Evolutionism vs the Gospel

Regarding a non literal interpretation of Genesis, what is the symbolism of God forming Eve from Adam?
Gina

 

Establishing headship in marriage relationships (because Adam is formed first) while showing equality ("bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh")?

That's just a first impression. I haven't looked too deeply into it.

 

Hades in the Greek, and Sheol in the Hebrew have the same basic meaning of "place of the departed dead." It is the place where the spirits of those who died went to await the time of the resurrection. Jesus draws a good picture of this place in Luke 16:19-31.
The rich man (not knowing the Lord or not being saved) died and went to Hell--that compartment of Hades reserved for the spirits of the unsaved. The beggar, Lazarus had already died, and was "in Abraham's bosom being comforted (or in that compartment of Hades known as Paradise). Thus in the one place called Hades or Sheol there were the two compartments: Hell and Paradise. Jesus goes on in the same story and tells how there was a great gulf fixed between the two places such that no man could pass. It was impossible for Lazarus to go to the rich man and cool his tongue as he requested.

What happened at the cross.
1. Jesus said to the thief: "Today thou shalt be with me in Paradise." It is possible that the thief went to the paradise so described, as Jesus had to be the firstruits to ascend into Heaven.
2. Later Jesus did ascend into heaven, and when he did he "led captivity captive." (Eph.4:8)
3. The Bible also says:
1 Peter 3:19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
--Here it speaks of Christ proclaiming his victory over the disobedient spirits in Hell, before He ascends into Heaven.
In Rev.20 it speaks of death and Hell being thrown into the lake of fire, which will be final sentence of all the unsaved. As of now, the compartment that was known as paradise is no more. Christ led those OT saints to Heaven. When the Great White Throne Judgement comes, that compartment known as Hell will also cease to exist, and thus Hades or Sheol will be non-existent for it will have served its purpose.
DHK

 

Yes. I believe Jesus was the first who was able to escape hell - because he was the first whom hell could not hold!

Act 26:23 That Christ should suffer, [and] that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

Rev 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, [who is] the faithful witness, [and] the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

Hbr 6:20 Whither the forerunner is for us entered, [even] Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

Rev 1:18 I [am] he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

Jesus was the forerunner - the first who was able to escapte hell and death. He took the keys of hell and death away from their previous owner, Satan.

Mat 27:50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
Mat 27:51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
Mat 27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
Mat 27:53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

Now lets put 2 + 2 together. If the 'saints' were dead... how many 'saints' were there before Jesus? How many 'christians' had died and rose with Christ?

I would submit that these were those such as David, Job, Moses, etc. You see... Jesus was the FORERUNNER. He made THE WAY. HE IS THE WAY, THE TRUTH, AND THE LIFE. NO MAN comes to the Father but by Him. You see... to understand the good news of salvation, you must first understand the bad news of the fall and the reason we NEED a savior. You see, even the old testament saints who followed God went to hell. Why? Because they were bound to it regardless of what they did - they were sinners because they were partakers of the death in Adam. For Jesus to be a forerunner, that means NNE had done that before. He was the 'trail blazer'. He was the FIRST in the resurrection. Jesus had raised people from the dead before, but they didn't live forever did they? Meaning Jesus pulled them back from Hell into their bodies, but death still had them.

Jesus was the first to be raised from the dead in the resurrection unto ETERNAL LIFE.

Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy [is] he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

You don't die again when you are a partaker of the FIRST RESURECTION (Christ).

So then - the saints who rose just after Jesus' death and resurrection - if they were the OT saints raising from hell, then how did they partake in Jesus' resurrection? Don't you have to believe in Jesus and accept the gift of salvation to be part of that ressurrection. ABSOLUTELY you do.

The OT Jews had that! We see in their animal sacrifices that they had FAITH in those sacrifices to cleanse them of all unrighteousness. Those Sacrifices were a symbolic representation of Christ for the Jews. In believing that their sins were forgiven them through the sacrifices, they belived in the symbol of Christ - they believed in Jesus before they knew who Jesus was, or before they ever saw Jesus. This is why they were raised with Christ when Christ went to hell... took the keys of Hell and Death from Satan.

Think of the scripture where Jesus says "your sins are forgiven" and the Pharisees get all riled up about it.

1Th 4:13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
1Th 4:14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
1Th 4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive [and] remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
1Th 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
1Th 4:17 Then we which are alive [and] remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

Indeed, death could not hold him. He did indeed conquer it. Amen.

By 'bound to hell' I mean he had to go there when he died. Remember, he cried out "why have you forsaken me". To my knowlede hell and death are eternal separation from God. I do not mean he was 'bound to stay'... I mean he was obligated to make the trip.

 

Also, what is the symbolism of the geneologies, and what is the symbolism of the dimentions of the Ark given to Moses?

