Mmmmhhhh, so does this lend credence to the biologian supposition that Genesis 1 is not history?
The reason I ask is that Genesis 1 states clearly that God created man in His own image. Furthermore on the same day Adam could talk and interact with God and the animals. So if this is the case then Adam did not grow from infancy and by extension Adam could not have had a human body. Hence one must conclude that Genesis 1 and 2 is not historical??? Does that make sense given the statement you have made regarding the nature of constructed versus human bodies?
Gmt, I think the logic here does not compute. The conclusion that God has two or more rules does not follow from the âifâ statement.
The answer to the seeming conundrum is simple - in the beginning God created everything and it was âvery goodâ. There was no sin, no disease, no pain as a result and no suffering followed by death. This is the clear reading in Genesis 1.
Then sin entered the world and with it death. But of course along the path to death was pain, disease, suffering and all the other ills that come along for the ride.
So that at some point the person who should have been walking, is not, and hence when Jesus performed his miracle it was to address one particular case of suffering in a sin-cursed world.
Now the problem for biologians is that they cannot explain your question to you in such simple terms. Why? because they cannot tell you that everything was perfect in the beginning since they adhere to pain, suffering and death as being the driver of evolution. Hence, your conundrum: The God that âcreatedâ via evolution must have been responsible for the pain, suffering and death all along and hence God is definitely the author of a dichotomy: You either walk by His decision or you donât. Sin has absolutely no play in it.
gmt.
A wonderful desire indeed!
Perhaps if you have not considered a different point of view you should also look at the creation.com, icr.org and answersingenesis.org websites.
There you will find people who believe the bible as it stands and yet are also fully scientists with PhDs etc.
Beware of taking biologians word that biblical creationists not do understand science. Rather investigate it for yourself and come to your own conclusions.
Before this you said that the world was âvery goodâ and here you say it was perfect. Which one does Genesis actually say?
1 Like
Thank you Prode!
Interesting sites.
1 Like
I think claiming Genesis to be history by modern standards as a specialized activity separated from other activities is absurd. I think it is far more reasonable to believe that this came from a time of fireside stories which served a variety of purposes including philosophy, theology, bedtime stories, law, history, and entertainment.
The understanding of the meaning of that statement is one of the things in the Bible where you find considerable diversity of thought. I find the idea that this is referring to the human form and shape (i.e. anthropomorphic) to be ridiculously superficial.
Science does not support the idea of absolute time, therefore there is no reason whatsoever to think that the temporal ordering of the actions of God is the same as the temporal ordering of the universe. The text does not support this assumption ether for the temporal measures day and night for man in the universe depend on the motion of the astronomical bodies being created in this narrative.
The conclusions you are forced to by the premises you accept are not the conclusions other people are brought to with the premises they accept.
So⌠yes, my statements make sense in the context of the premises I accept as true. The most important of these is that life requires growth and learning. Golems of dust and bone animated by the magic of ancient necromancers (if you believe in such things), I would not consider to be any more alive than robots and machines.
1 Like
Always nice to hear from a Christian with both feet planted firmly on the ground.
Planted so firmly they will never be moved?
Calling God a necromancer and a creator of robots is so anthropomorphic, to the point God may as well be a dreamer.
I would like to point out that Humans were given the choice to bring evil into the universe. Probably too great of a burden to place on one species, but we have certainly made great use of evil. God returning the favor does flatter us.
If God predicted that we would choose to allow evil just because ethically there will always be a choice between the lesser of two evils, free will would never be a possibility. Some like to point out that God was evil in allowing the choice to begin with. The lesser of two evils in that choice as well?
If you paint a picture of an apple and call it God, then I say, âthat is an apple,â surely you donât think that means I am calling God an apple. Likewise when people twist portions of the Bible to make God into a necromancer or a dreamer, then when I say âthat is a necromancer,â or âthat is a dreamer,â that doesnât mean I am calling God a necromancer or a dreamer. Not unless you confuse your painting of God with God Himself, in which case we have an example of idolatry, donât you think?
