Should we take the creation story literally?


(Andrew M. Wolfe) #41

LOL so all feminists are pagans, by definition?


(Wookin Panub) #42

No, but no discerning Christian should be calling herself or himself a feminist.

(1 John 2:16) “16 For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life—is not from the Father but is from the world.”


(Andrew M. Wolfe) #43

I’m curious how all this connects (because to me, the verse you’ve cited is a non sequitur and has nothing to do with feminism), but I’ll let it drop… We’re probably too far off topic and will never come to agreement on this.

But needless to say, there are lots of folks that look at how Jesus allowed women to be the primary witnesses to His resurrection at a time when women’s testimony wasn’t even admissible in court (to take one of several examples), and they say Jesus had some pretty progressive views on women for his day.

Not sure it’s such a bad thing to be a feminist and a Christian. Probably depends on what you mean by “feminist.”


(Wookin Panub) #44

Feminism is a sin as a result of man’s sin. Man did not heed God’s word about protecting the female, cherishing her, sacrifice for her and women paid in kind; instead of looking to God. They looked inward became combative and competitive, choosing to usurp the role of males-against God’s design and intended order. This is the sin at the garden of Eden. Both male and female took their eyes off of God and placed it on each other’s faults and weaknesses. In order to appease their flesh


(James McKay) #45

Wookin, the whole point that @jpm is making here is that you need to make sure your facts are straight. Demonstrably false claims will just undermine the credibility of your entire Christian witness. Bad arguments don’t uphold the Bible: on the contrary, they undermine it.

The fact remains that, regardless of the worldview of the “Love, Joy, Feminism” blog, she is pointing out hard facts. Facts don’t cease to be facts just because they are being stated by someone with a worldview you disagree with. One plus one is still two, regardless of whether it is said to be by Billy Graham, the Pope, Richard Dawkins, or Enid Blyton.

What you need to do is to address the specific points that she makes in her blog post and explain exactly why they are wrong.


(Wookin Panub) #46

Billy Graham…the pope? :slight_smile: I think I can do just a tad better than these gentleman when it comes to theologians. Anyway I don’t know how to make this any clearer. She is wrong. I, myself, can look in scripture and see that for myself. Jesus references the creation of the world in Mark. Jesus references those who die by the sword in the book of John. That is two. She said, only one Note: The one she referenced I didn’t reference.


(Aaron) #47

My childhood pastor was always referencing Narnia and Lord of the Rings to help us relate and understand better. Unfortunately, they didn’t happen in our past exactly as stated so the truth of the story is null and void. Also, since he was a liar, I am forced to disregard everything he taught me.

As far as feminism goes, I’m not sure what your definition is. You make it sound like women should be delicate flowers in need of a man’s protection. You’re reading deep into an allegory in an attempt to fit the narrative you would like.


(Aaron) #48

In regard to Jesus referencing the old testament, do you believe Jesus to be omniscient? It’s quite the tangent but perhaps relevant in my understanding your view point better.


(James McKay) #49

You can make it clearer by giving some specific examples. What, exactly, is she saying that is wrong, and exactly what evidence do you have to contradict it?


(Wookin Panub) #50

My childhood pastor was always referencing Narnia and Lord of the Rings to help us relate and understand better.

I am sorry to hear that. That is not a wise thing for a pastor to do. Sounds like he had no trust in scripture, or for that matter, in you guys as well. I let my kids plainly read the bible, and then we discuss what we read by using scripture

As far as feminism goes, I’m not sure what your definition is. You make it sound like women should be delicate flowers in need of a man’s protection. You’re reading deep into an allegory in an attempt to fit the narrative you would like.

I merely gave a systematic approach to scripture explaining God’s role for men and women.

22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word…

28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church,


(Wookin Panub) #51

No. We clearly see in scripture that certain things i.e. day of his return, were held from Jesus while he was in the form of a man


(Wookin Panub) #52

That Jesus reiterated more than once from the book of Genesis


(James McKay) #53

Wookin, that isn’t being specific. Quote some specific things she said. Give some specific Bible verses or other references that contradict her.


(Wookin Panub) #54

I gave two of them; Mark 13:19 Matthew 26:52


(Aaron) #55

Since we’ve established he wasn’t omniscient I’d like to know how you can believe anything he says? Since we are dealing in absolutes either he knows everything or nothing can be trusted due to lack of infinite knowledge.


(James McKay) #56

And how, exactly, do these verses falsify what she said?


(Wookin Panub) #57

I never made the claim that what Jesus said could not be trusted. I am making the opposite claim. As far as ominsicent. Just because Jesus didn’t know everything doesn’t mean he knew nothing either.

46 After three days they found him in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. 47 And all who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers.


(Wookin Panub) #58

She said there was only 1. I just gave two more.


(Aaron) #59

You’ve made my point for me. You say if Jesus references the creation story that it must be historical fact or else Jesus is a liar. If Jesus is not all-knowing though, there is no way to to determine what, if anything, he says is fact. It’s all faith based. He was working with the same knowledge others were at the time. Perhaps he knew it was an allegory anyways and it just didn’t matter.


(James McKay) #60

She said that Jesus quotes Genesis only once. She also admitted that He references Genesis on other occasions, but she is quite careful to draw a distinction between referencing Genesis and quoting from Genesis. In any case, even given these other references, Genesis falls far, far short of being Jesus’s most quoted Old Testament book, as AIG/ICR/CMI claim.

As for the verses you’ve just quoted:

Mark 13:19:

because those will be days of distress unequaled from the beginning, when God created the world, until now–and never to be equaled again.

This does not quote Genesis. It merely mentions the creation of the world, without so much as a hint of a position on either how old the earth is, or on who or what did or did not evolve from what.

Matthew 26:52:

“Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.

This does not quote Genesis either, nor does it even mention creation. At best you could argue that there’s a possible allusion to the story of Cain and Abel, but that is stretching it, to say the least.