Appreciate your honesty. I had similar reasons, but here are the counterarguments:
This is the argument from incredulity: I can’t believe all of this arose from chance.
Morality isn’t objective; it is learned behavior.
3a) The resurrection narratives in the gospels are the most difficult to reconcile. I know because I’ve tried to do it. And then there is the ascension into the heavens …
3b) The Christian narrative of justice and reconciliation is compelling. It’s worth hoping is true, which is why I’m still a Christian.
Read the post i quoted from St Roymond and Richard…it is specifically sbout his statement using the word “restore”.
Restore means rebuild right…so if St Roymond claims the gospel is to rebuild, then how does that fit an evolutiomary model of life going from primitive to…well enlightenment?
It restore] is contrary to the evolutionary model.
The bible model for restoration is that man was created “without blemish”, sinned and became blemished, then through the plan of salvation will be restored along with all creation to the former unblemished state!
Not arguing the heavenly sanctuary doctrine. Theology is like links in a chain, break one and the chain fails.
Im not following the question. Are you christian because it amazes you? Christ performed miracles that absolutely caused individuals who witnessed them to marvel…thats true, however, note they also marvelled at his wisdom! There is wisdom to be found in bible theology and doctrine…even the heavenly sanctuary (which is easily proven with bible theology not disimilar to the doctrine of the trinity)
Justice = The Old Testament Tabernacle and legal system…the law. Almost no christian church who worships on sunday agrees we are even still under the Old Testament Law!
Reconcilliation - reconciling what? St Roymond uses the term restore with reconcile…evolution does not agree that God is rebuilding something that was once unble.ished and is now blemished. That notion adhears directly to the young earth creationist model!
Your theology is mixed up and contradictory to the very scientific belief you aee following here…this is why you are barely hanging on!
Go back to basics and rebuild your beliefs…align them biblically first. Then take another look at the world around you.
The first does not need answering…because we are already on a forum discussing these issues with dozens of others who grizzle and grumble that someone doesnt follow their claims!
The second question has already been answered in the post immediately above yours that I’ve quoted here. but for the sake of the repeated question, i will repeat the answer:
I am not demanding that you must follow the sanctuary doctrine…or any doctrine. All i can do is present the evidence…up to you what you choose to do with it. The gospel doesnt need to be about making demands of us (even though in reality if we ignore the gospel we ignore salvation and redemption). I don’t think you are ignoring the gospel because you don’t have an interest in the heavenly sanctuary.
Sin came into the world through one man, and his sin brought death with it. As a result, death has spread to the whole human race because everyone has sinned
14Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who did not sin in the way that Adam transgressed. He is a pattern of the One to come.
18So then, just as one trespass brought condemnation for all men, so also one act of righteousness brought justification and life for all men. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
What was the act of Righteousness that Christ performed? Was it not giving up his life for us and our sins…dying on the cross?
We are not separated from our creator because of a primitive evolutionary model where the inability of mans mental capacity caused him to be isolated from or rejected by his own creator. That is 100% not biblical!
If you believe that Christ only decided to engage with the “sick” and deformed" during his ministry…what kind of God is that? God has never demonstrated he is like that even in the old testament .
take the old testament story of Mephibosheth…( i wont quote the whole story but you can look it up)
Mephibosheth was five years old when both his father and grandfather died at the Battle of Mount Gilboa. After the deaths of Saul and Jonathan, Mephibosheth’s nurse took him and fled in panic. (2 Samuel 4:4) In her haste, the child fell, or was dropped while fleeing. After that, he was unable to walk…David showed kindness to Mephibosheth by restoring him to his honor, land, and table.
That’s a question I have no interest in since I refuse to follow your example and introduce science into theology.
If we take Paul at his word, believing we are still under the Law makes one not even a Christian.
But not exclusively – and that’s one of your problems: you treat anything that can be in agreement with YEC as evidence for YEC, which is fallacious reasoning.
One problem: what you mean by “biblically” is not faithful to the text, and indeed does not make for Christian theology – Christian theology starts at the Cross.
The Gospel ISN’T “about making demands of us”! There are no demands in the Gospel, there is only invitation.
Why do you think that science is a source for theology?
He sort of said so . . .
And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”
The catch is that there are none righteous and none who are healthy. As Oswald Hoffman put it, "There are no “ninety and nine!”
