CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: All things Christianity

[rvb]

PaulF: Well, that's sort of a sticking point for many of us non-believers: If one's "spiritual" life is eternal, what is the "sacrifice" in death? Eternal (spiritual) life turns death into just another signpost on the road of life. Much like kidney stones or childbirth, whatever trauma is experienced will ultimately become fleeting and temporary.

Why shouldn't God send his son to Earth to die...over and over again, if necessary? Corporeal death would be absolutely meaningless to an eternal spiritual creature.(Moved over from another thread)

The death of Jesus wasn't meaningless from the view point that it demonstrated to humans that physical death isn't the end. Also, the ultimate death to a Christian is eternal separation from God, through sin. At that moment on the cross, Christ shouldered the burden of the world's sin. He was, during that time, separated from God. THAT was his sacrifice, though temporary. This separation is why he asked God when he was on the cross why He has forsaken Him (ie abandoned/rejected/deserted/etc). The physical death, as you point out, is meaningless, especially to a deity; the demonstration of death's meaningless-ness is, well, what gives the event meaning.

Through our faith in Jesus and faith in God, our sins will be forgiven, and we will no longer be separated from God.

In relation to the ET life thread, I'd add ... so what if God created other intelligent life in some other galaxy? What if Jesus has done as you said and dies over and over throughout the universe for different groups? What if other creations didn't eat from their forbidden tree and are blissfully living with God among them?

I can't pretend to fully understand the vastness of either the universe or God (as both an amateur astronomer and Christian). Nor can I place limits on either due to my feeble understanding....

I don't think whether other life exists matters. I don't think we'll ever have definitive answers. It matters not to my life or my faith other than as an interesting intellectual exercise.

-rvb

 

[JettaKnight]

This was asked via PM about a statement in another infamous thread running now: "What's your thoughts on the 6 day creation theory?"

Well, honestly, I think it's detrimental, flawed and a doctrinal dead end.

Here's a couple of talking points to get things rolling:

1. It doesn't fit with observable evidence, e.g. fossils, star light, the Grand Canyon.
2. It's bad hermaneutics: It takes a text that explains "why" to a primitive society and uses it to explain "how" to a modern, scientific society.
3. It's dogmatic. The current YE movement makes claims to the church on a whole that if we Christians question a literal six day creation then we also question the Gospel (i.e. the concept of sin and redemption)
4. It forces our youth (and adults) to pin their Christian worldview to a theory that's pretty easy to disprove and ridicule. Once that brick is ripped out, a lot of Christians will see their faith crumble.

So then, Jetta, what do you believe?

I believe that (a triune) God is the creation of the universe and the author of life. His thumbprint is embedded in all of his work and mankind is special different in that we are created in his image and embedded with souls. I believe that death and sin was brought into this world by the choice of man.

I don't need to believe in a 6 creation. I don't need to believe that lions were herbivores until the fall of man. I don't need to disbelieve of pre-Adamites. I don't need to have a dogmatic believe in how creation was accomplished.


Now, what's the thoughts of other Christians?

 

[rvb]

2 Peter 3:8

But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day

God is timeless. We try to apply our limited understanding and experiences of time, but we can't.

How can we apply our 24-hour earthly concept of a "day" to the Genesis story when a the sun/moon weren't introduced until the 4th "day?"

The point is that God created it all. There was an order to the creation; a plan.

I believe the Biblical creation story and the science of creation co-exist perfectly, it is our understanding of both that causes gaps / doubts. I believe the creation story was revealed to Moses who penned Genesis, and he didn't have the scientific knowledge to describe it in modern terms, but I believe it is accurate.

This is unfortunately a divisive topic in the church. I thought my mother was going to stroke out when we were discussing this and she learned I didn't follow the 6-day creation / young-earth theology.

Conversely, I believe a literal 6-day creation is possible. It's possible God set the universe in motion appearing as if it was billions of years old; that he started light from distant galaxies part-way on its journey to us to observe, and set radio-active material partially decayed indicating many half-lifes, etc. Who am I to presume to know?!

-rvb

 

[T.Lex]

Now, what's the thoughts of other Christians?

My faith was not formed by things I don't know. I don't know (or need to know) if a 6 day creation was literal, figurative, or a matter of perspective. I'm very curious about those things, but more as a matter of exploration of creation. A wondrous, wouldn't-it-be-cool-if the expansion of the Big Bang and formation of Earth and evolution of plants, animals and the first mating pair of Man would fit into a temporal timeframe in 6 segments, would be really neat.

But, my faith is formed by my experiences. In part, what I've learned (both by being taught and by my own seeking) and what I've observed form my faith. I must also admit that I've always had a feeling of God's existence, if not direct presence.

