To Christians who aren't creationists

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

I just have a few questions to those Christians who might be here who aren't creationists (i.e. don't believe young earth, don't deny evolution etc.) I'm having trouble seeing how the text can really allow evolution.

Questions on the creation account

Firstly how do you interpret Genesis 1 and 2? I'm aware of the long-ages, gap theory (whether to account for evolution or the angelic conflict) and framework hypothesis.

Assuming you believe in long-ages, how do you account for the order of creation being different than what science tells us?

How do you reconcile evolution which requires death for natural selection to work, with the idea of death entering the world after the fruit of the tree was eaten? If death is just spiritual death, did men never kill each other or do other sins until that point?

Who were really Adam and Eve? Were they truly the first human beings?


Questions on the events after the creation in Genesis

Was Noah's flood universal or local?

How did men live to 900 years old? Or did they?

Was the tower of Babel a real event? If so, does it account for all the languages of mankind?


Questions of the legitimacy of your interpretations of these events

Is your interpretation truly what the text intended? In other words, how do you defeat creationist's arguments that you take it to mean whatever you want it to mean to accommodate science?

And for those of you who might just say it's just inspired stories and we don't need to take it as actually happening at all to appreciate the meaning of the stories...

If you take all the spectacular events in the first few chapters of genesis to be just stories (i.e. like parables, not having actually occurred in any sense), how do you account for the way the NT treated it? The NT from my memory treats Genesis as literal, as for instance, when tracing Jesus' genealogy all the way back to Adam.

Thank you.

Edit: Also, thank you for not being creationists.

[Welsh cake]

To Christians who aren't creationists, there's still hope. You haven't completely sabotaged your capacity to learn and understand about the real world.

That's why I for one will *try* not to put you on automatic ignore no matter how batshit crazy you may initially come across as.

[Neo-Scholastic]

My understanding of the scriptures does not reflect the recent orthodoxies, so I do not speak for all. The scriptures have both an external meaning and an internal meaning. Just from memory this is how I read it.

Firstly how do you interpret Genesis 1 and 2? I'm aware of the long-ages, gap theory (whether to account for evolution or the angelic conflict) and framework hypothesis…Assuming you believe in long-ages, how do you account for the order of creation being different than what science tells us?

Both Genesis 1 and 2 are allegories. Genesis 1 corresponds to the progress of the soul, which starts in darkness and proceeds through stages until reaching full regeneration. Each of the days represents a stage in that development and uses symbolism identical to that found elsewhere. For example, references to water, depending on context relate to true or the lack thereof; birds relate to the love of spiritual truth, plants and trees to forms of knowledge etc. Genesis 2 is in reverse order and describes the process of corruption, not only of individuals, but forms of worship over time.

Who were really Adam and Eve? Were they truly the first human beings?

Adam is representative of the first ‘church’, when humans saw God directly from nature. Generally, the wives of the patriarchs represent the ‘proprium’ or ego understanding of self. The generations of Adam represent successive states worship. The specifics of each have been lost, but the names remain. For instance, Abraham represents worship from conscience, Moses from external law, etc.

If death is just spiritual death, did men never kill each other or do other sins until that point?

The doctrine of original sin came in with Augustine. Human nature has not changed, although our understanding of God grows corrupt with time and needs to be renewed with additional revelations throughout history.

Was Noah's flood universal or local?

The flood waters represent universal lack of truth and resulting brutality that filled the earth as some point in history. Noah represents the seed of spiritual truth that was preserved through this turmoil.

How did men live to 900 years old? Or did they?

All numbers are symbolic throughout the scriptures, Genesis through Revelations. Animals two by two signify the union of truth and good that Noah preserved.

Was the tower of Babel a real event? If so, does it account for all the languages of mankind?

No, the story symbolizes our inconsistent understanding of God when we try to mix spiritual ideas with natural ones, for example theology and science.

Is your interpretation truly what the text intended? In other words, how do you defeat creationist's arguments that you take it to mean whatever you want it to mean to accommodate science?

And they don’t? A system of symbols must be allied consistently. What works in Genesis must also work in Leviticus, John and Revelations.

If you take all the spectacular events in the first few chapters of genesis to be just stories (i.e. like parables, not having actually occurred in any sense), how do you account for the way the NT treated it?

The NT is also cloaked in symbols. For example, Jesus feeds (spiritual sustenance) the masses with two (truth plus good) fish (using natural ideas, i.e. parables) and five (complete, but just enough) loaves of barley (basic spiritual truths). Although something legendary may have happened as well, that is not important to the message.

The NT from my memory treats Genesis as literal, as for instance, when tracing Jesus' genealogy all the way back to Adam.

