Welcome Jaxxen & Thoughts On The Relevance Of Our Feelings

[Cindy_Skillman]

Hi, Pilgrim

Thanks for your kind words. God is so good to let me hear His voice in my heart, and it’s wonderful to know that you also hear Him. It seems really difficult for a lot of people (and for me for so many years). I know most of us aren’t taught how to do this in church. At least I know I never was. Maybe part of this IS the onus on paying attention to feelings.

It seems to me that God gave us many important faculties to use both in getting around and serving one another in this world and also in relating to Him. Maybe the tendency of the modern world (not so much maybe the post-modern folks) to reject emotions as weak and subjective and untrustworthy, cripples us more than we know. I know I was taught this, even in the AOG and WOF (Word of Faith – Kenneth Hagen) churches I attended for a long time. It isn’t about feelings; trust the word, etc. And that’s true enough as far as it goes, but just because feelings are a different sort of indicator from intellect doesn’t mean we can do without paying attention to them. Balance! That’s the thing.

I used to have a balance beam. My dad and I made it together, and as this was pre-internet we didn’t really know what it was supposed to look like, so it was a bit . . . eccentric. But it was beautiful; rounded on the sides, lovely wood. Anyway, I discovered that I had to keep my eyes on the direction in which I was going and just let my body keep me on the beam. I don’t know what faculties I was using; probably all of them – as long as I kept my eyes ahead. If you looked down to where you wanted to put your feet (the logical thing to do, seemingly), it would send you wobbling every time. Maybe that’s a good analogy for us; to keep our eyes on Jesus and pay attention to ALL our senses instead of incorrectly honoring one above another.

Blessings!
Cindy

[JaelSister]

Must the resurrection be taken literally?

Welcome to the forum brother!

If by literally you mean was the resurrection an historical event and not a spiritual fable, then yes it literally happened. But I do think that it is a common misunderstanding that people who see some biblical stories as symbolic, are all being self contradictory in believing the gospels to be history. It isn’t the case. Most of us are genuinely seeking the truth of all the passages and genres of scripture. If I didn’t believe the gospels were historical truth, I would cease to be a Christian. But that doesn’t mean I think every bible story that particular churches claim are historical, are to be understood in that sense.

As to inerrancy, the jury’s out with me. I believe scripture is inspired. I don’t see any scriptural justification for the entire canon being inerrant. Nor do I get why inerrancy is necessary. But I do have a high respect for the doctrine. I love the EOC approach to the scriptures: that they were birthed out of the tradition of Gods people, rather than the other way around. That they are our highest source of revelation about God, but not our only source.

I love how NT Wright puts it. He sums up what I think far more succinctly than I could
youtube.com/watch?v=fxQpFosrTUk

[Username1]

Hi Matt

Do you believe in a literal Adam and Eve? Do you believe in theistic evolution? When I say literal, I guess that would mean the traditionalist, predominant view of Protestant Christianity.

No, I don’t believe in a ‘literal’ Adam and Eve. But if you or anybody else wants to, that’s okay with me. I think Genesis can be read on pretty much any level that works for the reader - provided he or she accepts the spiritual truth behind it (ie that we are not the result of blind chance, we are the work of God).

I believe in evolution, lock, stock and barrel, as God’s chosen mechanism to bring human beings into existence - as articulated so beautifully, scientifically and Christianly (is that a word?) by Ken Miller in his book Finding Darwin’s God.

And just for the record, I believe that Jesus Christ was both the only Son of the Living God and a real, flesh and blood human being who lived and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and who rose miraculously from the dead.

Shalom

Johnny

[pilgrim]

I believe in evolution, lock, stock and barrel, as God’s chosen mechanism to bring human beings into existence - as articulated so beautifully, scientifically and Christianly (is that a word?) by Ken Miller in his book Finding Darwin’s God.

Johnny

Hi Johnny
There is a text that I’ve never been able to tally with the theory of evolution:
“since by man came death…”
doesn’t this text clearly indicate that it was man who introduced death into our world? How do you interpret this text in the light of the fact that you believe evolution which requires death in abundance before man appears on the scene?