Tts 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

God cannot lie. That shoots down Mercury's idea that God gave us this 'other' story because we wouldn't understand evolution.

 

Galatian - you still have not answered my question -

Do you think homosexual marriage is Ok? You seem to be making the implication that homosexuals have the same rules as heterosexuals in that if a homosexual is celebit there is no sin in them (just as it would for a heterosexual).

So answer the question, then. Is homosexual marriage ok? Is homosexual bahvior ok if it is within the marriage relationship?

This has direct implications to the creation V evolution discussion. I believe this issue is a good example of how humanistic thought has invaded the church (such as capitulating to millions of years) and unlocked the door to undermining Biblical authority and pushing that door open further and further until it is no longer simply Genesis, but other doctrines that are deemed non-literal.

In it's sights is the very literalness of Jesus and the cross.

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Mal 2:14 Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet [is] she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.
Mal 2:15 And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed.

Clearly, the idea of those being married becoming one for the purpose of creating Godly seed. This doctrine is based in Genesis. That we leave our parents and become one with our spouse for the purpose of godly offspring.

The perfect model - the REASON and DEFINITION of marriage is given in Genesis... repeated in Malachi and spoken of again by Jesus as a literal interpretation of scripture when asked about divorce:

Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female,
Mat 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Mat 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/9242860.htm

I live in Minneapolis, MN. I have seen this Church. I guarentee you that they do not believe in a literal Genesis but capitulate to millions of years. In the same way, they do not give credence to a literal interpretation of marriage or homosexuality.

Just about every doctrine in scripture has some part of it's foundation in Genesis. If you can dismiss Genesis as non-literal, you can - and indeed as we have seen many do - dismiss other truth for the same reason.

Humanism has influenced the church greatly in the USA. We need to get back to believing the Bible as absolute and ultimate truth.

For example, in many churche's statement of faith we see writing such as:

"we believe the Bible to be the true on all matters of faith."

It stops there. As a Biblical Creationist, I would say that "We believe the Bible to be the true authority on all matters of faith and practice and everything it touches upon".

By giving in to humanistic man's ideas of millions of years, the church unlocked the door for future generations who have pushed the door open further and further until Christians are getting together to vote with marbles about which portions of the Bible are not true!

We have had about 200 years of evolution undermining scripture, and look where it has taken us in that time. It has undermined Biblical authority to the point where not only Genesis is dismissed, but now the morality of the Bible is also being dismissed.

Look at the 1940's and 1950's for example. Evolution was being taught in the schools, but people still had good morals and values. Every generation that comes along learns more and more how Genesis is a fairy tale, and they dismiss more and more of the Bible.

Remember what 1Corinthians says?

1Cr 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

Would you say that the culture in the USA (as a type) is increasing more like the Jewish culture, or more like the Greek culture?

In the Jewish culture, they were taught from a young age the Scripture and word of God as truth. They grew up believing in Genesis and LIVING the law of Moses. They had a firm grasp on what death and sin were. They knew that the Messiah was coming to save them from that. You had only to show that Christ was the Messiah and the Jews would believe in him.

The Greeks had no concept of who the Messiah was... they had no concept of Genesis.... they had no concept of Sin or that death was a result of Sin. THEY DIDN"T KNOW THEY WERE LOST. When you tell someone who doesn't know they are lost they need to be saved, it's foolishness.

Every day, the culture of the United States becomes more and more like the Greeks. As we see the Bible and prayer get thrown out of schools, evolution taught as fact, the 10 commandments get thrown out of public places... nativity scenes get thrown out of public places... teachers getting fired for talking about God in their classrooms, or even for wearing a necklace with a cross - the ACLU suing everyone and anything that has anthing to do with Christianity - UNDER GOD being removed from pledge of alligence...

Would you say that our culture is increasingly MORE based on scripture or increasingly LESS based on scripture? Less. We are increasingly MORE like the greeks. To the Greeks, preaching christ (or messiah) is foolishness.

But look at Paul's method of preaching to 'Greek' types of people (according to 1cor 1:23):

Act 17:17 Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him.
Act 17:18 Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection.

They saw Paul teaching on Jesus as foolishness. They called him a babbler. So what did Paul do? He told them about Genesis and about creation!!

Acts 17:22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, [Ye] men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.
23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth,((He is talking about Adam here and how we are all decendents of ONE man, Adam)) and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by [that] man whom he hath ordained; [whereof] he hath given assurance unto all [men], in that he hath raised him from the dead.
32 And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this [matter].

