Posted on 04/04/2009 1:47:03 AM PDT by gondramB
I'd like to ask. I promise I don't mean this in an unkind way. I would really like to know.
Suppose the Freepers who believe that humans were created in their current form by God (whether 6,000 years ago or much longer)....
Suppose you became convinced that instead man had developed from lower organisms over billions of years.
Would that have to change any other core beliefs - that God directed man, The God came to Abraham and chose his children; that God sent us His son, that we are to follow the teachings of Jesus - particularly that we are to love the lord and love each other and ask forgiveness in his Son's name when we do wrong?
"That God cannot lie, is no advantage to your argument, because it is no proof that priests can not, or that the Bible does not."
Thomas Paine
It comes down to this - in the context of American political conservativism, if there is no place for someone who holds those opinions, what is it we're supposed to be trying to "conserve"?
None of that changes God’s word.
Grace is shown to those who BELIEVE
How about tennis? Remember when Joseph served in Pharaoh's courts?
Neither do I see any conflict.
Religion is about the origin and meaning of everything.
Science deals only with the mechanics of Creation.
There is no conflict.
There is quite a bit in Job describing Lucifer’s fall from heaven when he became Satan, prior to the Garden of Eden.
The gap theory simply looks at different constraints in our understanding of time and places them in a timeline.
As it turns out, there is a remarkable amount of consistency in gap theory from mapping Scriptural timeline constraints with extrabiblical accounts. Although we might not place veracity in various mythologies from different peoples, there remains a remarkable consistency of even their accounts when placed in that same timeline and Scriptural accounts. This led to the study known as Euhemerism back in the early 1900s, which posited all mythologies, as distinct from fable, had some basis in fact.
Since everything we need to perform good works by His standards are provided in Scripture, and Scripture doesn’t explicitly state the gap theory, there is nothing wrong in not placing our priorities on gap theory. On the other hand, Scripture doesn’t tell us about a sizable amount of knowledge which is true, such as quantum mechanics, electrodynamic wave and field theory, etc, but that doesn’t mean such studies are false or not useful tools.
The same might be said for gap theory, in accounting for a large amount of extrabiblical datum.
I've studied a bit on the etymology of the word, 'religion' as used in Scripture, because some doctrines assert religion as a source of evil.
The Hebrew used the concept, in a valid fashion, describing the mechanics of how a believer worships God. In that sense, there is nothing wrong with religion. For example, the Israelite went to the Temple and bought animals to sacrifice in religious observances. Such was directed by God and served a purpose in understanding what He has provided and the bloody consequences of sin.
The problems with religion occur when we counterfeit God's plan with our thinking independent of Him, doing what is right in our own eyes, then forming a method of worshiping Him upon our thinking, rather than upon what He has provided.
Such would be a false religion, and indeed, when man seeks God via religion, instead of by His methods to seek Him, religion becomes a counterfeit to fellowship with God through faith in Christ.
Science deals primarily with hypothetical congruence of empirical observations with rational arguments and suppositions. Since it correlates empirical perceptions with rationalism, it is limited in its scope to the natural world. It's possible to study science independent of faith in Christ, but as such, it is limited to only the natural world. Faith through Christ opens up an entirely new realm associated with how God originally formed man in body, soul, and spirit in His image.
Science also is unable to deal with the mechanics of Creation because it assumes the Creation pre-exists as the object of empirical and rational study. Science is better suited to study the mechanics of post-creation materialism.
The conflicts arise between science and religion when the natural man, living by empirical physical sensory perception and rational soulish perceptions, fails to recognize spiritual perception by faith (since he lacks faith in Christ), and then posits his science encompasses the entirety of Creation.
The human spirit is a created thing perceived through faith in Christ, not by empirical or rational perception. As such, science is inadequate to provide veritable knowledge of the human spirit, independent of faith through Christ.
There is no conflict unless you decide to place straw men, as others do, between Religion and Science, which I refuse to do.
Again, their is no conflict.
>>This is one reason the evolutionists strive SO hard to convince us. If evolution is the truth, then the Bible is false
I’d like to think of the bible as either true or false - it would settle so many issues. But the books were chosen by a council of men. There are difficulties in translations.