I believe creation - in whatever form - to be a miracle. Sentient, soul-filled aliens could as easily be formed in God's "image" as we are. (There are some whacky looking people in this world.) The more science discovers, the more miraculous the whole thing seems.

 

[hog slayer]

2 Peter 3:8


God is timeless. We try to apply our limited understanding and experiences of time, but we can't.

How can we apply our 24-hour earthly concept of a "day" to the Genesis story when a the sun/moon weren't introduced until the 4th "day?"

The point is that God created it all. There was an order to the creation; a plan.

I believe the Biblical creation story and the science of creation co-exist perfectly, it is our understanding of both that causes gaps / doubts. I believe the creation story was revealed to Moses who penned Genesis, and he didn't have the scientific knowledge to describe it in modern terms, but I believe it is accurate.

This is unfortunately a divisive topic in the church. I thought my mother was going to stroke out when we were discussing this and she learned I didn't follow the 6-day creation / young-earth theology.

Conversely, I believe a literal 6-day creation is possible. It's possible God set the universe in motion appearing as if it was billions of years old; that he started light from distant galaxies part-way on its journey to us to observe, and set radio-active material partially decayed indicating many half-lifes, etc. Who am I to presume to know?!

-rvb

I have long thought the same thing. It really isn't a huge hangup for me, Usually, because my salvation doesn't rest on how many days. The issue has become important to me recently as an apologetics topic. When I remained in my comfort zone regarding non - believers it didn't matter. As I attempt to reach a more difficult audience, well, that's where it began to be important how I interpret the text.

 

[JettaKnight]

Yeah, apologetics is another point. I mean, it's hard enough to convince PaulF about Christ, let alone YE creationism!

 

[hog slayer]

This was asked via PM about a statement in another infamous thread running now: "What's your thoughts on the 6 day creation theory?"

Well, honestly, I think it's detrimental, flawed and a doctrinal dead end.

Here's a couple of talking points to get things rolling:

1. It doesn't fit with observable evidence, e.g. fossils, star light, the Grand Canyon.
2. It's bad hermaneutics: It takes a text that explains "why" to a primitive society and uses it to explain "how" to a modern, scientific society.
3. It's dogmatic. The current YE movement makes claims to the church on a whole that if we Christians question a literal six day creation then we also question the Gospel (i.e. the concept of sin and redemption)
4. It forces our youth (and adults) to pin their Christian worldview to a theory that's pretty easy to disprove and ridicule. Once that brick is ripped out, a lot of Christians will see their faith crumble.

So then, Jetta, what do you believe?

I believe that (a triune) God is the creation of the universe and the author of life. His thumbprint is embedded in all of his work and mankind is special different in that we are created in his image and embedded with souls. I believe that death and sin was brought into this world by the choice of man.

I don't need to believe in a 6 creation. I don't need to believe that lions were herbivores until the fall of man. I don't need to disbelieve of pre-Adamites. I don't need to have a dogmatic believe in how creation was accomplished.


Now, what's the thoughts of other Christians?

1) The time frames fit as easily as they don't. In other words, it's a simple matter to show that our carbon dating methods have become better indicators of young earth than old as our technology has advanced to more accurately reflect age. It has never been incredibly reliable in accuracy.

2)Maybe I miss it. Do we care of we are a "primitive" or "modern" society?

3) There are numerous enough congregations and religious titles that all claim to be CHRIST followers. I do not believe this (YE vs OE) should be a divisive issue. But isn't the real word for YE concept DOCTRINE?

4) Maybe easy to ridicule. Certainly not easy to disprove. And a well established biblical world view doesn't happen easily or quickly (usually) and that's ok. It needs to be tested to be strengthened.

There's dogma again. You mean doctrine?

 

[hog slayer]

Yeah, apologetics is another point. I mean, it's hard enough to convince PaulF about Christ, let alone YE creationism!

I'll drop it

 

[gregr]

My faith was not formed by things I don't know. I don't know (or need to know) if a 6 day creation was literal, figurative, or a matter of perspective. I'm very curious about those things, but more as a matter of exploration of creation. A wondrous, wouldn't-it-be-cool-if the expansion of the Big Bang and formation of Earth and evolution of plants, animals and the first mating pair of Man would fit into a temporal timeframe in 6 segments, would be really neat.

But, my faith is formed by my experiences. In part, what I've learned (both by being taught and by my own seeking) and what I've observed form my faith. I must also admit that I've always had a feeling of God's existence, if not direct presence.

I believe creation - in whatever form - to be a miracle. Sentient, soul-filled aliens could as easily be formed in God's "image" as we are. (There are some whacky looking people in this world.) The more science discovers, the more miraculous the whole thing seems.

