Common ancestor or common Creator?

[Guest shiloh357]

Explain HOW what I have written already does not answer the question.

Don't worry - it's not a big deal.

It's just that you explained WHAT the problem was, but not how that makes any difference to the Christian community. I.e. why it is important.

I hate the why question - I can't believe I asked it - it causes nothing but trouble.

The reason it is important to the Christian community is that Gen. 1 is the foundation of God's plan of redemption. Indeed, the Gen 1-11 provides important context for why redemption is even needed in the first place.

Gen 1 and 2 shows that man is not an accident, but was created by God. Man has purpose and God has plan for man. It also demonstrates that God intends to have a relationship with man. The earth is created for man, according to Gen 1 and 2. Man is the purpose and chief object behind God's creative efforts. Man is set apart from the animals and created in God's image.

Now, in Evolution, man is not the product of an intelligent creator. He is the product of an impersonal process. In Evolution, man is just a higher animal with no more intrinsic value than any living creature on earth. Man is just another cog in the process. He has no hope no future beyond the natural world.

That being said, if man was not created by God, if God doesn't exist, then sin would not exist, as there would be no universal moral lawgiver, no absolute truth and no perfect system of justice. For that reason, redemption would be unnecessary, as there would not be sin to be redeemed from.

There would be no objective standard of right of wrong, and no compass to guide behavior. If evolution true, I have no moral obligation to you, no reason to believe in the sanctity of life, as life is just an accident. The only value you possess is what you are able to contribute.

If Evolution is true, this is the only life there is, there is nothing more to hope for.

Once you discard the foundation of redemption(Gen 1 and 2), the rest of the Bible becomes pointless. The Bible is a system of progressive revelation. That means that everything is interrelated and the 1st 2 chapters of Genesis is the foundation upon which the rest of the Bible rests. Since the rest of the Bible treats Genesis as part of human history, then either it is true, or the Bible is wrong. If the Bible could not get it right about man's origins, then how can the Bible be trusted when it teaches about man's sin and man's need for salvation?

That is why it is a big deal.

[MorningGlory]

Explain HOW what I have written already does not answer the question.

Don't worry - it's not a big deal.

It's just that you explained WHAT the problem was, but not how that makes any difference to the Christian community. I.e. why it is important.

I hate the why question - I can't believe I asked it - it causes nothing but trouble.

The reason it is important to the Christian community is that Gen. 1 is the foundation of God's plan of redemption. Indeed, the Gen 1-11 provides important context for why redemption is even needed in the first place.

Gen 1 and 2 shows that man is not an accident, but was created by God. Man has purpose and God has plan for man. It also demonstrates that God intends to have a relationship with man. The earth is created for man, according to Gen 1 and 2. Man is the purpose and chief object behind God's creative efforts. Man is set apart from the animals and created in God's image.

Now, in Evolution, man is not the product of an intelligent creator. He is the product of an impersonal process. In Evolution, man is just a higher animal with no more intrinsic value than any living creature on earth. Man is just another cog in the process. He has no hope no future beyond the natural world.

That being said, if man was not created by God, if God doesn't exist, then sin would not exist, as there would be no universal moral lawgiver, no absolute truth and no perfect system of justice. For that reason, redemption would be unnecessary, as there would not be sin to be redeemed from.

There would be no objective standard of right of wrong, and no compass to guide behavior. If evolution true, I have no moral obligation to you, no reason to believe in the sanctity of life, as life is just an accident. The only value you possess is what you are able to contribute.

If Evolution is true, this is the only life there is, there is nothing more to hope for.

Once you discard the foundation of redemption(Gen 1 and 2), the rest of the Bible becomes pointless. The Bible is a system of progressive revelation. That means that everything is interrelated and the 1st 2 chapters of Genesis is the foundation upon which the rest of the Bible rests. Since the rest of the Bible treats Genesis as part of human history, then either it is true, or the Bible is wrong. If the Bible could not get it right about man's origins, then how can the Bible be trusted when it teaches about man's sin and man's need for salvation?

That is why it is a big deal.

[ConScience]

Explain HOW what I have written already does not answer the question.

Don't worry - it's not a big deal.

It's just that you explained WHAT the problem was, but not how that makes any difference to the Christian community. I.e. why it is important.

I hate the why question - I can't believe I asked it - it causes nothing but trouble.

The reason it is important to the Christian community is that Gen. 1 is the foundation of God's plan of redemption. Indeed, the Gen 1-11 provides important context for why redemption is even needed in the first place.

Gen 1 and 2 shows that man is not an accident, but was created by God. Man has purpose and God has plan for man. It also demonstrates that God intends to have a relationship with man. The earth is created for man, according to Gen 1 and 2. Man is the purpose and chief object behind God's creative efforts. Man is set apart from the animals and created in God's image.

Now, in Evolution, man is not the product of an intelligent creator. He is the product of an impersonal process. In Evolution, man is just a higher animal with no more intrinsic value than any living creature on earth. Man is just another cog in the process. He has no hope no future beyond the natural world.