And there is the fundamental problem of what shepards in 2000 BC could understand about the cosmos.
The wonderful thing about the bible is the way the spirit comes through.
If the Pentateuch had more allegory and symbolism, if a human didn’t understand the age of the earth when he tried to write God’s words that does not seem in any way to invalidate God or his gift of his Son or his Love.
>>Religion is about the origin and meaning of everything.
Science deals only with the mechanics of Creation.
There is no conflict.<<
While I would agree that there does not have to be conflict, I’d add that evolution doesn’t address the origin of first life but only development after first life.
>>My wife is much more educated than I, and yet she is a “young earth” creationist. It was through her absolute faith in Almighty God, and her unshakable belief in the Holy Bible that I reached the conclusion I should just accept the Genesis account as accurate. Not that I understand or don’t have questions - just acceptance, in other words faith.
As a Christian, God doesn’t promise us an easy road. In fact, we are told to expect the opposite. But, if we hold on to the faith, Christ is most assuredly preparing a wonderful place for us. And that friend, is truly the Good News that we should spread!
I hope I didn’t offend you, I just thought I would share with you where I am. God Bless You in your Journey in Faith—JM<<<
Far from offending, I appreciated you taking the time to respond.
>> If God’s statement that man is created in His image and that God Himself breathed life into man is a lie, if the reality is that we evolved from pond scum, then every other thing that God has told us in His Word has to be questioned.
I believe the two of you have hit on the heart of the questions:
Suppose some scientific evidence emerges that makes it clear that part of Genesis is not literal. Does that really have to mean God is not real?
Haven’t we limited God too much at that point?
>> Simply put, science can never explain faith, and faith needs no science but it does not disallow it. And, I needed salvation through Christ’s shed blood as I was the chief of sinners in my own life.
Old Patriot <<
I wasn’t setting my sights that high - just a hypothetical.
There have been instances where strongly established Christian beliefs had to confront new evidence.
For example the church took the position that the sun revolved around the earth. New evidence clearly contradicted geo-centrism.
My question is “what if new evidence showed man developed rather than was created intact.” Could creationists keep their core faith?
>>
This is how I look at it. I believe that God created evolution, and steered every single step along the way.
God is much bigger and more all-encompassing than a static God who can only handle one moment of creation. What a poor God that would be! God can steer every flap of every butterfly’s wings. He can steer evolution.
<<
That is very much in line with my view. I often feel others view God as too small.
>>One point I point I forgot to make. I assume since your view of science is your guiding light is that you reject the miracles in the bible like walking on water, raising people from the dead, turning water into wine etc. After all according to science these things cannot happen. Just like Thomas Jefferson, so you tear those parts out of your bible? <<
Why assume that?
I have the evidence about the development of life much as I have evidence that the earth orbits the sun. That doesn’t make me lose faith in God.
>>One CANNOT intelligently believe that God used ‘evolution’ to create us. That would make him a liar. My God is not a liar. Or a doofuss.<<
That’s part of what I am asking - if something in the bible is not literally true do you lose your whole faith
Mulling the question and response over......
I’m gonna sleep on that one.
>>My answer to your question is yes.
My question for you is this since you claim to be a christian who believes in evolution. If you believe in evolution then that means you do not believe in the Genesis account of what we generally call creation. Which means you do not believe the beginning of the Bible. <<
No, I don;t believe the Geneisis story is literal scientific account - more of a parable to help the people understand.
>So the question is this: at what point do you begin the believe the Bible. Is the beginning of the New Testament any more believable. A virgin birth? Are you kidding me? Just a question. As one Bible teacher I was listening to pointed out when we read the beginning of the Bible we all need to make one very important decision. Do we believe what we are reading or do we not believe what we are reading and the rest will flow from that. OK...It’s now time for me to go to the gym. Thanks for the post <<
I came to the bible through a personal experience with God. His communication with me was very simple - love Hi, understand he loves me and be good to others - and then learn more about God. So i find myself not as troubled by details as by God’s love and intent.
Scripture is much more clear about animal's and man's beginning than about the heliocentric view of the solar system, if it even teaches that. They do not fall in the same category at all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.