He also used this same method when preaching to other 1Cor 1:23 'Greek' types:

Acts 14:6 They were ware of it, and fled unto Lystra and Derbe, cities of Lycaonia, and unto the region that lieth round about:
15 And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein:

Paul preached to the 'greek' types about the Creator and creation as written in Genesis so that the message of the cross would not be simply foolishness. In order to understand Salvation, these people needed to first understand Creation and the fall in Genesis.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v14n2_gospel.asp

If you water-down, dismiss, or categorize as 'non-literal' the verses of Genesis, you are effecting everything that is built upon it. AS we see in the example of Homosexual Marriage, we see how a dismissal of literal Genesis leads directly to a dismissal of Biblical authority where it concerns other things such as morality. As we see in the example of the Jesus seminar (where they vote with marbles) a dismissal of a literal Genesis can lead also to a dismissal of Jesus as literal.

The root of this is the undermining of God's Word by Humanism. It is the very example we see of Satan decieving Eve in the Garden of Eden. Satan undermines God's Word by giving the impression that God's Word wasn't true and that it is an 'advancement of man'. Don't forget, Eve was also quick to look at the physical evidence outside the constructs of God's word as justification to her dismissal of God's word. We are all quite aware of where that line of reasoning got her.

 

This is the fallacy of the slippery slope in action. It is not a valid argument.

"So answer the question, then. Is homosexual marriage ok? Is homosexual bahvior ok if it is within the marriage relationship?"

I'll answer the question. Homosexuality is wrong. Any sex outside of marriage, for that matter, is wrong. Gay couples should not be allowed to be married.

Now having said that, let me qualify it in the interest of full disclosure. I do try to be honest. While I do not think that a gay couple constitutes what I would like to call a marriage, if a court finds that a state is being discriminatory under that state's constituation by not allowing marriage, then that court has ruled correctly. If the state wishes to change the constitution, then they have that right though I am wary of taking such an action whose purpose is to remove a right even if I do not personally agree. I have some mixed feelings about civil unions. I do not want to be seen as condoning such action but at the same time I can see the argument of having a legal contract in place for such things as making medical descisions and such.

"In it's sights is the very literalness of Jesus and the cross."

False. Do you see any of us arguing that you should not believe what the Bible has to say about Jesus? This is a slippery slope argument you are making.

"Clearly, the idea of those being married becoming one for the purpose of creating Godly seed. This doctrine is based in Genesis."

This is not changed by viewing the creation account as non-literal. As pointed to you at the beginning of the thread, none advocate than humans have not always been male and female.

"I live in Minneapolis, MN. I have seen this Church. I guarentee you that they do not believe in a literal Genesis but capitulate to millions of years. In the same way, they do not give credence to a literal interpretation of marriage or homosexuality."

You are not showing cause. Just because they believe two separate things does not mean or imply that they believe the second because of the first. It sounds like they are in left field on a whole lot of things.

"If you can dismiss Genesis as non-literal, you can - and indeed as we have seen many do - dismiss other truth for the same reason."

Slippery slope. It is false. We are not "dismissing" the creation account, we are recognizing it for what it is. We do not "dismiss" the truth of what it teaches, we only say that it teaches that truth in a non-literal fashion.

"Look at the 1940's and 1950's for example. Evolution was being taught in the schools, but people still had good morals and values. Every generation that comes along learns more and more how Genesis is a fairy tale, and they dismiss more and more of the Bible."

More of a slippery slope without showing that one caused the other. There have been a whole lot of changes happening during that time. Many people who wish to make a point against something will point out how things have changed with regard to that issue and how all these bad things have happened. They never bother to show cause. Is it evolution? Is it the sexual revolution? Is it the lack of school prayer? Is it drugs? People blame it all on different things as it is convenient to whatever point they are trying to make.

"If you water-down, dismiss, or categorize as 'non-literal' the verses of Genesis"

It is not "watering down" or "dismissing" it is recognizing them as non-literal but true.

 

You know, it just dawned on me -

Mat 9:2 And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.
Mat 9:3 And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This [man] blasphemeth.
Mat 9:4 And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?
Mat 9:5 For whether is easier, to say, [Thy] sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk?
Mat 9:6 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.

Sin and death... sin and death... sin and death. Death is a part of the curse of sin. Death involves entropy, disease, mutation, corruption... it is a result of sin. Jesus says his sin is forgiven, and he was healed! The man was PHYSICALLY healed! Jesus saw no distinction between SIN and DEATH and DISEASE and INFIRMITY. The man was sick with palsy. Palsy is genetic. It's not communicable nor is it truely a disease. It is more like a 'mutation'... a deficiency one is born with.

This only serves to demonstrate to the n'th degree exactly what we have been saying.

 

John 9:1-3: As He passed by, He saw a man blind from birth. And His disciples asked Him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?"

Jesus answered, "It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him."

It appears that Jesus, unlike some of his followers (and unlike many health-and-wealth teachers today), was quite aware of the difference between sin and infirmity.

 

Nobody (aside from you) is claiming that the Bible contains Easter bunny stories. Do you also consider Jesus' parables to be Easter bunny stories that are incapable of conveying truth?

