Here’s my proof-text from the Bible: NIV Version James 1:18 That statement implies progression over time. Creation started much as a seed planted in the ground, growing through time, getting stronger and maturing, reaching a point in time where it could bear fruit. That fruit was a self-aware being having free will, capable of transcending instinct, of knowing the difference between good and evil and making a choice, capable of having or rejecting a relationship with the Creator. I attend a church in the American Bible belt – one that considers itself conservative and grounded in scripture. One night, the pastor said something absolutely revolutionary – “I have no problem with the science behind the theory of evolution…” Twelve words in the middle of a larger point he was trying to make. The larger point was the amoral and therefore dangerous consequence of the idea that reality created itself mechanistically, that love is a chemical interaction between brain and ovary or gonad, that there is no truth beyond human perception or determination etc. etc. But think of the knife-edge this pastor was walking – dropping the idea in front of a theologically and politically conservative audience that the science of evolution is not the problem! If you made an animated video of the several billion years covered by the scientific description of the birth and evolution of the earth, and then sped it up, it would have a rough equivalency to Moses’ description of Creation. Granted, Moses got some things out of sequence, but damn – considering he was listening to a still, quiet voice, or even a physically manifesting spirit, he didn’t do a bad job of taking dictation.
Doesn't some people say that creation, going back to the adam and eve, is only about 7 or 8 thousand years old? Even with the longer lifespans of today and all the begatting that went on all the way back to adam and eve creation shouldn't be billions of years old like carbon-14 dating tells us it is.
I thought god believed in adam and eve? And noah for that matter. That fruit was a self-aware being having free will, capable of transcending instinct, of knowing the difference between good and evil and making a choice, capable of having or rejecting a relationship with the Creator. Free will is choice right? And the right choice is formed through a knowledge of what is good/bad or right/wrong etc (I see this as integral to the concept of 'free will' but I also believe the term to be a fallacy if we are talking about ourselves as having 100% bona fide 'free will'). I would then go on to postulate adam and eve were not created by god with free will. It was something endowed to them by an action which then could only be undone by an all powerful being sacrificing his only son blah blah blah. To quote someone who said this about my own writings, "the logical fallicies are deafening". The larger point was the amoral and therefore dangerous consequence of the idea that reality created itself mechanistically, that love is a chemical interaction between brain and ovary or gonad, that there is no truth beyond human perception or determination etc. etc. Where would we find any truth other than human perception? As humans we perceive things in a very human-like way. It is impossible to do otherwise really. And I thought it might interest you to know that there is a whole lot more to it than just easily discribing things as 'chemical mechansims' and 'reactions'. You're watering things down so badly to justify your point of view that life must have been created by something else, ie god. I recently learned some insight into the human mind. I would go as far as to say we are biological computers hooked up to a body that runs itself quite ably without our help. We are almost a set of conditioned responses with the ability to learn which in turn creates more conditioned responses. It's pretty crude and I haven't really thought it out any further as I've only been thinking about it now, but it's pretty close. Our emotions are chemical reactions which affect our thoughts, and we only respond if you think about it in absolute terms. Kind of like a computer really. (Sorry, way off topic, thoughts are free roaming tonight, but that's not much of an excuse Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!)
Bishop Usher used the lifespans of people listed in the bible to calculate that the earth was created in 4004 b.c. He was - in fact - wrong. Only the people who interpret the bible literally have any problem with the scientific dating of the earth. As a Bible-believing Christian, I rationalize it this way: If God is transendant and exists out of time, then how can I say that a day to God is the same as a day to me? The idea that God's time is the same as human time isn't even Biblical. The first thing described as being created in Genesis was "Light". On the second 'day' he created 'Sky' separating the 'water' above from the 'water' below, and 'dry land'. On the third 'day' plants, trees, seeds etc. It was only on the fourth of God's day that he created the Sun, Moon and the stars. We define our days and nights by the sun, moon and stars. So how long were those first three days? The bible doesn't say. So what's the point? The words I placed in quotation marks have, for me, deep spiritual meanings apart from their literal ones. 'Light' and 'darkness' on the first day mean something different to me than the greater and lessor lights of the fourth day. They represent spiritual truths which I find 'illuminating'. Those who take the Bible literally fear that if the Bible is wrong on this account it can be wrong on other accounts, or on all accounts. But Spiritual (subjective) truth is not the same as physical (objective) truth. To be too literal with spiritual teachings is to miss an opportunity for illumination. By the internal logic of Christian doctrine, God was the author of both the earth and the Bible. No Bible-believing Christian can dispute that statement. How is it, then, that the Bible, inspired by God and spoken through men, can be more (or less) accurate than the earth, spoken into existance by the very mouth of God without man's assistence? How can the Bible and the earth contradict each other? If God is perfect and incapable of contradicting himself, then either the contradiction is apparent only, having as it's source the believers inability to understand what God is saying, or God himself, as the believer defines him, cannot exist. Since the believer denies the latter, how can he not accept the former?
