must tread lightly...

Me quoting myself, can be very dangerous...
guys and gals the METAPHOR statment was not meet to say that parts of the bible are not used as a metaphor, talking about one thing to get something across. "Like the bread of life, I am the true vine", etc. I was talking about trying to fit the bible into what we want or the way we want to interpet it to fit our way of thinking, or to make it fit our thoughts at the monent. I believe parts of the bible are to be taken just as it says, "Jesus wept", no second guessing or trying to find a "deeper" meaning. So hope I didn't step on any toes.

In Christ... freeway

 

[Jayls5]

Certainly there is a ton of metaphorical use in the Bible.

People who say the Bible should be taken literally, word for word need only reference John 6.35 where Jesus says "I am the bread of life"

He's not a walking piece of baguette. The bible is meant to be interpreted metaphorically.

That's the problem tho, my interpretation of the bible and yours may be COMPLETELY different! I can't agree with someone's interpretation of the bible, because I think mine is correct and his is not, but only God is right...but the only thing that relates us to God is the bible, and we can't even agree on that. Now we have a Catholic interpretation, a Protestant, a Puritan, a Baptist, a Southern Baptist, an Evangelist, etc... Would you fly in a plane if the manual for flying is under interpretation? You get on the plane one day and the pilot's interpretation is that if he puts the throttle in reverse, the plane will go forward... how comfortable will you be in that plane?

There are interpretations of the bible has lead to completely opposite ideas: from monasticism to capitalism and "Why God wants you to be rich"... As we have seen in the past, people's interpretation of the bible have taken us upon many horrible paths:
1. Burning at the stake.
2. Hanging.
3. Drowning.
4. Pressing.
Those were all methods of killing "heretics" and "witches", not to mention the endless tortures... today we do not interpret the bible in that way anymore, but it makes me wonder: what should and should not be interpreted literally in the bible? If some things can be interpreted literally, and others can't, then who decides? Is that open to interpretation too? So I guess we need someone to interpret how we should interpret the bible... OH, I'M GETTING SO CONFUSED NOW !

It's not my problem, I'm not Christian. :-D

But obviously, either the Bible was meant to be taken metaphorically at times, or Jesus is a piece of bread.


The bible has historically been interpreted in ways that completely contradict others, granted. From my perspective, it's obviously just a reference of moral authority that is vague enough for people to justify almost anything they want to do to people. I know it's probably blasphemy for me to mention him here, but Nietzsche's interpretation of religion and morality seems plausible.

I made this video last semester for a presentation:

http://www.radford.edu/%7Ejseemuell/Final%20Project.wmv

It has a lot of shock value (Nietzsche did not adhere to Nazi ideals), but you can see the core of his explanation behind morality.

It's not coincidence that you almost never see someone say, "This is what God says about what is moral" and not have that individual happen to believe everything that "God" says. It's just someone interpreting vague religious text. Coming from a Christian perspective, I can see why you'd be troubled by this. You want to put your morality upon that pedestal as well. Everyone wants their interpretation of morality to be the objective right one.

Thus, the religious moralist paints himself upon the wall and proclaims, "Ecce Homo!" (behold the man!)

 

[Texasgirl]

Certainly there is a ton of metaphorical use in the Bible.

People who say the Bible should be taken literally, word for word need only reference John 6.35 where Jesus says "I am the bread of life"

He's not a walking piece of baguette. The bible is meant to be interpreted metaphorically.

That's the problem tho, my interpretation of the bible and yours may be COMPLETELY different! I can't agree with someone's interpretation of the bible, because I think mine is correct and his is not, but only God is right...but the only tangible thing "from" God is the bible, and we can't even agree on that. Now we have a Catholic interpretation, a Protestant, a Puritan, a Baptist, a Southern Baptist, an Evangelist, etc... Would you fly in a plane if the manual for flying is under interpretation? You get on the plane one day and the pilot's interpretation is that if he puts the throttle in reverse at 30,000 ft, the plane will go forward... how comfortable will you be in that plane?

There are interpretations of the bible has lead to completely opposite ideas: from monasticism to capitalism and "Why God wants you to be rich"... As we have seen in the past, people's interpretation of the bible have taken us upon many horrible paths:
1. Burning at the stake.
2. Hanging.
3. Drowning.
4. Pressing.
Those were all methods of killing "heretics" and "witches", not to mention the endless tortures... today we do not interpret the bible in that way anymore, but it makes me wonder: what should and should not be interpreted literally in the bible? If some things can be interpreted literally, and others can't, then who decides? Is that open to interpretation too? So I guess we need someone to interpret how we should interpret the bible... OH, I'M GETTING SO CONFUSED NOW !