[Username1]

Hi John

That’s a good question. I guess my initial reponse would be two-fold:

1. Genesis teaches that God created animals before human beings. Do we want to say that *all *those animals - dinosaurs, mosquitoes, lions, whales and everything - lived forever until man came on the scene? Because the world would have very quickly got very crowded …

2. Can we not take ‘death’ to mean ‘spiritual death’ ie alienation from God?

An interesting question, though.

Shalom

Johnny

[JaelSister]

I believe in evolution, lock, stock and barrel, as God’s chosen mechanism to bring human beings into existence - as articulated so beautifully, scientifically and Christianly (is that a word?) by Ken Miller in his book Finding Darwin’s God

.

Johnny

Hi Johnny
There is a text that I’ve never been able to tally with the theory of evolution:
“since by man came death…”
doesn’t this text clearly indicate that it was man who introduced death into our world? How do you interpret this text in the light of the fact that you believe evolution which requires death in abundance before man appears on the scene?

I would say that the bible doesn’t anywhere say there was no animal death before sin entered the world. I would however place more emphasis on spiritual death, since Adam was told in that day you will surely die. And he died physically 900 years later

[jaxxen]

I believe in evolution, lock, stock and barrel, as God’s chosen mechanism to bring human beings into existence - as articulated so beautifully, scientifically and Christianly (is that a word?) by Ken Miller in his book Finding Darwin’s God

.

Johnny

Hi Johnny
There is a text that I’ve never been able to tally with the theory of evolution:
“since by man came death…”
doesn’t this text clearly indicate that it was man who introduced death into our world? How do you interpret this text in the light of the fact that you believe evolution which requires death in abundance before man appears on the scene?

I would say that the bible doesn’t anywhere say there was no animal death before sin entered the world. I would however place more emphasis on spiritual death, since Adam was told in that day you will surely die. And he died physically 900 years later

Good point, jael. It’s an arguement from silence, but not totally out our limited understanding. But the concept of death does seem to be both spiritual and physical. I agree with you that the spiritual of an emphasis, based on the couple’s immediate reactions. The only thing that makes me think about the physical side is that the LORD made for them garments of skin to cover them. To me, this is a foreshadowing that something innocent had to die to cover their shame, and it implies the shedding of blood. The Gen 3 text is implicit, not explicit, re this but I feel it fits in with what is later revealed throughout the whole of Scripture. Also, all of creation was subjected to bondage and decay. This would contradict that it was created good, unless after the Fall something radically changed not just us, but the earth and its other non-image bearing creatures.

Matt

[Cindy_Skillman]

Sticking my neck out here . . . I’m a young earth (not necessarily young universe) creationist though not a Genesis literalist. This is not terribly important to me from a religious perspective (except for the life and death thing Pilgrim mentioned). I believe this way because I find the scientific theories unconvincing. It seems to me a matter of repeating a thing over and over and over until everyone “knows” it to be true. If I were more of a scientist, maybe I’d feel differently, but as it is, I feel it’s most likely that human history on the planet has run around 6,000 years.

I guess I don’t object all that much to the gap theory, but there isn’t enough substantiation in the bible to make a big deal out of that.

It’s nothing to squabble over, though, even though quite a lot of squabbling does get done.

Blessings, Cindy

[pilgrim]

I would say that the bible doesn’t anywhere say there was no animal death before sin entered the world. I would however place more emphasis on spiritual death, since Adam was told in that day you will surely die. And he died physically 900 years later

Hi JaelSister
My cut is that the context of the text is clearly referring to physical death:

Co 15:18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

-and I’ve heard of the interpretation that it is only referring to human death and not animal death (ie animals evolved, grew old, decayed and died in Eden but man didn’t).
Personally, I don’t find either the ‘spiritual’ answer or the ‘man’s death’ answer very plausible. They both seem to be rather desperate attempts to avoid the text being at odds with ToE. .
Until I have a better alternative, I remain with the conclusion that the text is indeed at odds with ToE.
I lean towards Cindy’s perspective in that I think how we measure time is very subjective.
-Just how I feel. God bless.