What about Revelation 1:18 where Jesus says that he "was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades." If those keys are not literal keys but rather symbolic, does that make Jesus' entire statement about conquering death an Easter bunny story?

 

In fact, I do see this. While you personally have not said that, I am referring to those who believe in Evolution. In fact, the vast majority of those who believe evolution do not believe in the Bible, nor Christ, nor Jesus. Many Christians who believe in Evolution have also capitulated to the non-literalness of Jesus (as I showed you in the articles about the Jesus Seminar intellectuals who voted with marbles).

You do not see young earth creationists going around voting on whether or not Jesus was real. We do see Christian evolutionists doing this, however.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/religion/cst-nws-insight20.html
http://www.equip.org/free/DJ032.htm
http://www.texnews.com/1998/religion/morph0411.html

They do their speculating by studying writing styles, the culture at the time the Gospel was written, comparing narratives and studying the writings of ancient historians.

And they have concluded, for instance, that Jesus never spoke the Lord's Prayer. They have concluded that Jesus was not born of a virgin. Instead, they say, after his death, Jesus' disciples spread the rumor to compete with a king of the time who, the king's followers said, was born of a virgin.

Finally, they have decided that the resurrection never happened. Rather, they say, Jesus' body was probably left on the garbage heap called Golgotha.

Who are these people who feel they have the right to ravage the Gospel stories? They are respected scholars and university and seminary professors who finally decided the public ought to know this stuff.

Most of you were probably just as happy not to know. But, when scholars get organized, it's tough stopping them.

They are organized through the Jesus Seminar, a California-based inquiry group studying the life of Jesus. They meet several times a year -- more than 100 scholars who hear lectures, discuss the finer points of history and then vote on various Gospel passages.

They use marbles, dropping a white marble into a box if they believe the passage is definitely believed to be the words of Jesus, a red marble if the passage is somewhat likely, a gray marble if it is probably not authentic and a black marble if it is definitely not the word of Jesus.

I guarantee that none of these folks are YEC!! They are all 'scholars' ... those coming out of 'universities' and 'academia'. They will all most certainly believe in evolution and millions of years, as it is clear that they believe more in man's interpretation of facts than the Word itself. It is VERY VERY clear that evolution (the church's capitulation to humanism) has indeed lead to the dismissal of Jesus Christ himself as literal.

So you believe the Bible is true when it says that God created distince kinds in in six literal days... you believe that is true... but you don't believe it is literally true. It's true that 'he told the story'... but the story itself isn't true?

You are not escaping here... you are still calling God a liar. The 'story' can't be true and not have happened!

"God ... how did you create the earth?"

"Well you see, first I did x... then I did y... then I did Z". For the story to be true... XYZ had to have happened... otherwise God is a liar. Even if XYZ are figurative rather than literal, they have to accurately represent something that actually happened.

In our case, not only are you denying what the scriptures plainly say to be true, you have yet to offer an explaination based on the sequence of events that IS true. You simply assert that what it disctinctly and clearly says is false.

You simply can't stretch Genesis 1 to mean evolution or millions of years. It simply is not a feasible representation of the sequence or entries in Genesis. Even if Genesis is ENTIRELY figurative (or allegorical) it can't be twisted enough to mean evolution. No where do you find even the slightest support of evolution.

Don't get me wrong... I am not advocating that Genesis is non-literal. I am simply saying that your argument that Genesis is non-literal changes nothing. You are merely trying to deflect the argument. Evolution doesn't agree with Genesis whether it's literal or non-literal. We choose to interpret it as literal because it makes much more sense to do so... both scripturally and naturally.

 

You forgot to post the rest of that passage -

Jhn 9:3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.
Jhn 9:4 I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.
Jhn 9:5 As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.

Jesus said - Hey ... this blindness is not the result of this man (or his parent's) works. The blindness is a result of sin and death (something the Jews understood) because he lives in a fallen world. I have come to this world to correct that situation. I have come to this world to reverse it.

The focus of that passage is not that the man was blind... but that Jesus had come to offer salvation for the current state of affairs! This further supports the fact that physical death and infirmity is a result of the curse - and that Jesus came to make a way to triumph over that curse!

If you think that verse is about sin and the blind man, your wrong. It's about life and Christ. Sin, death, and infirmity is here and part of our everyday lives. The real news proclaimed in that passage is that Jesus came to save us from that! He came that 'the works of God would be manifest in the EARTH' as well as in heaven.

ON EARTH AS IT IS IN HEAVEN!!

More of your scholarly christian evolutionist buddies have developed that further. Here is what they say:

More garbage from the Jesus Seminar. More of 'your buddies' who mix humanism with the Word and decide for themselves what is literal and what is not. This is truely the sad state of affairs that those who call themselves christian and capitulate to humanism, evolution, and millions of years doctrines find themselves in.