The universe could be the result of random chance with no inherent purpose or meaning and I have no problems with that conclusion actually from a scientific perspective. Since you can’t really prove either way whether the order in the universe points towards a purpose for it or if the appearance of purpose is illusory, I choose to believe there is a purpose for it and that God is behind it because it is a more compelling story to live out in my opinion.
I don’t think you can really make the statement that morality is just learned behavior or that it is objective since I don’t think we really have indisputable proof for either position. My point is not to make a case for objective morality as much as to say that an objective morality that transcends human cultural and behavioral norms requires a transcendent source. You could say that we don’t actually need objective morality, but I think very few people actually live that way. We tend to live as if morality is objective and that things like genocide are wrong regardless of the culture in which you live, even if the culture itself would disagree with you. To live this way makes the most sense if morality does in fact have a transcendent source, otherwise how could really say that the culture is wrong or right about anything?
3a. Yes, there are different versions of it, but a clear historical fact seems to be that something happened which led the disciples to believe that Jesus rose from the dead. In looking at different explanations for the resurrection (wrong tomb, bribed the guards, it was a midrash, they just made it up, etc.), I have come to the conclusion that the one which makes the most sense is that Jesus did in fact rise from the dead. You might disagree with me. I am just saying that is the conclusion I have come to based on my own studying and I respect that other people might have come to different conclusions.
Firstly, both of your responses to my posts have completely avoided the dilemmas presented to you. You have intentionally not quoted or addressed the theological problems…and that is what you do almost every time on these forums!
Secondly, I don’t claim science is my source for theology…that is your demonstrable position…not mine. I claim the bible… and the huge number of bible texts i reference in all of my theological positions on these forums are proof of that !
Thirdly, please do not quote me out of context with regard to Christ healing the sick. You full well know that avoids the real issue there…which is the evolutionary demand that we are evolving into less primitive minds that are capable of understanding right and wrong. it is that notion that is at complete odds with the nature of sin. The bible very clearly demonstrates that Adam had the capacity to name the animals prior to the fall. Given that fact, he was intellectually capable of making choices in law and he made a choice to disobey…he fully knew what he was doing.
Adam wilfully disobeyed a command of God and we know biblically that sin is the transgression of the law
So the law clearly already existed before the fall because they [Adam and Eve] cannot be arraigned without a standard by which to arraign! you are attempting to argue God made up the law after Adam and Eve sinned. This is complete nonsense.
That the law already existed before the fall is not only common sense, its still common law in our current age… just like you take current natural processes and apply them to ancient times, i can also fully do the same in this and you cannot deny it without also falsifying your own suppositions there…and that [the falsification of long ages of time] would be catastrophic to your entire world view…but in this way, your supposition about time fully supports my supposition about law pre-dating Adam and Eve!
Now i know that your belief in “naturalisms” conclusion after looking at the science, is very clearly that prior to the fall of Adam and Eve, early humanity wasn’t capable of making those choices because they did not have the mental capacity to do so. I disagree with that position because as a Christian, it is not consistent with the writings of the bible. And given the Bible is the foundation of my world view, its credibility is dependant on internal consistency across its pages.
Finally, your statement from Hoffman…Christs claim he only came to save sinners is irrelevant. We already know from Romans that through one man all have sinned and through the righteousness of one man all are saved! That is a mute point that already aligns with my world view…we do not disagree about that (so I’m not sure why you are even arguing it)
The fact remains…the biblical position is:
Creation
The Fall
Plan of Salvation
The Cross and ressurection
Second Advent
New Heavens and New Earth - Restoration
It should be rather elementary for anyone reading the themes of the bible to recognise that restoration means something broke and needs fixing. Given we are physically here, that the physical consequences of sin are everywhere (crying, suffering, tears, sickness etc), its absurd to make the claim that the bible is a metaphorical book of enlightenment.
Christ physically lived among us and physically died on the cross. None of that was metaphorical and yet all of it fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament…literally!
The Second Coming…its 100% biblically a physical event…we will see christ come in the clouds, we will literally see individuals rise from the grave, we will see individuals defy the laws of gravity and float up into the air, we will see individuals travel through space in contravention of the very laws of science that say an exposed human body cannot travel through space and live.