[Username1]

Hi Cindy

If I were more of a scientist, maybe I’d feel differently, but as it is, I feel it’s most likely that human history on the planet has run around 6,000 years.

You are brave to stick your neck out with all these liberals like me knocking around on the forum, ready to bring the axe down on it!

Seriously, Cindy, I don’t want to sound dogmatic or overbearing here, but the weight of scientific evidence in favour of an old earth is so *monumentally *overwhelming it does take an awful lot of explaining - or explaining away - if YEC is to be considered true instead.

May I suggest you read Dr Ken Miller’s book I mentioned earlier - Finding Darwin’s God. Miller is both a Christian and an eminent biologist at Brown University. In it he gives a highly compelling argument for the truth of evolutionary theory, and how this is entirely compatible with orthodox Christianity.

You say this is nothing to squabble over, and I know what you mean. But the problem I have is that so many people who recognise the overwhelming weight of rational scientific evidence for an old earth see Christians rejecting that evidence, and in turn reject Christian belief because they see it as irrational, and anti-evidence. Does that make sense?

Sorry, I’ll get down off my soap box now.

Shalom

Johnny

[Username1]

Hi John

Personally, I don’t find either the ‘spiritual’ answer or the ‘man’s death’ answer very plausible. They both seem to be rather desperate attempts to avoid the text being at odds with ToE.

I do take your point. It is certainly a bit of a poser, this question! A couple of further thoughts:

I believe mankind evolved through evolution, from lower life forms. At some point mankind evolved into ‘the Adam’, ie human beings, and at that point became endowed with the capacity for distinguishing right from wrong - and hence the caapacity for sin. At some point after that ‘the Adam’ - represented by Adam and Eve in the Genesis story - sinned, and thereby alienated themselves from God. Hence sin - spiritual death - came through ‘man’ (or even ‘a man’).

I do not, at the moment, know how this relates to the verses you cite, in relation to physical death. I suspect there *is *a way which a better exegete and thinker than I will be able to discern. Maybe, as you say, those verses simply do have to be held in tension with the theory of evolution - as do other verses and other subjects.

Or maybe evolution is wrong. I remain open to that possibility, although I do not think it likely.

Shalom

Johnny

[jaxxen]

Hi Cindy

If I were more of a scientist, maybe I’d feel differently, but as it is, I feel it’s most likely that human history on the planet has run around 6,000 years.

You are brave to stick your neck out with all these liberals like me knocking around on the forum, ready to bring the axe down on it!

Seriously, Cindy, I don’t want to sound dogmatic or overbearing here, but the weight of scientific evidence in favour of an old earth is so *monumentally *overwhelming it does take an awful lot of explaining - or explaining away - if YEC is to be considered true instead.

May I suggest you read Dr Ken Miller’s book I mentioned earlier - Finding Darwin’s God. Miller is both a Christian and an eminent biologist at Brown University. In it he gives a highly compelling argument for the truth of evolutionary theory, and how this is entirely compatible with orthodox Christianity.

You say this is nothing to squabble over, and I know what you mean. But the problem I have is that so many people who recognise the overwhelming weight of rational scientific evidence for an old earth see Christians rejecting that evidence, and in turn reject Christian belief because they see it as irrational, and anti-evidence. Does that make sense?

Sorry, I’ll get down off my soap box now.

Shalom

Johnny

If you mean “nothing to squabble over” in terms of the earth being 6000yo or 40,000yo, I’d agree. In terms of evolution, if that’s what you meant, then I vehemently disagree. May God Himself help me, but I have to agree with Pilgrim that there are New Testament affirmations of the Genesis account with HUGE implications. TofE IS NOT compatible with Orthodox Christianity. That’s the problem here, Johnny. You want to believe what you want to believe and will force your interpretation on the text to support your presuppositions. Can’t bear the thought of a sovereign, Triune God working clay as He seems fit if it includes ECT? Get rid of ECT, then. You accept “overwhelming proof” from others, but not the text(s) itself? Just how in the Hxll do you define orthodox, anyway? And how’d you come up with that definition? Other scientists (most) would absolutely oppose any belief in a resurrection and afterlife and site “overwhelming proof” but that wouldn’t sit with your desires to be in heaven so you won’t accept their testimonies. Johnny, the serpent said, “You will be like God, knowing good and evil”. That’s man’s downfall. We still believe that we are like God and are the dispensers of knowledge. But the Bible says we are fools and deceived in our natural state now. But of necessity, you don’t believe in the serpent narrative. Anyway…

[Cindy_Skillman]

Johnny, dear brother, I would read it if I cared.