Ugggg. I wonder why I stop in here, it never ends well for me...but: yes, it does matter what you believe about not only the fact of the six-day creation, as described in Genisis, but about all doctrine, and everything in the Bible. If you don`t take the Bible at it`s word, then you cannot have faith in the writer of the Bible: God-Almighty.

The Bible states that the Lord created everything in a literal six days, and therefore, that is exactly what happened. I will stand up for God, and speak His Truth.

 

[T.Lex]

Ugggg. I wonder why I stop in here, it never ends well for me

Uggg. I feel your pain.

...but: yes, it does matter what you believe about not only the fact of the six-day creation, as described in Genisis, but about all doctrine, and everything in the Bible. If you don`t take the Bible at it`s word, then you cannot have faith in the writer of the Bible: God-Almighty.

Why are these 2 things linked?

Where does biblical-literal-interpretation come from? The Bible even says that God's ways are not the ways of man! (Isaiah 55:8-9.)

The Bible states that the Lord created everything in a literal six days, and therefore, that is exactly what happened.

Wait. What version? I think you added a word. I don't think the word "literal" is in Genesis.

I will stand up for God, and speak His Truth.

Ah, a new doctrine: gregr infallibility.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

In our Sunday school class recently, the topic of YE vs. OE came up. I'd say among us, it was roughly 50-50. We all agreed it doesn't ultimately derail the plan of salvation foreshadowed and ultimately fulfilled in the bible. Unlike my ancestors, I grew up in the 60's and 70's when all of this carbon dating and theories were being drawn up about the age of the earth. I've also read and listened to the arguments for a 6-day creation. Truth is, none of us know. And personally, I'm torn on it. We do know that the word "day" doesn't necessarily mean 24 hours, even when we use it today...it probably didn't always mean that back then when it was written down.

I doubt that, when I get to Heaven, God is going to be standing there asking each of us if we were a YEer or an OEer.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Ugggg. I wonder why I stop in here...

I, too, mostly read this thread... and don't really participate. But then I see this:

The Bible states that the Lord created everything in a literal six days, and therefore, that is exactly what happened.

I'll never claim to be able to speak with any authority on religion. I'm mostly here to learn. I'm not interested in challenging anyone's faith, just curious on the different areas they agree/disagree. So the literal 6-day thing is super-interesting, in that respect.

I've seen different interpretations of the 6-day theory that justify it as... these things could have been created long ago, but only brought into the light on this day, etc. Others argue the days are literal 24-hour days, and that's how it was intended to be written.

It's my understanding that the literal 6-day creation sorts typically don't jive well with the "intelligent design" crowd?

Edit: While this isn't to say anything about my current beliefs... I will say that I attended a Christian school for two years (pre and 1st grade)... and if I remember correctly, they did teach the 6-day creation.

 

[rvb]

Ugggg. I wonder why I stop in here, it never ends well for me...but: yes, it does matter what you believe about not only the fact of the six-day creation, as described in Genisis, but about all doctrine, and everything in the Bible. If you don`t take the Bible at it`s word, then you cannot have faith in the writer of the Bible: God-Almighty.

The Bible states that the Lord created everything in a literal six days, and therefore, that is exactly what happened. I will stand up for God, and speak His Truth.

Do you agree that there are places where figurative language is used in the Bible vs being completely literal? Do you think Jesus was literally a vine? There are other doctrinal examples, eg the divide between Protestants and Catholics of whether the communion bread/wine literally is the body/blood of Christ or a figurative representation.

Is taking these topics literally critical to faith? salvation?

-rvb

 

[ChristianPatriot]

Wait. What version? I think you added a word. I don't think the word "literal" is in Genesis.

You're probably right. He probably didn't literally walk on water or literally feed 5,000 or literally die on a cross. There's probably not a literal trinity or a literal hell. I mean, the Bible states all those things, but meh, science.

"It doesn't matter what the Bible says little Johnny, Jesus loves you."

 

[JettaKnight]

I'll drop it

Please don't - there's a lot of interest in this topic.

1) The time frames fit as easily as they don't. In other words, it's a simple matter to show that our carbon dating methods have become better indicators of young earth than old as our technology has advanced to more accurately reflect age. It has never been incredibly reliable in accuracy.

I used to believe this, now I'm not so sold on the "carbon dating methods". Maybe YE is right, maybe it's not. It's not something I care to expend a lot of energy on, I just don't like YE'ers telling Christians we have to hold to their view or else.

2)Maybe I miss it. Do we care of we are a "primitive" or "modern" society?