You have hit upon the crux of the issue with the unbiblical doctrine of sola scriptura. Bob Sungenis, whose conversion story to Catholicism is covered in the book "Surprised by Truth" equated the rebellion of the Protestant reformation to the many times in the OT that God gave the people exactly what they wanted. Rather than sticking with the church and working for internal renewal, they opted for divorce, the destruction of the family and rebellion from authority. The result he says is that God has given them not only a different church, but more churches than they can count. They received what they wanted -- protest against any authority in the church, and much more as it rapidly became 'protestors' protesting against their fellow 'protestors', spawning thousands of quarelling sects. He (as many) found that once he actually read and understood Catholic doctrine as taught by the church (rather than by its enemies), the church of the Bible was there all along. And we don't have issues with confidence in a clear interpretation of scripture.

 

[Guest]

And we don't have issues with confidence in a clear interpretation of scripture.

The Bible is the universal book for Christians, but different interpretations lead different conclusions:
mysticism vs capitalism.
Mysticism says that people should get rid of all of their material things and devote their lives to God (maybe not all, but that's the ultimate good). One should only have enough to survive, one should not need anything material, because God provides all.

Capitalism, in recent years there has been a strong drive to use scripture and provide a case for "Why God wants you to be rich!".

Two dramatically different ideas spawning and backed by the same book: the Bible. I would call this an issue of interpretation. The interpretation changes with time, we no longer burn "witches" at the stake (luckily), although some Christians today go and protest at US soldier's burials saying that the soldier's death is God's repercussion for US tolerance of homosexuality...

 

[Orion]

And we don't have issues with confidence in a clear interpretation of scripture.

The Bible is the universal book for Christians, but different interpretations lead different conclusions:
mysticism vs capitalism.
Mysticism says that people should get rid of all of their material things and devote their lives to God (maybe not all, but that's the ultimate good). One should only have enough to survive, one should not need anything material, because God provides all.

Capitalism, in recent years there has been a strong drive to use scripture and provide a case for "Why God wants you to be rich!".

Two dramatically different ideas spawning and backed by the same book: the Bible. I would call this an issue of interpretation. The interpretation changes with time, we no longer burn "witches" at the stake (luckily), although some Christians today go and protest at US soldier's burials saying that the soldier's death is God's repercussion for US tolerance of homosexuality...

Not to derail this thread, but I just wanted to pop in to say that Fred Phelps and his minions are by no means "the look of Christianity". They are a lunatic fringe at best, dangerous to many.

As to "interpretation", we may never know who has the right interpretation, but it is odd that two diametrically opposed views can have a lot of followers, and be taken from the same holy book. :-?

 

[Guest]

Not to derail this thread, but I just wanted to pop in to say that Fred Phelps and his minions are by no means "the look of Christianity". They are a lunatic fringe at best, dangerous to many.

As to "interpretation", we may never know who has the right interpretation, but it is odd that two diametrically opposed views can have a lot of followers, and be taken from the same holy book. :-?

That's exactly my point, but the Fred Phelps type was a majority at one point! And if anybody wants to live their life by the Bible, they are on the wrong path, since their life can take completely opposite paths based on their "interpretation" of the bible. Technically, they can go to hell if they try to live by the Bible and take the "wrong" interpretation.

 

[Orion]

Well, doGoN, you could be right in that someone can read the Bible and still miss the truth. A person can interpret things for their own benefit, . . . but that doesn't make it true, or even good. Phelps and his minions are among such people.

It may not even be a problem of JUST "interpretation", but of "translation". I know you don't believe in God, but here is something that would be true. If you had a being that was so advanced as to have "God like characteristics", I would bet you that having such a being speak thoughts to VERY primative men, and trying to translate those thoughts into simplistic (for the most part, "2 dimentional") human speech, I bet you would have a lot of trouble with that. Then, take these primative men and you have the makings of misunderstanding, misinterpretation, and even self centered inputs, and you can have ideas written that may not have been exactly what that advanced being even said.

It would be the same as the inventor(s) of the most advanced piece of technology on the planet trying to get the most primative tribe on the globe to understand how it works, then have the build it. . . . . . . . it isn't going to happen. They are going to loose a LOT of information, only gathering, probably, the most basic operations, then with their own limited knowledge (after these inventors leave) try to get others to understand what they were taught, which will obviously be a poor attempt at best, and no where to the level of recreating this technology. They'll create the image out of bamboo, sticks, and rocks and believe they have it all figured out, then base their entire generational futures on it.

Does that make this inventor wrong, or just misunderstood to the level of the inventors knowledge? The wrong would go to the tribe. Bringing it around the Biblical text, there is a scripture that says that we "look through a glass darkly" saying that we don't see everything here, but in Heaven, "face to face", we will know. The problem comes when men think they have all the answers, and say "if you don't believe it OUR way, then you're (fill in the blank)". Fred Phelps, and those like him, are such people.

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

...As to "interpretation", we may never know who has the right interpretation, but it is odd that two diametrically opposed views can have a lot of followers, and be taken from the same holy book. :-?

You are so right, Orion.

In fact, it seems that it is possible for people to claim to be a Christian, yet not believe anything that the Bible says from either diametrically opposed view, or anything in between.

The funny thing is that, simply because they can't find the answer ~ they therefore believe that there is no answer to be had.