The thing is . . . this isn’t a subject I ever broach with unbelievers, and it is such a quagmire. If you’re fascinated with this sort of thing, then perhaps God has given you a call to delve into it. But I simply don’t have the time or desire. However, if God should rouse that in me, I will read Darwin’s God in your honor.

Blessings, Cindy

[Username1]

Hi Cindy

Bless you for your gracious spirit, your honesty, and your shining representation of the fruits of Evangelical Universalism. I have so much to learn from you.

I know what you mean about too little time, and too much to learn. And that evolution is a quagmire to broach with unbelievers. The trouble is, over here in Blighty (sorry, Britain ) it is simply taken as read that if you don’t believe in evolution you are either a nutter, or worse, a ‘religious nutter’.

You are fortunate, Cindy, to live in such an openly and supportively Christian country. We have a deputy Prime Minister (Nick Clegg) who is an avowed atheist, a totally secular media, and a largely apathetic population, only a tiny percentage of whom attend church of a Sunday.

*Finding Darwin’s God *is a brilliant book, but the Bible is a better one.

Shalom

Johnny

[Username1]

Matt!

I thought you’d excommunicated me! I am reluctant to engage with you here, given that you have not yet afforded me the courtesy of responding to my questions to you on other threads, particularly our one-to-one thread. But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you are simply in the process of composing your devastating critiques of my unscriptural, totally depraved musings.

TofE IS NOT compatible with Orthodox Christianity.

In your opinion. There are plenty of orthodox Christians (however you define that term) who believe it is. I think you’ll find the Pope is one of them. Now I’m no Papist, but there are hundreds of millions of Christians who are …

That’s the problem here, Johnny. You want to believe what you want to believe and will force your interpretation on the text to support your presuppositions. Can’t bear the thought of a sovereign, Triune God working clay as He seems fit if it includes ECT? Get rid of ECT, then.

That’s the problem here, Matt. You want to believe what you want to believe - although God knows why you’d want to - and will force your interpretation on the text to support your presuppositions. Can’t bear the thought of a sovereign, Triune God working clay as He seems fit if it includes universal love, reconciliation and the restoration of all things? Get rid of those things, then.

You accept “overwhelming proof” from others, but not the text(s) itself?

The Bible isn’t science. It’s scripture. God gave us rational minds to study His creation. We’ve done that, and it tells us - quite unequivocally, with overwhelming scientific proof (eg the amount of radioactive materials in the earth) - that the earth is billions of years old.

… the Bible says we are fools and deceived in our natural state now.

Guess that makes two of us.

But of necessity, you don’t believe in the serpent narrative.

No, I don’t, not ‘literally’ anyway. (Do *you *believe in an actual talking serpent?) Necessity has nothing to do with it.

Shalom

Johnny

[1Cor1522]

If I may butt in between jaxxen and johnnyparker…

msnbc.msn.com/id/19956961/ns … absurdity/

The pontiff, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said that while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God.

“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the pope said. “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”

I am no member of the RCC either, but I actually agree with this and johnnyparker

And from religioustolerance.org/ev_public.htm
(mind you, this is an old poll from 1999)

Beliefs elsewhere in the world:
Belief in creation science seems to be largely a U.S. phenomenon among countries the West. A British survey of 103 Roman Catholic priests, Anglican bishops and Protestant ministers/pastors, perhaps conducted in 1999 showed that:
97% do not believe the world was created in six days.
80% do not believe in the existence of Adam and Eve as actual persons. *

*(News item in ReligionToday for 1999-DEC-29. They quoted the Conservative News 	Service. Original source of data was not specified.)

