Let's Start a Dialogue

[ByFaithAlone]

On 1/30/2019 at 8:47 PM, Abdicate said:

I'm not elegant in speech nor a great debater, so I'll leave you to your beliefs. I will study God's creation as He instructs, but I will never ever find anything that's contrary to the word of God. There was a literal Adam and a literal Eve and original sin for which the literal Son of God had to come and save me. I don't care how many opinions about creation, God has said how it happened and I believe Him.

I think one.opinion touched on this but theistic evolutionists have various views on the nature of Adam (literal vs. allegorical). As I mentioned earlier in this thread, there are multiple articles on sites like Biologos that discuss this matter. And many people within the theistic evolution community express support for a literal Adam. Certainly, mitochondrial DNA does suggest a mitochondrial Eve at some point in our distant past to which all of us are related. 

Later you mention that there is fabrication and mythology on the part of evolutionary biologists and the scientific community as a whole. Is there a reason that you believe this or any evidence you could provide as to why people from various countries, with various political bents and from various religious and non-religious backgrounds would do such a thing? This entire idea of a global conspiracy seems rather far-fetched without evidence to support it. Especially considering they release their evidence to their peers and the public all the time in the form of articles. 

[one.opinion]

3 hours ago, Abdicate said:

Enjoy your red m&ms.

Thanks, I do like M&Ms!!

[ByFaithAlone]

20 hours ago, Abdicate said:

When you do not believe God, you find every other reason than the literal. 

This seems to imply (and please correct me if I am wrong) that those who do not believe in a literalistic interpretation of the creation account do not believe in God or are not Christians. You can criticize the interpretation as much as you want but please do not imply that those of us who hold such views are somehow non-believers.

20 hours ago, Abdicate said:

Without the real, there's no reason for Jesus. You guys are so focused on the physical that you can't see the spiritual. If you make creation figurative, then Jesus' warnings of hell are figurative. If everything is figurative, then why bother with the word of God at all.

Start with the word of God is 100% accurate and literal. Then go find the explanations for why everything "seems" old. I wrote my chronological study and found Jesus' birth and death by NOT using history books, but relied 100% on the word of God. It's there, you just have to believe it's there to find.

Enjoy your red m&ms.

Let us be clear, there is a field of study dealing with the interpretation of the Bible, from allegory to prophecy to epistle to history. This is the field of hermeneutics. So describing one part of Scripture as prophecy for example would not discount other parts from being history and vice versa. Similarly, I would contend that an allegorical view of the Creation in Genesis does not discount the real need for a Savior in Christ.

Perhaps I am able to steer this conversation towards more of a conciliatory tone. Abdicate and I clearly have different views of the creation account in Genesis and I doubt either of us are likely to be convinced by the other. And that is fine. We should however, grow to learn about each other's positions.

From my perspective, the YEC brings a profound respect for Scriptural inerrancy and most YEC thinkers such as Abdicate are worried about a reduction of all of Scripture to simply a nice moral story with no real consequences. And although I disagree that an allegorical view in any way detracts from Scripture, I can certainly understand their position and worry. Similarly, I think YECs can disagree with theistic evolutionists and scientists. However, they should acknowledge that those of us in the theistic evolution camp have a profound respect for God's creation and the study of aforementioned creation (Psalm 19, Psalm 111). I hope such dialogue between opposing viewpoints can engender such respect for each other's views.  

[Jostler]

I'm very curious how someone who believes the creation account is allegorical can reconcile the concept of original sin and the need for a saviour to reverse that curse of death we're born into. 

If Adam and Eve were not literally formed perfect by an act of God, then when and how did sin and death enter the world? 

[one.opinion]

5 hours ago, Jostler said:

I'm very curious how someone who believes the creation account is allegorical can reconcile the concept of original sin and the need for a saviour to reverse that curse of death we're born into. 

Personally, although I believe that there is some significant figurative language in Genesis 1-3, I believe the genealogy of Jesus presented in the Gospel of Luke is strong evidence of a very real Adam and Eve. I also believe that the relationship with God the He granted them made them responsible for the entry of sin into the world when they sinned.

However, I believe our need for a Savior is rooted more in our individual propensity for sin, and not from the sin of Adam and Eve. So although I do accept “original sin”, I do not see it as essential to the Gospel of Christ. Our need for a Savior is due to our own sin, not due to the sin of Adam and Eve.

[Michael37]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

However, I believe our need for a Savior is rooted more in our individual propensity for sin, and not from the sin of Adam and Eve. So although I do accept “original sin”, I do not see it as essential to the Gospel of Christ. Our need for a Savior is due to our own sin, not due to the sin of Adam and Eve.

You make an interesting point, one.op. One school of thought insists Lucifer's rebellion against God was the original sin from which all subsequent sin derives. Back to your salient point, it is rather exquisite in your citing of our need for a Saviour as being due to our own sin, and that is how we come to Christ, as sinners in need of salvation. There is a mental exercise we can do, and that is place ourselves in the Garden of Eden at the dawn of Creation, and contemplate how we would have fared in comparison to Adam and Eve. 

[one.opinion]

45 minutes ago, Michael37 said:

One school of thought insists Lucifer's rebellion against God was the original sin from which all subsequent sin derives.

This is an excellent point, and worthy (pun intended) of consideration!

47 minutes ago, Michael37 said:

There is a mental exercise we can do, and that is place ourselves in the Garden of Eden at the dawn of Creation, and contemplate how we would have fared in comparison to Adam and Eve. 

Unfortunately, I am aware enough of my own shortcomings to doubt I would fare any better.

[Guest]

On 1/8/2019 at 10:33 PM, ByFaithAlone said:

Ok so it's a long time since I've posted on this forum. I used to be active back in the day but not so much recently. And I used to really enjoy the conversations I had with both believers and nonbelievers on this site regarding science and religion. However, after looking over the forum I have become to notice that things have become rather one sided with believers posting things and demanding that nonbelievers defend against 30-50 bullet points. It all just seems like a phone that only goes one way.  

I am sure that it must be somewhat annoying for nonbelievers and seekers to be "preached" at all the time. Sometimes people just post a block text of things that they want nonbelievers to account for ranging from abiogenesis to cosmology to evolutionary biology. I am not saying that such threads are unimportant or that people should not be asking questions but I think it's time to turn the tables slightly.    

I was interested in starting a dialogue between those of faith and those that are interested in leaning more or curious about why people believe what they believe. On Reddit and other such sites there are Ask Me Anything posts (AMAs) where users get to ask a person anything they want related to the person's profession, etc. So let's open up the game and turn things around. I'm a Christian and a scientist with degrees in chemistry and history. I'm going to be an open book as best I can. I am sure there are questions that I will be unqualified to answer but I will try my best. Other people can hop in with their own responses of course and anyone is free to disagree with me and ask more questions. 

Let's start a dialogue on Science and Faith. AMA. 

I don't believe the members on this forum are capable of having a rational discussion regarding science and faith.

[one.opinion]

45 minutes ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

I don't believe the members on this forum are capable of having a rational discussion regarding science and faith.

I know the track record hasn’t been great over the last couple of years, but some of the more strident voices are no longer here.

[Guest]

On 2/5/2019 at 10:29 PM, one.opinion said:

I know the track record hasn’t been great over the last couple of years, but some of the more strident voices are no longer here.

I did notice a few voices missing.  Something must have happened while I took a break.  At least you're still here, Hazard, abdicate, and a wonderful group of prayer warriors.  ?