Why should we assume that this choice was given only to us? The evil we have introduced into the world doesnât have much affect on the vast majority of the universe. It really is only one ball of dust orbiting one of billions of stars in one galaxy among trillions.
God chose to allow evil, we chose to do evil. Free will is not about a choice between good and evil. That is just an unfortunate side effect. Free will is about choosing who we become as we learn and grow. It is not evil to allow others to choose things for themselves except in the mind of a control freak. God chose love and freedom over power and control. There is no lesser of two evils in this at all. There is only the childlike have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too attitude that wants love without freedom and freedom without responsibility.
Except for the fact that sin is there even without action. God sees sin in the thoughts and heart even if we do not act upon it. Evil only reigns because of Adam, not because it is acted upon continously. It did effect the whole universe. Unless you think the reason we have not left the Solar system, is because we would take sin with us. Otherwise the rest of the universe is just a fake canvas that we were never a part of. It seems like all the interaction at one time with angels, Satan, and God that humans did have access to the whole universe. The loss of interaction did effect the rest of the universe.
If you have knowledge that the rest of the universe is doing fine, then I stand corrected. Paul thought that it did. Does the whole universe sin? Probably not. I do not think that evil is a thing if that is what you are saying. Evil is a result of us making wrong choices is a point I would agree on. I still do not get the point God is a control freak because sin is not allowed. Nor is carrying out justice. Unless justice is wrong as well? Getting what people deserve has two sides. According to God in Adam, we only deserve punishment. In Christ we deserve life everlasting. Technically to God what we do deserves nothing. Only what Adam and Christ did, gets deserved status to God. How humans treat other humans is up to humans in peer review who get to decide punishment and who deserves what, justly or unjustly. We are not perfect.
Tim, I can understand your positioning the fall, and used to think so myself. Randy put a link to this article on another link, and I wonder what you think of it?Was There a "Fall" or Did Augustine Really Screw Everything Up?
If you read Paulâs view of the Jews in light of the olive tree, it seems to me that Paul stated no Jew would be condemned. All Jews would be reconciled to God regardless of sin. Was he addressing the prophecy of bringing dry bones back to life? Was Paul a Calvanist about Jews, and an universalist by then bringing all the Gentiles onboard? You have to remember that Augustine was still in the period where Gentile Christians still vehemently viewed the Jews as bad for crucifying Jesus. Technically while the Jews claimed they would give their blood as punishment for turning Jesus over to the Romans, they really had no choice in the matter. The plan was always for Jesus to die on behalf of the whole world, not just his own people who wanted him dead.
So historically it seems no one paid attention to Paul, until Augustine changed his mind on the matter.
The elect are not just the disciples called by Jesus during his earthly ministry. Not just the Jews viewed through Paul. Not just those Gentile Christians who hated the Jews. How would Calvin hundreds of years later know who has or has not been elected?
Jesus gave us the answer while on earth in the Parable of the wedding. The end being that many are called but few are chosen. That was way before the concept of the âelectâ. In the Parable only one person was lost. The Jews represented by the original invitation was Judaism. They chose on their own not to even come to the wedding. How can they be elect? Paul said they would never parish, not because of their religion, but because Jews as a whole will be saved in the end. So who are the few chosen. Which would fit who the âelectâ are. Any one who accepts the calling as is, ie accepting the calling via Godâs terms wearing a wedding garment. All those who come found not wearing a wedding garment are not chosen, nor âelectâ.
The reason why Adam and the advent of sin is important, is because God chose Adam out of the rest of created humans as the Representative. God chose the tribe of Jacob whom was renamed Israel, as Representatives. The first representative failed as the keeper who did not keep sin out of the world. Even Cain who would have taken over failed, because he let sin into his life as well. The Hebrews failed because they broke the covenant. The only way Gentiles and Jews can fail is if they come to the wedding without a wedding garment. Or one can not come at all.