See above. While actual people may have been involved, the inner meaning of the text is to show how the understanding of God was preserved throughout history, on the father’s side by the desire to do good and on the mother’s side by the recognition of truth.

[Drich]

I just have a few questions to those Christians who might be here who aren't creationists (i.e. don't believe young earth, don't deny evolution etc.) I'm having trouble seeing how the text can really allow evolution.

[...]

Your answers all can be found here:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-11720.html

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

My understanding of the scriptures does not reflect the recent orthodoxies, so I do not speak for all. The scriptures have both an external meaning and an internal meaning. Just from memory this is how I read it.

...

Thanks for your reply. It's quite interesting. I've never heard of your type of Christianity before.

I can't really follow up on most of your answers. But I have a question about the general symbolic way you interpret it. It seems that when you interpret it in such a symbolic way, you lose verifiability of any of its truth contents. When I was a creationist, I believed the scriptures because in my mind, it had many facts that were backed by "science" and archeology. Those things added a substantial amount of credibility from my point of view. The spiritual things, though important, I couldn't believe by themselves. They were only credible insofar as the Bible's verifiable scientific and historical claims were true. So, when you take the Bible as being mostly symbolic stories, I don't see any reason why I should believe the spiritual contents of the Bible over the spiritual claims of other sacred texts such as the Koran, the book of Mormon, or eastern literature. Your choice of the Bible seems arbitrary if you take it so symbolically.

Another problem is I haven't really gotten an answer to why you think the Bible was actually meant to be taken symbolically versus literally.

You said:

And they don’t? A system of symbols must be allied consistently. What works in Genesis must also work in Leviticus, John and Revelations.

You gave many examples of what you think to be symbols such as the coin in the fishes mouths, but how do you know that they were actually meant to be symbols and that you're not just simply reading in your own meaning to try to keep the Bible consistent with itself and reality? Please correct me if I'm wrong but your view from my understanding suffers from the similar problems as the Bible Code theory since you can find "prophetic codes" in Moby Dick and probably any piece of fiction. I could likewise given enough time and imagination see deep symbolic spiritual meaning in Moby Dick. But that would be silly because I know the author of Moby Dick never intended it to be read in such a manner. It's just my mind playing tricks on me.

[Neo-Scholastic]

It seems that when you interpret it in such a symbolic way, you lose verifiability of any of its truth contents....

Because anyone can see that God did not talk to a snake. Too many passages make no sense on the surface. Revelations for example is nothing but symbols. IMHO what the text says is less important than what you take from the text. Generally, every piece of literature has degree of symbolism. The difference between inspired scriptures and other works is their symbolic density and how the symbols reinforce each others meaning.

Swedenborg is not unique in claiming to have brought forth new spiritual revelations during the modern period. What makes Swedenborg any different from Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, or M. Blatsky? I study Swedenborg because his work offers me an exhaustive and internally consistent interpretation of the allegories, symbols, and figurative language used throughout the Word. In the Arcana Coelesia, he demonstrates line-by-line and word-by-word, the hidden significance of the text. Everyone has to judge for themselves whether this conformity is real or only apparent. I know many other religions consider the New Church a heresy. So be it. It works for me.

[The Grand Nudger]

Why should anyone be able to see that Chad?

[fr0d0]

Correct interpretation holds no problems for science or evolution theory. See John H Walton: The lost world of genesis one.

[The Grand Nudger]

A correct interpretation also leaves the creature described in Dracula with no problems for science or evolutionary theory.

In short, in both cases, the correct interpretation would be "fanciful bullshit". Which is exactly the case that Walton makes, even if it was not his intention to do so.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I know many other religions consider the New Church a heresy.

The word 'heresy' is has no clout with me. I see it as arrogant to the point of hubris.

It works for me.

Now that's great,I 'm pleased for you. Sadly, I'm unable to share your beliefs without supporting proof.


At 16, I came up with some(non legalistic) stuff about the nature of sin,grace, redemption, the nature of heaven and hell,eternity and some other things which made perfect sense to me compared with official Catholic theology. However, I could not PROVE any of my ideas. That made my ideas propositions,which is what ALL religious beliefs are..

To me,theology is no more than pious mental masturbation.

---

I just have a few questions to those Christians who might be here who aren't creationists

Most Christians are creationists, simply not willfully ignorant literalists.

I was raised Catholic,and taught that evangelicals and other fundamentalists were on the lunatic fringe of Christendom,like the Mormons. However,that was largely irrelevant,because they were all going to hell along with all other protestants.


Things have changed since Vatican 2,since which time the church has officially pretended some non Catholics are going to heaven.