I thank God that the evolutionists here (with the possible of Galatian who is really teetering on the edge) have not given up as much ground as the christians from the Jesus Seminar have. But I would sternly warn you to take heed that this is the result and direction of your doctrine.

Yet you yourself subscribe to the idea that God gave us Genesis as a placeholder because he knew the people writing it wouldn't understand the truth. Sounds like you are describing Genesis as a fairy tale to me!!

 

No, this is what Jesus said about the cause of the man's blindness: "It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him. We must work the works of Him who sent Me as long as it is day; night is coming when no one can work. While I am in the world, I am the Light of the world."

Now, carefully read that, and then read what you wrote. They are not the same. They are not even close. The passage does not make the point you want it to make. You do not seem to be able to distinguish between your personal interpretation and Scripture itself.

No, young-earth creationists generally commit different errors than theistic evolutionists. While unorthodox theistic evolutionists are more likely to dismiss the supernatural, unorthodox young-earth creationists are more likely to dismiss the human elements, whether it's the human component of the Bible, the humanity of Jesus, or the societal aspects of the gospel.

This is the whole problem with the slippery slope fallacy. The person making the argument assumes they have arrived at the solid ground of the summit while those who disagree with them are on the slopes below. However, if Truth is the summit, we're all on the slopes, although not necessarily on the same slope. On your side, there's a real danger of slipping into requiring more exactness of the Bible than God has chosen to provide us with, of idolizing of the Bible, or of elevating personal interpretations to the same level as Scripture. Your slope leads to version-onlyism (so that one can be sure of the exact English words), legalism, and narrow-minded focus on certain topics and prooftexts to the avoidance of others.

On our side, I agree that the slope below us leads to liberalism and placing our own ideas ahead of the Bible. (Ironically, both slopes can lead to that error -- our side by putting our own opinion ahead of the Bible, and your side by reading your own opinion into the Bible.) Our dangers are well-defined, and most who have come to our position have wrestled with these issues as they pursued the truth. But often those on your slope don't realize the dangers; many think they've already reached the summit! Perhaps that's why you've had to look to distant sources to find those who have drastically succumbed to the errors on our side. Because we are more aware of the dangers, we tend to watch our footing closely as we continue to strive for the summit.

 

"In fact, the vast majority of those who believe evolution do not believe in the Bible, nor Christ, nor Jesus."

The people who do not believe in God do not try and force the data through a filter of their own, personal interpretation of scripture. They allow the data to speak for itself. Look at the major YEC groups such as AIG and ICR. They require their members to agree to the conclusion beforehand. They must. Previous YEC groups failed because the members kept coming to the "wrong" conclusion.

"Many Christians who believe in Evolution have also capitulated to the non-literalness of Jesus (as I showed you in the articles about the Jesus Seminar intellectuals who voted with marbles)."

And you are still not showing cause. If you assert thet they believe A and B it does not logically follow that they believe B because they believe A.

"You do not see young earth creationists going around voting on whether or not Jesus was real. We do see Christian evolutionists doing this, however."

Do you really want to drag this down into what have people done who happen to be old or young earth?

"So you believe the Bible is true when it says that God created distince kinds in in six literal days... you believe that is true... but you don't believe it is literally true. It's true that 'he told the story'... but the story itself isn't true?"

You asked about homosexuality. I answered. My answer did not go out into left field because I hold a non-literal view of the creation account. I saw the truth of what God was telling us even though He used a non-literal form to accomplish His will.

 

Now I admit, what I said was very off the cuff and my initial knee jerk reaction to interpreting the verse. Let's roll up our sleeves and take a look at it -

Jhn 9:2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?
Jhn 9:3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.
Jhn 9:4 I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.
Jhn 9:5 As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.

Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

The Hebrew word for 'works' of God is ERGON. It means "that which one undertakes to do, enterprise, undertaking". The Hebrew word for 'manifest' is phaneroo which means "to make visible or known what has been hidden or unknown or to show one's self, appear".

SO we can see that the verse literally says:

Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that which God has undertaken to do should be made visible in Me.

We can see from the context of verses 4 and 5 that Jesus is speaking of himself. Clearly, the meaing of 'phaneroo' is that Jesus was revealing himself - the one who heals by fogiving sin - in this situation. The context is CLEARLY referring to Jesus. What has God undertaken to do? He SENT his Son, Jesus, to take upon himself the Sin of the world and die physically in our place so that we can be made alive in Him.