So to me election is a mute point altogether. A wrong view of history drawing the wrong conclusion. Only at the end of time will God say depart from me, I never knew you. Currently God knows all things. The decision is still personal; not to show up, or not clothed in grace and mercy. Or covered by the atonement of the cross. Paul pointed out that Jesus was both the sin offering that God demanded in the Law or first covenant. But also the second Adam for all mankind. Sorry biology deals with the physical aspect of life. One would be wrong if evolution had anything to do with Godâs plan. Or we could say there was no plan to begin with. I think that would be just as wrong as the Jews rejecting Jesus. But I do not think that God forces one to reject Godâs plan.
Sin consists of self-destructive habits of both thought and action. But sin is degenerative problem, so as long as there is sin, it only gets worse. We can put up some resistance but bad habits of thought always leads to bad habits of action eventually somehow.
Incorrect. Evil reigns because we follow Adam and yes because it is acted upon continuously. But no it did not effect the whole universe â only a very minute corner of it.
We havenât left the Solar system because the universe is designed that way. Stellar empires are pure fantasy and impossible.
The universe is Godâs canvas not ours and no we were never a part of most of it and never will be.
I have knowledge that we have no impact on the rest of the universe. Whether it is doing fine or not is a matter of the choices of others rather than ourselves.
Incorrect. Paul had no conception of the universe. He was concerned with the world he knew, which was not even the whole of the earth. And yes because we who sin were put in charge of the earth, it does indeed groan in travail because of our mismanagement and irresponsibility. This is well known.
There is no way to know what is happening elsewhere. God would likely say it is none of our business.
Evil is the pursuit of ones desires at the expense of others who ought to have our regard because they are like us.
God is not a control freak despite what many say when they recreate God in their own image. Only a God who has chosen love and freedom over power and control would create life, for it serves no purpose but its own. The point was that only a control freak would think that love and freedom is a lesser of two evils â either that or they insist on having love without freedom and freedom without responsibility.
Sin IS ALLOWED! That is the whole point of freedom! The problem is that sin is destructive of ourselves and the world. I suppose people simply resent that they cannot sin without consequences.
Justice is inevitable because actions have consequences. Every tyrant and criminal will eventual create their own opposition and downfall. The only exception was perhaps the world before the flood where evil had such a stranglehold that God felt mankind needed to start over again, but God made sure it wouldnât go the same way after that by scattering mankind over the earth with a multitude of languages and cultures â using the same strategy of competition as He did with evolution.
According to Satan we only deserve punishment. Perhaps you have confused the two somewhat. Heaven and hell is not about deserving but about the consequences of sin.
In Christ we have a opportunity for new life. Eternal life is a relationship with God and that is what God wants. It is why God created us. But it has to be a choice, so God says, âI set before you life and death, therefore choose life.â
Incorrect. Read Matthew 25. How we treat other humans is how God consider us as treating Him. Read Isaiha 1. More than sacrifices and religious ceremony, God just wants us to seek justice, correct oppression, and help those in need.
I need both in my life. Also, great post.
1 Like
Are you quoting this out of context? This chapter is the proof you are arguing against. Did I leave out choice? Does God have a perspective? You claim this is what God said. I was not pointing out a personâs ability to choose. I was pointing out what life and death are.
We do not need an outside accuser, even if history points out one exist. That is blame shifting. I agree it is our choice and ours alone. It was Adam who put us in this postion, not God. God does not give death because it was Godâs choice. God provides life because God chooses to do so. As pointed out, humans deserve nothing. That is the evolutionary view. That was the human condition before Adam. God gave Adam a choice. Because of Adamâs choice, humans started to deserve death. God chose to become flesh via the Word. The Word, obedient to God, became flesh in the form of Jesus, died, and rose again. Now humankind gained a way to deserve life everlasting. You then used Godâs quote to argue against the two options.