Yeah but what James says doesn't make it true. I could say that god had come to me in a dream and told me to take terrible and bloody revenge on Sri Lanka for changing its name from Ceylon but that doesn't mean he wants it...
True, but I'm arguing from the internal logic of the Bible - which I understand is not accepted or even acknowledged as existing by many people on the forum. But that doesn't matter in the context I'm attempting to do. Many non-Christian scientists are frustrated to the point of being fearful by the reaction of the fundamentalist Christian movement against the science of evolution. They have every right to be. I believe it's my duty as a Bible-believing Christian to offer arguements for the facts of evolution using sound biblical doctrine, to counter the bad biblical teachings being used against it. So, in that respect, it doesn't matter if you think James is right. It matters what the Christian posters to this forum think. So there. Thptpthbhtbhth Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You know, usually, in this forum, we discuss what we believe. Now, we're discussing what God believes. That's a nice change, because I'm very tired of having my beliefs questioned and questioning the beliefs of people that give overly complicated answers. I'd much rather question the beliefs of somebody that won't give me an answer at all. Whenever God was writing the Bible, he must've forgotten to make reality match up with his beliefs. 'Cause the Bible reads that there was some big flood some time ago, but the sediment layers don't agree. I would assume that the Bible is a good account of God's beliefs, of course. However, if it is, then he must've been real fond of changin' his mind back then, 'cause there are a lot of ideas and physical happenings that don't stay the same throughout the Good Book. It's weird that he doesn't change his mind about physical happenings anymore. Like that giant flood, or the changing of the length of one day, or splitting of the Red Sea, or whatever. I wonder why he quit? Is God a slacker? Did he hit the books hard at the beginning of the semester, only to hit the weed after? 'Cause I don't want to worship a slacker.
Rappaccini: You know, usually, in this forum, we discuss what we believe. Now, we're discussing what God believes. That's a nice change, because I'm very tired of having my beliefs questioned and questioning the beliefs of people that give overly complicated answers. I'd much rather question the beliefs of somebody that won't give me an answer at all. Turd: Usually, the discussions I've started have been so boring and overcomplicated that they quickly sink to the bottom of the list. I found that if I start with a simplistic title and the flimsiest portion of my proposition, I may suck a few people into responding once or twice before they realize what I've done and put me on their ignore list - so thanks for taking the trouble to respond Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Rappaccini: Whenever God was writing the Bible, he must've forgotten to make reality match up with his beliefs. 'Cause the Bible reads that there was some big flood some time ago, but the sediment layers don't agree. Turd: Clearly, only a half-wit would argue that the 'facts' of the bible have to square with the 'facts' of nature - which side of the argument they fall on depends on which half of their wit they're using, the right half or the left. Rappaccini: I would assume that the Bible is a good account of God's beliefs, of course However, if it is, then he must've been real fond of changin' his mind back then, 'cause there are a lot of ideas and physical happenings that don't stay the same throughout the Good Book. Turd: As I understand it, God only wrote one book, and that was on stone tablets. The rest of it was filtered through people. I'll be honest and admit there are some things in the Bible that are hard for me to take. The fiery furnace, the world standing still, the flood. I admit that I am a man of little faith. But there are also amazing, interesting, inspired things in it as well. IMHO. And the stuff that is hard (or impossible) for me to swallow physically still larn me a few things spiritually. It's weird that he doesn't change his mind about physical happenings anymore. Like that giant flood, or the changing of the length of one day, or splitting of the Red Sea, or whatever. I wonder why he quit? Turd: The flashy stuff never seem to hold our attention or inspire respect. 'Never quite seemed to appreciate the effort, ya know? So maybe he just gwain have ta work one on one. Not really sure. In spite of how I may have sounded before, I just don't know his mind, you know? Only his promises. Is God a slacker? Did he hit the books hard at the beginning of the semester, only to hit the weed after? 'Cause I don't want to worship a slacker. Turd: I don't know you, but my first impression is that you would never worship a slacker. You just don't seem to be that type.