If you turn the origins account into a metaphorical dreamtime story, from which we are simply supposed to learn something about ourselves spiritually, then the claim that the second coming is a real event is false…its a fairytale…its not real. You might as well become a Buddhist or hindu or follow Islam…or perish the thought… Scientologist!!!
You are defaming Christ by insisting on your disgusting doctrine.
Richard
Edit.
You are also claiming God lied when He provided the Israelites a means of forgiveness and absolution. Judaism becomes a false/fake religion that God does not accept, and never has.
What you present as “theological problems” almost never have anything to do with theology because you’re mixing science with scripture. So I will ask again: Why do you think that science is a source for theology?
But you do, repeatedly, every time you ask how evolution explains something in scripture! I don’t care about such questions because I reject science as a source for interpreting scripture. Every time the subject of the Flood comes up you insist that the scripture is teaching science, and the same is true every time the topic of Creation comes up!
That you aren’t even aware that you are doing it shows that you have no idea what your actual worldview is, and probably – as is true of almost every YECer I’ve encountered – don’t even actually know what a worldview is.
And here’s more evidence that you mix science and theology:
To me that may as well be “blither fram ukmar bo skrimple” or any other set of nonsense words because you are insisting that science has a place in interpreting scripture. That’s a position I have rejected so many times I could buy myself an excellent dinner at a top restaurant if I had a fifty-cent piece for every time – and you have read those yet you continue to repeat your accusation (which makes that accusation a LIE).
That has been shown to be a misleading claim – scripture has other definitions that have been shown to you. Why do you refuse to learn from scripture?
Nope – that’s your imagination at work. Now law as a concept existed if you count an instruction to not eat from a certain tree as “law”, but that’s it – the Mosaic Law didn’t exist until much, much later.
And that’s also assuming that the Garden stories are meant literally, which is may not be the case given the literary type.
Huh – reading the scripture as written is now “nonsense” when it disagrees with you?
The Mosaic law is not like Muslims claim the Quran to be; it did not exist in heaven and get translated down to Earth. It doesn’t arrive until after they reached Mount Sinai.
LOL
Try arguing that in court – you’ll get shut down because religious opinions have no place there.
When will you get it through your head that “long ages of time” are only part of my worldview inasmuch as ancient Hebrew scholars determined from Genesis 1 that the universe started out as the smallest possible size, expanded immensely rapidly until its ‘waters’ grew thin enough for light to shine; that the Earth is uncountably ancient and the universe more ancient still. Whether those scholars were right – and I give them hefty credence since they grew up reading Hebrew and spent their lives studying it – then the universe could have a very great age; as some scholars (rabbis) have concluded, possibly a trillion years old (a thousand thousand thousand thousand), billions of years old (thousands of a thousand thousand), or millions of years old (hundreds of a hundred hundreds).
You’ve never really paid any attention to my “supposition about time”, so this is meaningless. Go back and read what I wrote just above (which is a summary of what I’ve said dozens of times here).
My “belief” in “naturalisms” (it isn’t plural, BTW) is that naturalism is what science is limited to because scientists, like the rest of us, are fallen humans who lack a Divinometer (or Pneumatomer, as someone suggested) can only learn what our senses (and the instruments which extend those senses) can discover.
I don’t even know that there was humanity before Adam and Eve, so what are you on about? It’s probable, given that in Genesis 1 YHWH-Elohim already “made them in His image”, and the first Garden story is a separate account, but we have no knowledge of them theologically except perhaps from the conundra of who Cain would have been afraid of and where his siblings got their spouses and who was around for Cain to found a city, all of which imply there were indeed other humans already.
As to their mental capacity, since at least a large enough number were capable of helping build a city one would assume they were at least as bright as middle school kids.
Oh, if only!
You don’t understand the concept of commenting on a verse?
You’re the only one who ever suggests it might have been. Why do you keep bringing up imaginary points?
Right there shows me that you do not have a biblical worldview, because it is a statement made from a modern scientific worldview that requires something to be literally real in order to have truth – a proposition totally alien to the Old Testament period. And until you examine your ways of thinking and recognize that you operate from a modern scientific worldview you will never achieve a biblical one.
It’s evident that you have mental categories you sort people into regardless of what they actually say or believe. Until you examine yourself and learn to escape those categories so you can actually treat others with respect by acknowledging what they actually think, you’ll continue to fill up cyber-space with falsehoods about others and irrelevancies.