Again, I have to agree with johnnyparker

Now… all that being said, believe it or not, I agree with Cindy’s sentiments. I am tempted to take a massive faith outlook and believe the literal Genesis account. However I also agree with Cindy in the fact that:

I guess I don’t object all that much to the gap theory, but there isn’t enough substantiation in the bible to make a big deal out of that.

It’s nothing to squabble over, though, even though quite a lot of squabbling does get done.

[JaelSister]

I would say that the bible doesn’t anywhere say there was no animal death before sin entered the world. I would however place more emphasis on spiritual death, since Adam was told in that day you will surely die. And he died physically 900 years later

Hi JaelSister
My cut is that the context of the text is clearly referring to physical death:

Co 15:18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

-and I’ve heard of the interpretation that it is only referring to human death and not animal death (ie animals evolved, grew old, decayed and died in Eden but man didn’t).
Personally, I don’t find either the ‘spiritual’ answer or the ‘man’s death’ answer very plausible. They both seem to be rather desperate attempts to avoid the text being at odds with ToE. .
Until I have a better alternative, I remain with the conclusion that the text is indeed at odds with ToE.
I lean towards Cindy’s perspective in that I think how we measure time is very subjective.
-Just how I feel. God bless.

Hey Pilgrim. Good to hear from you

I really am not being desperate. I know you’re not saying I was, but I guess it could look that way from my brief answer! I am being brief because I realised that this is sort of derailing the thread lol.
I was saved in a church that taught young earth creationism. I have taught it myself. I have studied under its teachers. I have numerous creationist books, DVDs etc.

Through my own knowledge of the doctrine, I came to notice serious biblical and scientific flaws. I spent years reading and studying. And I’m now a convinced old earth theistic evolutionist. I have no issue if the scientific data ever changes. My biblical interpretation would remain constant - which I could explain here, if I had 2 hours and were not at risk of boring you lol

Just a little food for thought: people ought not to confuse the earth with Eden. They are not synonymous. And if people say there was no death in Eden, they don’t necessarily mean there was no death outside of Eden.

I too think there’s a physical death aspect to the interpretation of NTverses.

To Jaxxen. I could equally argue that the immortality of animals prior to the fall is arrived at from silence. It is found nowhere in scripture. Neither is a biblical account of the age of the earth. I find some people (not you, but others I’ve come across…and probably often me lol) do not seem to be able to separate what we think the bible says from what it actually says. People have their frame work for how the bible should be understood, then when the framework is removed, they see any other interpretation out of this as false. Hence how you could say ToE is not compatible with orthodox Christianity. Orthodox by whose standards? Millions of orthodox Christians of various stripes refute this. Is evolution necessary for orthodoxy? Of course not. Is it incompatible? Again, of course not.

And Johnny: don’t be too apologetic for our country. After all, we have the best comedy! And while we might be regarded as an idiot for questioning evolution in the UK, we also don’t have our politicians using our religion to get brownie points in elections. Or manipulating people into believing Jesus was all about profits

[BirdOfTheEgg]

May God Himself help me, but I have to agree with Pilgrim that there are New Testament affirmations of the Genesis account with HUGE implications. TofE IS NOT compatible with Orthodox Christianity.

Please do not speak for the Orthodox. Last I checked, they were just fine with evolution.

TofE has huge implications for Christianity indeed. Genesis is only a problem if you’re a literalist, in which case you have bigger problems. But you don’t get to run away from TofE, you have to deal with it. My post on the “meaning of life” was dealing with this issue, and it was partially inspired by my recent arrival at evolution.

You want to believe what you want to believe and will force your interpretation on the text to support your presuppositions.

And you bend reality to what you want to be true…

Other scientists (most) would absolutely oppose any belief in a resurrection and afterlife

These oppositions are on a completely different plane from YEC vs TofE. Those two deal with objective, testable reality. Resurrection and afterlife are outside the scope of what’s available to us. One can believe in them, or not, but there’s no evidence in either direction.