Go figure. :smt102

 

[Jayls5]

Not to derail this thread, but I just wanted to pop in to say that Fred Phelps and his minions are by no means "the look of Christianity". They are a lunatic fringe at best, dangerous to many.

As to "interpretation", we may never know who has the right interpretation, but it is odd that two diametrically opposed views can have a lot of followers, and be taken from the same holy book. :-?

That's exactly my point, but the Fred Phelps type was a majority at one point! And if anybody wants to live their life by the Bible, they are on the wrong path, since their life can take completely opposite paths based on their "interpretation" of the bible. Technically, they can go to hell if they try to live by the Bible and take the "wrong" interpretation.

I'm going to take a wild guess and say that you think your interpretation is the right one.

 

[Guest]

I'm going to take a wild guess and say that you think your interpretation is the right one.

I don't believe that the Bible should be used at all, it's wrong by default... the Bible as a whole makes no claim for divine authorship. Although many passages are quoted in God's name, the five books of Moses (Genesis through Deuteronomy) never assert that their entire content is divine. So the slippery slope wreaks havoc with arguments about biblical authorship. If one word, just one word, of the Bible is in fact of human origin, then how can one defend the divinity of any of it? If one word, why not two, or 10, or the whole book?
That doesn't mean that God doesn't exist, but anything written in the Bible should be taken with a grain of slat... heck, I take that back: anything written in the Bible should be taken with a brick of salt!

 

[Jayls5]

I'm going to take a wild guess and say that you think your interpretation is the right one.

I don't believe that the Bible should be used at all, it's wrong by default... the Bible as a whole makes no claim for divine authorship. Although many passages are quoted in God's name, the five books of Moses (Genesis through Deuteronomy) never assert that their entire content is divine. So the slippery slope wreaks havoc with arguments about biblical authorship. If one word, just one word, of the Bible is in fact of human origin, then how can one defend the divinity of any of it? If one word, why not two, or 10, or the whole book?
That doesn't mean that God doesn't exist, but anything written in the Bible should be taken with a grain of slat... heck, I take that back: anything written in the Bible should be taken with a brick of salt!

Ah, fair enough. My apologies for misjudging.

 

[Guest]

I'm going to take a wild guess and say that you think your interpretation is the right one.

I don't believe that the Bible should be used at all, it's wrong by default... the Bible as a whole makes no claim for divine authorship. Although many passages are quoted in God's name, the five books of Moses (Genesis through Deuteronomy) never assert that their entire content is divine. So the slippery slope wreaks havoc with arguments about biblical authorship. If one word, just one word, of the Bible is in fact of human origin, then how can one defend the divinity of any of it? If one word, why not two, or 10, or the whole book?
That doesn't mean that God doesn't exist, but anything written in the Bible should be taken with a grain of slat... heck, I take that back: anything written in the Bible should be taken with a brick of salt!

Ah, fair enough. My apologies for misjudging.

No need to apologize

 

[Guest]

Well, doGoN, you could be right in that someone can read the Bible and still miss the truth. A person can interpret things for their own benefit, . . . but that doesn't make it true, or even good. Phelps and his minions are among such people.

I really respect your opinion, you are one of the few Christians around here who can think straight! I don't mean to offend anybody, but you really are the type of person that should be representing Christianity: someone with common sense.

It may not even be a problem of JUST "interpretation", but of "translation". I know you don't believe in God, but here is something that would be true.

I understand that you may feel that way, and you may have noticed, I look at things in "reverse order" and often come to some completely different conclusions (I find it humorous that people don't, and I do it for that purpose)... If you do tend to come to some realization, then believe me: it's just for kicks! On to what I believe:

I believe in God, but I don't believe in the Biblical representations and "interpretations" of God, because the Bible was written by people who claim to be inspired by God, then edited by the Church. And I am in STRONG opposition of the Church for MANY reasons; mainly, I think it derails from the teachings of Jesus, and I think it's trying to act as a mediator between God and People- the only person that can do that is Jesus himself.

You are completely on the ball with your claims here, and for the rest of your post! I completely agree and I have a hard time trying to explain that to other people. I'm also repelled by the level of misrepresentation of modern science amongst Christians:
I recently had an argument with a guy who had a problem with me claiming that Evolution is not in contradiction with God. It boiled down to him saying that if I believe we came from apes, then I must believe that God looks like an ape because he made us in his image. I completely disagree with him, because I believe God made us in his spiritual image, which has nothing to do with the vessel of flesh which we are occupying while on Earth. Even more, representing God as a human (old, chubby, white guy with a white beard and white hair, and I'm not talking about Santa here) should be a travesty.

God is called the Creator of Life (and the Universe), the events that followed after the creation of life and the Universe are hardly more than a guess by humans who wrote the bible and who didn't and couldn't have understood the magnitude of God's creation. Trying to describe the creation of life without the knowledge of Science is next to impossible to do- actually even with Science it still seems beyond us, but it does seem more understandable.