God-guided Evolution

by serotonin_wraith 28 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  serotonin_wraith

  Thanks for the article, lovelylil. Most of it looks fine to me - but I still see the fall (and therefore the reason for Jesus' death) as being a problem.

  The article says:

  Some Christians think belief in evolution undermines the uniqueness of humankind and the reality of evil and the fall. Not so. The Genesis account portrays Adam and Eve as Neolithic farmers. It is perfectly feasible that God bestowed His image on representative Homo sapiens already living in the Near East to generate what John Stott has called Homo divinus, those who first enjoyed personal fellowship with God but who then fell most terribly from their close walk with God (Genesis 3.8). All those who disobey God and trust in their own wisdom in place of God’s law reiterate the historical fall in their own being (Ezekiel 28.11-19).

  I think I covered that when I wrote:

  If Adam and Eve were here 6,000 years ago (which they had to be if you follow the genealogical line from Adam to Jesus), then they weren't the first humans. We were on the scene much earlier than that.

  If woman was already around, then what is the point of the story of man being lonely, and God making him a woman from his rib?

  Adam is supposed to be the one who named the animals. Are we really supposed to believe that no one had named them until 6,000 years ago?

  God 'cursed' the snake and made it crawl on its belly. What was it doing before 6,000 years ago? Flying?

  Adam and Eve didn't realize they were naked. In a world full of clothed people, they didn't realize they were naked?

  Did people between 6 and 4,000 years ago really live such long lifespans? 895 years, 777 years, 969 years, etc. Doubtful. Before the 'original sin', was everyone living such long lifespans?

  Were people without pain in childbirth until 6,000 years ago?

  If we are paying for the sins of Adam because we are his descendants- does this mean most of the planet doesn't have to worry because it's more likely we're the descendants of other people?

  People had already made up gods earlier than 6,000 years ago. Why did the real God wait so long before turning up and saying 'Hey guys, I'm the real one. I know I've let you worship other gods for thousands of years because you knew nothing of me, but now I'm a bit angry about it, so stop. Oh yeah, don't murder either. What, you don't like murder already and you wouldn't have got this far if you did? But I'm the moral law giver! Ah screw it, I'm killing you all for talking back to me!'

  Perhaps God chose one couple from all the humans to test. If God was testing this one couple and they failed his test (which he would have known they would, seeing as this is God!) why put hardships on the rest of the humans around at the time who didn't fail him? Christians say God wants people to be good, yet in this case, even if they were, their efforts were in vain because God tested the ones he knew would fail. The logic also goes against the story of Soddon and Gomorrah, where God says if even one person can be found worthy, he won't take drastic action.

  Obviously most of us are not 'Adam and Eve's' descendants, and their sins haven't been passed on to us. Therefore Jesus can't have died for all our sins. The sacrifice for all humanity is meaningless.

  What then, was the whole point of Jesus coming to Earth and dying on a cross?
• 

  Superfine Apostate

  perhaps god farted and boom - the big bang created the universe.
  
  as long as there's a gap in our knowledge, you can always fill it with a god. any god. but you might just focus on more important things like life instead.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  I think I covered that when I wrote:

  Actually no. Read the article again.

  "Conversely Christians should not abuse the Bible by trying to treat it as a scientific textbook, when scientific writing as we understand it now did not even get going until thousands of years after the early chapters of Genesis were written. It is anachronistic to treat biblical texts as if they were articles out of a contemporary scientific journal. The biblical creation accounts tell us timeless truths about God’s purposes for His creation in general, and for humankind in particular."
• 

  lovelylil

  seratonin,

  Not everyone takes Genesis as completely literal. Also, just an interesting point; Adam is not only a personal name but means "Mankind" in Hebrew. When Genesis says Adam named all the animals could it mean Mankind and not a singular man named Adam?

  The Bible is literally filled with hidden meanings of things and we need to understand the language it was written in and what words meant to the writers at that time.

  I don't want to get off the subject of your Q's but thought you may appreciate this point. Lilly
• 

  serotonin_wraith

  But if we're talking specifically about the fall of man, and the original sin that got passed on to every human, is it fair to call that a metaphor? If it is a metaphor, then why did Jesus come to Earth to sacrifice himself for us?

  With mankind naming the animals too- even if it wasn't one man, but many, it was still supposed to have happened 6,000 years ago, which is much too recent.

  The main thing though is that I don't feel you can, as a Christian, say there wasn't original sin. Much of the basis for being a Christian rests on that teaching.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Who said it was a metaphor?
• 

  serotonin_wraith

  lovelylil seemed to hint at it, but okay, if it's not a metaphor, then what about the questions that raises?
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Let me expand a little bit:

  The account of creation in Genesis was described according to the reality of the people of that time and place, if God were to inspire such a thing today I am sure it would be in today's language and cosmology. And if it were in today's terms, how do you think it would look to our descendants 3000 years hence at the current rate of progress? Pretty anachronistic! That is not to say it was a metaphor, it describes real events that really happened, but described in a manner that the people of that time would grasp. It is the same when we explain something to a small child today. We use forms they can understand while conveying the essence of what we are communicating to them.

  Luke: Obi-Wan.
  [Obi-Wan's spirit approaches Luke]
  Luke: Why didn't you tell me? You told me Vader betrayed and murdered my father.
  Obi-Wan: Your father... was seduced by the Dark Side of the Force. He ceased to be Anakin Skywalker and BECAME Darth Vader. When that happened, the good man who was your father was destroyed. So what I told you was TRUE... from a certain point of view.
  Luke: A certain point of view?
  Obi-Wan: Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to...
  [sits down]
  Obi-Wan: depend greatly on our own point of view. Anakin was a good friend.

  Either way, The Christian faith is not a religion of the book. Christianity is the religion of the Word of God, not a written and mute word, but an incarnate and living being. The book is about the faith and the revelation, not the faith itself or the revelation itself.
• 

  lovelylil

  BTS,

  I loved your reply!

  I also agree that not all the "stories" in the Bible are to be taken as literal although they do convey literal truths. You see this pattern thru out the Bible. It has been explained on previous threads to seratonin that most Christians are such not because of their exclusive belief in or understanding of the Bible (the written word) but due to many other factors, as you brought out. Unfortunately, I don't think seratonin is getting this point. Peace, Lilly
• 

  serotonin_wraith

  Hmm. Except I'm not talking about the creation story. I'm talking about man's fall, whether it was a couple called Adam and Eve who ate forbidden fruit or a group of humans who sinned in some other way 6,000 years ago. Turning to Jesus and being grateful for his sacrifice is a big part of being a Christian. That part can't be swept under the rug.