In many ways we are the former that likes to pretend to be the latter. I think RVB nailed this - how exactly was Moses suppose to describe creation?

3) There are numerous enough congregations and religious titles that all claim to be CHRIST followers. I do not believe this (YE vs OE) should be a divisive issue. But isn't the real word for YE concept DOCTRINE?

A lot of the literature coming from the YE movement makes the claim that the YE view is essentialto a correct view of how sin entered the world and without this, the concept of redemption, ergo, salvation is flawed.

The belief is that death entered the world from the sin of Eve and Adam. The logical conclusion is that physical death did not exist before sin; lambs and lions happily frolicked together and ate grass and no mosquito ever bothered Adam. Then Eve bites the apple and suddenly the lion bites the lamb and Adam smacks the mosquito...

4) Maybe easy to ridicule. Certainly not easy to disprove. And a well established biblical world view doesn't happen easily or quickly (usually) and that's ok. It needs to be tested to be strengthened.

For a college kid, sitting a lecture and someone "this rock was formed one billion years ago"...

There's dogma again. You mean doctrine?

When I say "dogmatically", I mean to hold that belief in such a way that it's not open for discussion; arrogant and opinionated.

 

[T.Lex]

You're probably right. He probably didn't literally walk on water or literally feed 5,000 or literally die on a cross. There's probably not a literal trinity or a literal hell. I mean, the Bible states all those things, but meh, science.

"It doesn't matter what the Bible says little Johnny, Jesus loves you."

Maybe let's focus on one thing at a time?

Can you direct me to the verse in Genesis where it says a "literal" day?

Or, perhaps more to the point, define "day" in a literal, 24-hour way when the sun and moon didn't appear until day 4. (Genesis 1:14-19.)

 

[JettaKnight]

Ugggg. I wonder why I stop in here, it never ends well for me...but: yes, it does matter what you believe about not only the fact of the six-day creation, as described in Genisis, but about all doctrine, and everything in the Bible. If you don`t take the Bible at it`s word, then you cannot have faith in the writer of the Bible: God-Almighty.

The question isn't so much about if we have complete faith and trust in the Bible as being the infallible word of God (I'd say almost all Christians in the this thread agree on this doctrine), but how do we interpret it? The problem is Genesis One is a sticky wicket, it's written in a way where it's not quite poetic, and yet not completely historical like other passages.

The Bible states that the Lord created everything in a literal six days, and therefore, that is exactly what happened. I will stand up for God, and speak His Truth.

Copernicus ran into a few people with the same attitude.

Actually, the Bible doesn't state, "that the Lord created everything in a literal six days". Man has added the word literal - it literally doesn't appear in the text. The Bible states that the Lord created everything in a six days. The Bible also states that, "Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion" and states that Jesus is the lion of Judah. So, the Bible literally states that Jesus is Satan. Laughable? Yes, but it illustrates that not all things are to be taken literally. In the example I gave it's obvious. In Genesis One, it's not obvious at all which way it should be taken.

 

[JettaKnight]

Maybe let's focus on one thing at a time?

Can you direct me to the verse in Genesis where it says a "literal" day?

Or, perhaps more to the point, define "day" in a literal, 24-hour way when the sun and moon didn't appear until day 4. (Genesis 1:14-19.)

The prevailing argument is that the Hebrew word for "day" in Gen 1 is the same as in other places where it's obvious it is to be taken literally. Therefore, you must interpret it as 24 hrs.

To that I say, the word for "lion" in, "Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion", is the same word used in other places (e.g. David killing a lion)...

 

[ChristianPatriot]

Maybe let's focus on one thing at a time?

Can you direct me to the verse in Genesis where it says a "literal" day?

Or, perhaps more to the point, define "day" in a literal, 24-hour way when the sun and moon didn't appear until day 4. (Genesis 1:14-19.)

"...And the evening and the morning were the first day."

Evening is the Hebrew 'ereb or dusk

Morning is the Hebrew boqer or dawn

Day is the Hebrew yowm or from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next

 

[JettaKnight]

You're probably right. He probably didn't literally walk on water or literally feed 5,000 or literally die on a cross. There's probably not a literal trinity or a literal hell. I mean, the Bible states all those things, but meh, science.

"It doesn't matter what the Bible says little Johnny, Jesus loves you."

Those are all clearly historical narratives and eye witness accounts, to view them in any other way is not inline with even basic level hermaneutics (i.e. interpretation of text).

Ergo, to equate questioning of a literal interpretation of Gen 1 with questioning of Jesus' time on earth is a strawman argument at best, and at worst a person attack on faith of the questioner. In other words, let's try to remember we are all Christians and should act in a loving manner to our brothers.