Jesus healing this man had nothing to do with the man... it had everything to do with revealing Jesus as Christ and revealing the REASON Jesus was here - to redeem us from the Curse of sin and death brought upon us by Adam. Because sin and death are physical, Jesus' went around healing many people... DEMONSTRATING that the forgiveness of sin does in fact equate to physical restoration as well as spiritual. Clearly, if the forgiveness of sin has the physical effect of healing people who have genetic disorders (such as palsy) that means that the genetic defect is the DIRECT PHYSICAL RESULT of sin in the earth! A clear and solid link is made in Matt 9:2-6. Jesus demonstrated that his ministry on the earth was just as much physical as it was spiritual. Or do you suppose, as the Jesus Seminar people do, that Jesus' miracles were not literal, but figurative ... just as they suppose that Genesis is figurative? If Jesus came only to save us spiritually, then what use would he have for healing people? What basis would forgiving a man be equal to telling him he is physically healed? Except if sin and death were connected to the physical world... if sin caused physical death as Romans 5:12 says... then Jesus forgiving sin would have a physical effect!

It is so exciting to be Christian! We have answers to the very questions of life and death in this world! We worship a loving God who's word is infallible and always true to us. He never lies to us, he never fails us.

By "human elements" I am not quite sure I understand exactly what you mean. Do you mean humanistic influences or humanistic knowledge - items not directly addressed in scripture? You say 'humanity of Jesus'... what exactly do we dismiss about this? In fact, it is ONLY through Jesus' humanity that we can be saved. Only by Jesus partaking in the Curse of Sin and Death could he save us from Sin and death. Only by PHYSCIALLY being human could Jesus save us spiritually, as I explained in a previous post.

Ah.... wha? Idolizing the Bible? Um... in case you haven't heard or weren't aware... God and His Word are one in the same.

Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Rev 19:13 And he [was] clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God... 16 And he hath on [his] vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

If you believe that the Bible can be an idol, then what you are saying that is that God... almighty God who created all things... is an idol. I would ask the question then... who do you worship? If not God, then who?

I agree... this would be tremendously wrong. That is why it is extremely important to read the Bible as written... and determine the author's intended meaning. This means reading the context, studying the meaning of the Hebrew (to eliminate translation bias and error) and allowing SCRIPTURE to define SCRIPTURE... not science define scripture... not man define scripture. Let God tell us what He means!

 

And you are still not showing cause. If you assert thet they believe A and B it does not logically follow that they believe B because they believe A.</font>[/QUOTE]Let me demonstrate a UTEOTW argument - Gup says A is true. UTE disagrees and says A isn't true because it needs B to be true. Gup shows how B is true. UTE disagrees and says that B isn't true because it must have A. Gup is bewildered because he already showed UTE how A and B are both true and confirm one another.

You assert that I do not show causality of how Christians who believe evolution can turn into the Christians at the Jesus seminar. But that is EXACTLY what I have been trying to explain to you the whole time.

When you try to insert millions of years (read millions of years as "man's humanistic ideas") into the Scripture, the result is that you must trump the portions of scripture that disagree with man's humanistic ideas. When you dismiss God's word in respect to mans word (for example, when you dismiss Genesis's literal days and insert millions of years) you undermine scripture. When you undermine scripture, you unlock and open a door to more of scripture... that which is based upon the portions you dismiss... to also be dismissed. When you classify Genesis as non-literal, you unlock a very large door because the vast majority of scripture is based upon it. Genesis is the FOUNDATION upton which the cornerstone (jesus) was laid. If you destroy the foundation, the whole structure cannot stand. If you dismiss Genesis as non-literal it provides a platform from which to attack the whole of scripture as non-literal. The enemy was defeated at the cross... so if the enemy can make that defeat disappear, he can gain victory again. This is the mechanism (or causality) you are looking for. By udermining the scriptures history and the possibility of it's literallness, you are providing the means by which those, such as the Jesus Seminar, Jusitify their dismissal of Jesus as literal. It is upon the foundation of science and man's knowledge that the justification of dismissing Christ, thereby dismissing their own salvation has occured! If man's knowledge and understanding are good enough to re-interpret Genesis, then why should it be any different for re-interpreting Jesus?

While I don't know what you have in mind... I would say that the argument is not possible... but what has happened. What HAS happened... and you are just as guilty in this as any Jesus Seminar Fellow... is that the scripture has been undermined and dismissed. Humanistic ideas have replaced godly ideas. The worship of humanism (evolution) as supreme authority has replaced the worship of God - the Actual Supreme Authority. It is fallicy to justify wrong behavior by pointing to someone else's worse wrong behavior. Wrong behavior is bad regardless of what degree it is to 'someone else'. Especially when the root or heart of it remains the same.

Yes, your view is quite duplicitous. You 'say' that you believe that homosexuality is wrong, yet you clearly posted a 'caveat' and qualified your view of scripture with (and I am rhetorically paraphrasing) "but I don't see anything wrong with it". Your statements give me the impression that you think the Bible is against homosexuality, but you don't think the issue really matters. It is the same approach, I believe, that you take with Genesis and literal creation. "oh that doesn't matter to my salvation... I am free to believe whatever I want to believe about that".