If Adam ate and nothing happened there would not be death. How did death evolve? What neccessitates death? Satan wanted death to be separate from the spiritual condition. His argument was then, God would not kill humans physically. Satan did not trick God into allowing the seperarion of the physical from the spiritual. Satan did not trick Adam into disobeying. The part no one wants to admit in todayâs political awareness is that Satan tricked Eve. That does not necessarily mean women are any different from men socially in a bad way. It was Eveâs choice that gave into the trick, but it was still Adamâs choice to disobey God. If you want to keep or remove Eve or Satan as participants, it does not change the sole decision of Adam no matter how speculative or figurative you want to make that point in history out to be.
Technically in context, the time for that choice has not even come yet, and it may not be for all mankind. We are back to the point many are called, few are chosen. Who do you think, in context to the chapter even gets to decide between life and death? Or does what anyone thinks or believes even matter? How close to the truth can we get before it offends our personal sensibilities?
No. That is a choice we all make. To embrace the challenge of life to learn and grow or to petulantly reject with some pathetic excuse such as âI didnât ask for this,â as if life were about only getting what you want.
No that is not a topic you covered. You were talking about deserving and I think this just becomes an excuse to concoct entitlement for those who follow some set of dictated rules such as believing in a set of dogma.
There was no human condition before Adam. God gave Adam the âbreath of lifeâ (i.e. inspiration) which is the essence of our humanity. God also gave Adam a common parental commandment like âdo not play in the street or you will die.â The purpose of these is not to give the child a choice. It is simply a necessary step in parenting so that the child can learn to manage their own life and well being. Choice is simply the essence of life itself. The possibility of evil and death is not its purpose but an unavoidable reality of life.
No. Death is simply the consequence of failing to acquire the necessities for life. The self-destructive habits of sin simply make failure inevitable. It is not about deserving but about consequences. Again I cannot help but think all this talk deserving is just a way of justifying an attitude of entitlement â so you can say that as a Christian you are entitled to something.
I used Godâs quote to say that a relationship with God has to be a matter of choice.
Death did not evolve. Death is a natural unavoidable part of life. Evolution shows that life only exists because of death. Life is not some magical stuff added to matter. There is no such stuff. Life is a self-organizing process which makes choices, grows, and learns.
Yet you bring this up about Eve because you think it is relevant in some way. You apparently think it means something important. You probably think with your disobedience theology that this means Eve sinned first. Which is just like Adam passing the blame to Eve and God who gave her to him. But the first real sin was that passing of blame. So if you really want to assign the consequences which followed to specific people, then to Adam we can attribute the demise of our relationship with God and demise of love and relationships between men and women, while to Eve we can attribute creation of an adversary. But in reality it all one like a circle, and we shouldnât be assigning blame anyway, but taking responsibility for things ourselves.
Do you expect to sacrifice your intellectual and/or moral integrity for salvation? I think only the devil would strike such a bargain with you.
Science or Christianity? I want both for myself
I am an religious evolutionist. My interpretation of the bible makes evolutionary sense.
(so far only to me). Still looking for converts to my theories.
Hello, Shaun. Just want to mention that one way you can put both science and faith together on the same page is to think of God as both scientist and poet. God the Scientist uses the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology to create the pages of a Divine book, which can be beautiful in themselves but are truly brought to life (so to speak) when God the Poet places words of the Heart upon the pages. The science combined with the poetry creates something greater than the sum of the parts. The mystery of the science within faith and the faith within science underlies everything in Creation, so you never have to choose between the two. Donât apologize for the importance of science in your life. Instead, rejoice in the wonder of a God who is both scientist and poet, and do your best to respect and emulate the author of Creation by using science to enhance faith, and faith to enhance science. Both are relevant to all aspects of your human life.
God bless.
You might be interested in some of my thought expressed on this forum. I consider myself a religious evolutionist.