Holding a YEC view demands a conspiracy theory to be developed which explains why the entire scientific community from geologists to biologists is wrong, and how everything they do magically works on top of a theory that you say is wrong. You also have to tell me what’s up with the dinosaur bones.

It’s one thing to not be completely sold on all parts of evolution everywhere. But to claim the Earth is 6k years old is a bit too much.

Johnny, the serpent said, “You will be like God, knowing good and evil”. That’s man’s downfall. We still believe that we are like God and are the dispensers of knowledge. But the Bible says we are fools and deceived in our natural state now. But of necessity, you don’t believe in the serpent narrative. Anyway…

jaxxen, I’ve got bad news for you.

If we are indeed fools and cannot discern anything. We definitely cannot discern that the Bible is the word of God. Why should we think we’re intelligent enough to find the book when that same book supposedly tells us we are too foolish to do even that?

You are free to renounce all you were given. You are free to renounce your conscience, your intelligence, your emotions, whatever. But, once you do, I will be forced to consider you, and everything you have to say, or believe, insane. You can’t say you cannot discern shit and then say we should follow the Bible. You have just said you can’t discern shit.

It’s a Catch-22 that you do not want to put yourself in. The Bible is not making a statement that man, all man, at all times, in all situations, can discern nothing. Such a statement would completely override and discredit the entire religion. It would also render man completely innocent. It is because man CAN discern is why man can be held guilty. Luke 12:57 “Why don’t you judge for yourselves what is right?”

[pilgrim]

Bump this up - superb post Bird. Well said!

[jaxxen]

May God Himself help me, but I have to agree with Pilgrim that there are New Testament affirmations of the Genesis account with HUGE implications. TofE IS NOT compatible with Orthodox Christianity.

Please do not speak for the Orthodox. Last I checked, they were just fine with evolution.

TofE has huge implications for Christianity indeed. Genesis is only a problem if you’re a literalist, in which case you have bigger problems. But you don’t get to run away from TofE, you have to deal with it. My post on the “meaning of life” was dealing with this issue, and it was partially inspired by my recent arrival at evolution.

You want to believe what you want to believe and will force your interpretation on the text to support your presuppositions.

And you bend reality to what you want to be true…

Other scientists (most) would absolutely oppose any belief in a resurrection and afterlife

These oppositions are on a completely different plane from YEC vs TofE. Those two deal with objective, testable reality. Resurrection and afterlife are outside the scope of what’s available to us. One can believe in them, or not, but there’s no evidence in either direction.

Holding a YEC view demands a conspiracy theory to be developed which explains why the entire scientific community from geologists to biologists is wrong, and how everything they do magically works on top of a theory that you say is wrong. You also have to tell me what’s up with the dinosaur bones.

It’s one thing to not be completely sold on all parts of evolution everywhere. But to claim the Earth is 6k years old is a bit too much.

Johnny, the serpent said, “You will be like God, knowing good and evil”. That’s man’s downfall. We still believe that we are like God and are the dispensers of knowledge. But the Bible says we are fools and deceived in our natural state now. But of necessity, you don’t believe in the serpent narrative. Anyway…

jaxxen, I’ve got bad news for you.

If we are indeed fools and cannot discern anything. We definitely cannot discern that the Bible is the word of God. Why should we think we’re intelligent enough to find the book when that same book supposedly tells us we are too foolish to do even that?

You are free to renounce all you were given. You are free to renounce your conscience, your intelligence, your emotions, whatever. But, once you do, I will be forced to consider you, and everything you have to say, or believe, insane. You can’t say you cannot discern shit and then say we should follow the Bible. You have just said you can’t discern shit.

It’s a Catch-22 that you do not want to put yourself in. The Bible is not making a statement that man, all man, at all times, in all situations, can discern nothing. Such a statement would completely override and discredit the entire religion. It would also render man completely innocent. It is because man CAN discern is why man can be held guilty. Luke 12:57 “Why don’t you judge for yourselves what is right?”

Bird, please quote me specifically where I said people cannot discern anything. Oh yeah, and where I say we cannot discern shit, while you’re at it.