While I don't want to get too far off track, I think this needs to be addressed. First of all, God says that it is wrong. God says that marriage is between a man and woman for the purpose of Godly offspring. Homosexual marriage defies that definition. Additionally, the Bible makes clear that it is sin.

Homosexuality is not a right. It is a CHOICE. People are not 'born homosexuals'. They choose to BECOME homosexual. Just as a man can choose to commit adultry or not. Just as a pedophile chooses to victimize children. Just as a murderer chooses to kill. Homosexuality is a BEHAVIOR, not a right. As such, we have the right as a society to regulate it... just as we have the right to regulate other sexual deviance. It all comes right back to a question of morality. Where, as a society, do we draw the line? Our society was founded by Christians (for the most part). We follow the 'judeo/christian' ethic. Basically, our idea of right and wrong comes FROM the Bible. If the Bible gives us that definition of Marriage, and says that homosexuality is sin, then we have the right as a society to call upon that as our collective decison of 'where to draw that line'. JUST as is the case with evolution, humanism has unlocked the door... and has pushed that door further and further open. We used to have laws (and many states still do) outlawing many forms of sexual activity ... especially that practiced by homosexuals, but also including non-consentual, underage, sodomy, etc.

By some of the evolutionists here admissions, homosexuality is not wrong unless they act upon it. Let me ask the question then... is it 'wrong' for a 50yr old man to be sexually attrackted to a 7 year old girl? Is arousal by the sight or smell of the young child considered 'wrong' or disturbing? Why? Why would that be evil or wrong in any way, as long as the man does not act upon it... isn't he free from the condemnation of the sin until he actually molests the child? And who is to say that he and the child don't love each other... why shouldn't they express that love? It is becuase we as a society have decided morally what is right and wrong. If you believe the Bible is true, then you should have the same view of homosexuality. That it is a wrong behavior... a deviation of a person who needs help and healing. That it is wrong even to be attracked to those of the same gender because God says it's wrong, and demonstrated that it should not be so when he created a WOMAN to be with the man. That is... unless you believe Genesis to be a fairy tale... in that case it's merely a coincidental suggestion. We know that woman wasn't created by God for man because we know from science that both men and woman evolved from apes... by the definition of 'reality' then we should be able to breed with animals if we want to. Cause that's the way God actually made us... to come from other animals. So then, we can see that sexuality is really a form of control used by those in the Old Testament and we aren't really required to follow that part anyway. It doesn't effect my salvation, so it's no big deal really.

It may not have effected the salvation of those early christians who capitulated to evolution, but they opened the door to undermining scripture and it has directly lead to future generations using the same reasoning to dismiss Jesus as non-literal, just as Genesis was dismissed as non-literal.

Today, our society is becomming MORE AND MORE like the 'Greek Type' from 1Cor 1:23. The more our students are taught that Genesis is not real, and that they can trust man's science instead, the more each generation is increasingly more like the Greeks... seeing the Bible as foolishness.

 

So you seriously considered being a homosexual before you settled on heterosexuality? Seriously? I sure didn't. In fact, out of the scores of people I've asked about that, only one said that she actually decided, and she was bisexual.

If you didn't chose your orientation, what makes you think other people do?

Adultery is not a sexual orientation.

It's perverted. So is homosexuality. However, neither person sins, if they don't do anything about it, and don't dwell on it. It is not a sin to be tempted; it is only a sin to give in to temptation.

The "smell"? What are you talking about, Gup? That's creepy.

Until he dwells on it in his mind. The awful thing is, pedophiles, genuine ones, are apparently unable to ever be cured of their disorder. But a man who has that affliction has not sinned unless he gives in to it in mind or action.

Homosexual behavior is indeed wrong. But a celibate homosexual is no more guilty than a celibate unmarried heterosexual.

It remains true that temptation is not sin; Jesus was, after all, tempted. To say that temptation is sin, is therefore blasphemous.

Nope. Christians are still quite content to accept evolution as true, and Jesus as historically factual.

 

What does the Jesus seminar or homosexuality have to do with any of this??

There are plenty of weirdos who believe the bible literally - even hyperliterally.

 

Did you read what I actually said? Did you miss this part?

"Yes, your view is quite duplicitous."

There is nothing "duplicitous" about my view. I said it quite clearly that I think that homosexuality is wrong and that they should not be allowed to marry. I said nothing at all resembling your paraphrasing of "but I don't see anything wrong with it." If that is what you got then you must have read it wrong.

The closest to any of this was the following. If a state's constitution provides for such already, then courts are ruling correctly by saying so. "Even if I do not personally agree." If that is the case, I do not support changing constitutions to take rights out. "Even if I do not personally agree."