That being said, if man was not created by God, if God doesn't exist, then sin would not exist, as there would be no universal moral lawgiver, no absolute truth and no perfect system of justice. For that reason, redemption would be unnecessary, as there would not be sin to be redeemed from.

There would be no objective standard of right of wrong, and no compass to guide behavior. If evolution true, I have no moral obligation to you, no reason to believe in the sanctity of life, as life is just an accident. The only value you possess is what you are able to contribute.

If Evolution is true, this is the only life there is, there is nothing more to hope for.

Once you discard the foundation of redemption(Gen 1 and 2), the rest of the Bible becomes pointless. The Bible is a system of progressive revelation. That means that everything is interrelated and the 1st 2 chapters of Genesis is the foundation upon which the rest of the Bible rests. Since the rest of the Bible treats Genesis as part of human history, then either it is true, or the Bible is wrong. If the Bible could not get it right about man's origins, then how can the Bible be trusted when it teaches about man's sin and man's need for salvation?

That is why it is a big deal.

Thorough, clear, concise, polite.

I knew I liked you for a reason, Shiloh.

It seems that some Christians think of it differently, though.

[ConScience]

?

In truth you are not talking about letting students reach conclusions based on evidence, you're talking about endorsing viewpoints regardless of evidence to satisfy your own existential discomfort. I'm not a communist (?) or delusional, I'm a science teacher and I do this every day.

Don't presume to tell me what I'm talking about, Lurker. Teaching the alternate viewpoint to evolution is what I'm talking about....since evolution of man is not proven then the opposing point of view should be taught. No one has ever advocated teaching that a 'magical force' hold atoms together. The structure of the atom has been observed. Don't get your teacher nose out of joint because someone challenges your viewpoint.

I know you believe that Creation should be taught, MG. But the problem is, should we teach the creation stories of ALL religions, or just the Christian one?

[Guest shiloh357]

Explain HOW what I have written already does not answer the question.

Don't worry - it's not a big deal.

It's just that you explained WHAT the problem was, but not how that makes any difference to the Christian community. I.e. why it is important.

I hate the why question - I can't believe I asked it - it causes nothing but trouble.

The reason it is important to the Christian community is that Gen. 1 is the foundation of God's plan of redemption. Indeed, the Gen 1-11 provides important context for why redemption is even needed in the first place.

Gen 1 and 2 shows that man is not an accident, but was created by God. Man has purpose and God has plan for man. It also demonstrates that God intends to have a relationship with man. The earth is created for man, according to Gen 1 and 2. Man is the purpose and chief object behind God's creative efforts. Man is set apart from the animals and created in God's image.

Now, in Evolution, man is not the product of an intelligent creator. He is the product of an impersonal process. In Evolution, man is just a higher animal with no more intrinsic value than any living creature on earth. Man is just another cog in the process. He has no hope no future beyond the natural world.

That being said, if man was not created by God, if God doesn't exist, then sin would not exist, as there would be no universal moral lawgiver, no absolute truth and no perfect system of justice. For that reason, redemption would be unnecessary, as there would not be sin to be redeemed from.

There would be no objective standard of right of wrong, and no compass to guide behavior. If evolution true, I have no moral obligation to you, no reason to believe in the sanctity of life, as life is just an accident. The only value you possess is what you are able to contribute.

If Evolution is true, this is the only life there is, there is nothing more to hope for.

Once you discard the foundation of redemption(Gen 1 and 2), the rest of the Bible becomes pointless. The Bible is a system of progressive revelation. That means that everything is interrelated and the 1st 2 chapters of Genesis is the foundation upon which the rest of the Bible rests. Since the rest of the Bible treats Genesis as part of human history, then either it is true, or the Bible is wrong. If the Bible could not get it right about man's origins, then how can the Bible be trusted when it teaches about man's sin and man's need for salvation?

That is why it is a big deal.

Thorough, clear, concise, polite.

I knew I liked you for a reason, Shiloh.

It seems that some Christians think of it differently, though.

No, those would be religionists, not true Christians. I realize you think it helps your case if you find some Christians willing to compromise their faith. But truth is not determined by who believes or doesn't believe it. Just because you can find some religious people who are willing to see it your way doesn't change the truth.

[ConScience]

No, those would be religionists, not true Christians. I realize you think it helps your case if you find some Christians willing to compromise their faith. But truth is not determined by who believes or doesn't believe it. Just because you can find some religious people who are willing to see it your way doesn't change the truth.

Naughty, naughty. You're making assumptions again.

I'm here to learn. I'm NOT trying to find people who agree with me (otherwise, I'd be on RichardDawkins.net, or some other forum).

I'm NOT looking for anyone to compromise anything - that is NOT what I'm about, and I will keep typing that until my already sore de Quervain's tenosynovitis (a painful side-effect of carrying my heavy 9-month old around too long each day) prevents me from doing so any more.

I'm NOT looking to convert anyone to my point of view.

Again: I'm seeking to understand your point of view, and you articulated it beautifully.

And I was wondering what other people think - whether they think the same as you.

I wasn't trying to be contentious.

Again, thanks for your point of view, Shiloh - always appreciated.