No, He was utilizing a second-Temple Jewish form of discourse – something that anyone daring to preach should know since we often use the same approach even today in the English-speaking world.
No wonder people think you’re YEC – you impose a MSWV on the scriptures just as they do!
There’s a line from a Star Trek: Deep Space 9 episode that fits here: “No, it isn’t linear!”
The forgiveness and absolution of the Mosaic Covenant rest on the foundation of Christ. Christ Himself affirms this when He says “No one comes to the Father except through me”. As the apostle tells us, the blood of bulls and other animals cannot take away sin, and thus the forgiveness and absolution for the people of Israel must rest on something else – something “behind” and “beneath” the animal blood. That something is Christ.
If you don’t have Christ at the foundation of your theology, you don’t have Christian theology.
No, you’re just playing the devil, Satan, the accuser.
I told you long ago that I wouldn’t reply to your trash, and if I were still a moderator, I would’ve banned you long ago for violating the rules by questioning people’s faith. I guess they keep you around because you’re prolific and generate traffic, but I honestly could care less about your opinions and can’t be bothered to read your long-winded posts.
Good luck out there buddy. You’ve spent countless hours and persuaded no one. If banging your head against the wall earns you crowns in heaven, you’re a champ. Lol
Do you know how many parts of/complete old testament manuscripts we actually have?
I dont think you actually know just how many there are but i will enlighten this forum…
Ancient Hebrew = 60,000 manuscripts and codeces
Fragments = 200,000
Your claim about us not understanding the original language is bull.
Another bit of trivia…im sure you know this but for the sake of the exercise…
The New Testament = 5600 greek manuscripts + 10,000 Latin manuscripts + 5,000-10,000 other ancient versions
We have so many third party writings about the new testament that if we destroyed every manuscript, codecx, and bible in existence, we could rebuild alklst the entire New Testament from the writings of church fathers (dr. Dan Wallace and dr. Bart Erhman are the academic sources for my claim here…look up their online debates if you dont believe me)
We have 1 million quotations of various parts of the new testament by early church fathers!
You truly havent a clue what your talking about!
After this, m not going to bother responding to your stupidity regarding the definition of sin. Ive quote the specific bible text that defines it dozens of times!
Read 1 john 3:4
Here is the Google AI result…
Here are some other translations of 1 John 3:4:
“Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness” (NIV)
“Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness” (NASB)
“Everyone who commits sin practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness” (CSB)
“Everyone who sins is breaking God’s law, for all sin is contrary to the law of God” (NLT)
“Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law” (KJV)
“Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness” (NKJV)
In this verse, “the law” refers to the law of God, not the Mosaic Law. “Sin” is defined as going against God’s will.
The reality is, you dont agree with the definition of sin because you dont understand the Old Testament Sanctuary Service. You dont understand the Sanctuary service because you refuse to study it. You refuse to study it because you are afraid it will refute your worldview. You are afraid it will refute your worldview because your world view isnt biblical! “You just make it all up as you go along.”
Yo wouldn;t be questioning someone’s understanding of Scritural language would you? I thought he was the formost authority on the suject.
And have you noticed that whenever someone makes a good point there is a tutor, or collegic group (occasionally a named theologian) who said it frrst, or better complete with poighiant anecdote?.
I challenge anyone who doesnt reference seriously questionable claims.
Foremost authorities usually present exceptionally well thought out and internally consistent work…usually referenced. Academic credibility requires a certain standard…if work doeent meet that standard, it is graded accordingly. Given im useless at obtaining exceptionally high grades, if im complaining about his highly questionable conclusions and unreferenced work, imagine what a professor would do. I reference so heavily for good reason…ive been trained to do that (and with my average results, i believe it even more important i reference)
A New Testament Scholar, one of the worlds leading New Testament textual experts, once said, and i need to learn from this statement…
“Distrust spawned in the media has taken firm root in our postmodern society, where the quest for truth has been replaced by a convenient tolerance for every idea. “That’s just your interpretation!” has become the tired mantra of hurried people who can’t be bothered by a thoughtful evaluation of evidence. It’s simply easier to pretend all interpretations are created equal…
Americans generally have an abysmal level of knowledge of the Bible.”
(Dan Wallace in his book- “Re-inventing Jesus”)