Let me give the last one a seperate paragraph. I said I am undecided about civil unions. Let me give an example. I do not think heterosexual couples should be living together and having kids outside the bonds of marraige. Yet it still happens. Lets suppose that a couple has been living together for several years. They even have a couple of kids. But they never married. In many places they would be considered legally to be common law spouses. Now I am not a lawyer, so I might be wrong, but I suppose that it is not unreasonable to guess that if a couple has achieved common law status, that they might not also be given some of the rights associated with such. For instance in making medical decisions if one gets sick. Now that I am not out campaigning against common law marriage does not mean that I support non-married couples living together. By the same token, with regards to civil unions I said "I do not want to be seen as condoning such action." But I also recognize that in an effort to be decent human beings, some provisions may need to be made. "Even if I do not personally agree."

"Your statements give me the impression that you think the Bible is against homosexuality, but you don't think the issue really matters."

Then your impression is wrong.

"It is the same approach, I believe, that you take with Genesis and literal creation. "oh that doesn't matter to my salvation... I am free to believe whatever I want to believe about that". "

As are you. I do not think that your error in this matter effects your salvation at all.

"While I don't want to get too far off track, I think this needs to be addressed. First of all, God says that it is wrong. God says that marriage is between a man and woman for the purpose of Godly offspring. Homosexual marriage defies that definition. Additionally, the Bible makes clear that it is sin."

Since I never disagreed with any of that, I do not know what you are trying to address.

"Homosexuality is not a right. It is a CHOICE. People are not 'born homosexuals'. They choose to BECOME homosexual."

What, are we debating by slogan now?

I think that if you were to read the constitution you would find that people have every right to be homosexual. How can it not be a right? That is absurd. People also have rights to do all sorts of other things that I consider to be wrong also. Just because things are wrong does not mean that you don't have the right to do them.

I suppose that my mistake with you is that I did not come out and say that the activities should be made illegal and we should through 'em all in jail. Maybe that would have been far enough for you.

As far as "choice" goes, I think it is much more complicated than that. Some certainly do choose so, while some are born with a predispostion to do so. For instance people with problems in the sex determining region of their sex determining chromosome. Before you twist my words again, this is not an excuse. The activity is still wrong. Some people may be predisposed to alcoholism or being a cleptomaniac. It is still wrong to do such things.

"As such, we have the right as a society to regulate it... just as we have the right to regulate other sexual deviance."

Politically, I do not think that we should attempt to regulate what consenting adults do in their own bedrooms. I oppose attempts to do so. Its Orwellian. I do not want someone else determining whether what I do with my wife is deviant enough to qualify as illegal. Whose definition of deviant do we use? Some will say that anything other than married couples in certain positions with a goal of conception is deviant. No, we do not need to regulate what consenting adults are doing behind closed doors.

"By some of the evolutionists here admissions, homosexuality is not wrong unless they act upon it."

I'll go along with that for sake of discussion. Temptation is not sin of itself.

"Let me ask the question then... is it 'wrong' for a 50yr old man to be sexually attrackted to a 7 year old girl? Is arousal by the sight or smell of the young child considered 'wrong' or disturbing? Why?"

You are now comparing consenting adults to dirty old men preying on kids?

Pedaphilia is wrong. Those with those tendencies need help. THose that act upon them need punishment and help.

"And who is to say that he and the child don't love each other... why shouldn't they express that love?"

A child is too easily manipulated by an adult and is not able to give such consent nor to make such a decision. It is wise for the law to draw the line in order to protect the children.

In the case of consenting adults, they are both fully able to make that decision.

You obviously want to legislate sexual activity. So where is the line drawn? What can I do with my wife? What can someone do with their girlfriend? Are you going to outlaw any sex outside of marriage? Will there be things that married couples can do that unmarried couples cannot do? Whose sense of morality do we use to decide this? (Obviously, because of where we are discussing this, many of the preceeding questions must be considered rhetorical because they would be difficult to answer in an appropriate manner.)

"If you believe the Bible is true, then you should have the same view of homosexuality."

Did you read anything I said? I never waivered from saying it is wrong.

"We know that woman wasn't created by God for man because we know from science that both men and woman evolved from apes... by the definition of 'reality' then we should be able to breed with animals if we want to."

I hope this is an attempt to demonstrate the absurd by being absurd because there is not an ounce of logic in that statement.

"Let me demonstrate a UTEOTW argument - Gup says A is true. UTE disagrees and says A isn't true because it needs B to be true. Gup shows how B is true. UTE disagrees and says that B isn't true because it must have A. Gup is bewildered because he already showed UTE how A and B are both true and confirm one another. "

Nope. Let me demonstrate a Gup argument. I do not like A and I do not like B. SO if I can find someone who thinks A and B I can assert that it is because of A that they believe B even though I have no evidence for this. And while I am at it, I will come up with C, D and E that most people find revolting and attempt to link A to them, mainly by talking about each in concurrent sentences and not by any sort of evidence, and hope that people transfer their feelings about c, D, and E onto A.