Christian Faith Requires Accepting Evolution

[fr0d0]

Yes. This guy that answered me on Christian forums sums it up well:

"Genesis 1 isn't a scientific text. It's not about a journalistic, wooden accounting of material origins; but a theological proclamation of the good Creator God investing purpose and meaning into His good creation; the crafting of the sacred spaces of His dwelling, and filling them.

Simultaneously, the text is a theological polemic that demotes and de-divinizes the cosmic powers which other Near Eastern cultures worshiped.

As far as the spaces and their filling, notice the parallel:

Day 1 - Light and separation of day and night;
Day 4 - Creation of sun, moon, and stars to
fill and rule the day and night.
Day 2 - separation of waters, sky and sea;
Day 5 - Creation of fish and fowl to fill and
rule the sky and sea.
Day 3 - separation of dry land from water;
Day 6 - Creation of land dwelling beasts to fill
and rule the dry land.

The final creative act is to place the Divine
Image itself into this temple of creation--mankind, to act as God's image-bearers and priests to care for the good creation of God. Genesis 1 is theology, not science. It's not a how of material creation, but a why and what.
-CryptoLutheran"

Walton's book is called "The last world of Genesis one". It's incredibly thorough, but is apparently the tip of an iceberg of the full thing. He's supposedly working on a follow up on the flood.

[Minimalist]

but a theological proclamation of the good Creator God investing purpose and meaning into His good creation;

You mean the good creation that he shortly thereafter felt compelled to exterminate?

This god does great work, huh?

[ronedee]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-d...76345.html

Zen shared this with me on fb and I thought it would be of interest here. This is an example of mature Christian thought I'm always extolling but only rarely encountering anywhere. So Frodo, I think, is already on board. Chad I guess might be too. How about you Drich, Cat, GC, Ronadee, Consilius? Do you see any problem with this line of reasoning?

As someone raised evangelical, I realize anti-evolutionists believe they are defending the Christian tradition. But as a seminary graduate now training to be a medical scientist, I can say that, in reality, they've abandoned it.

...

In theory, if not always in practice, past Christian theologians valued science out of the belief that God created the world scientists study. Augustine castigated those who made the Bible teach bad science, John Calvin argued that Genesis reflects a commoner's view of the physical world, and the Belgic confession likened scripture and nature to two books written by the same author.

These beliefs encouraged past Christians to accept the best science of their day, and these beliefs persisted even into the evangelical tradition. As Princeton Seminary's Charles Hodge, widely considered the father of modern evangelical theology, put it in 1859: "Nature is as truly a revelation of God as the Bible; and we only interpret the Word of God by the Word of God when we interpret the Bible by science."

In this analysis, Christians must accept sound science, not because they don't believe God created the world, but precisely because they do.

...

.. no amount of talk about "worldviews" and "presuppositions" can change a simple fact: creationism has failed to provide an alternative explanation for the vast majority of evidence explained by evolution.

Honestly, I've never given it a lot of thought.

But, I do believe that a "Dualism", is possible. At least in a sense that evolution of life in general progressed to a certain level. Whereas creationism was separate in terms of a "spiritual" evolution in man. There was some writing on this that I read years ago. I don't remember. I'll have to consult my secretary/memory-bank (ie wife) and get back to ya. lol

But, I don't really like separating the two (evolution & creationism). God created/allowed both! I think that is where religious got off track along the way. There is no reason to divide them imo.

[fr0d0]

I'll reserve my opinion until we get the sequel min

[MindForgedManacle]

"Genesis 1 isn't a scientific text.

Indeed.

It's not about a journalistic, wooden accounting of material origins; but a theological proclamation of the good Creator God investing purpose and meaning into His good creation; the crafting of the sacred spaces of His dwelling, and filling them.

Pray tell, what indication is there for this at all in Genesis 1?

Furthermore, you're statement essentially begs the question of why it doesn't just say the way God actually 'created' everything. You say Genesis 1 isn't "journalistic" but about God "investing purpose and meaning into his good creation". That is all nonsense unless it is the case that Genesis is actually referring to the way things actually happened because otherwise - aside from then being story padding - the actual details are inherently misleading because they specifically state things along the lines of "God did X" and "God was pleased with having done Y".
And there is nothing about a god creating anything that gives it some objective purpose.

Simultaneously, the text is a theological polemic that demotes and de-divinizes the cosmic powers which other Near Eastern cultures worshiped.

I'll take your word on this, but it is interesting to note that even if the purpose was to de-divinize certain things, it then becomes strange that those to whom these texts were sacred were in fact polytheists, probably including even Abraham and certainly Moses. More notably, for centuries there was no hint of these peoples being monotheistic at all, and even the things you're claiming that Genesis 1 de-divinies still go on to have representative deities by those whom had the would-be Genesis account as a sacred text.


IT'S A METAPHOR YOU FUNDY ATHEISTS!!11

[fr0d0]

I was quoting someone MFM.

The basis for all of that is very thoroughly substantiated in John H Walton's book: the lost world of Genesis one, which I have here.

Walton demonstrates with time cultural reference how the language matches other examples on the same subject, and how the cosmology is used as metaphor to set out the foundation for the subject of the bible, which is God. We see the constituent parts set out in order of meaning in that context, and finally God takes residence in his temple where he pilots his creation.

The book I'd say is written as much from an atheist perspective as it is a Christian one, in addressing it's subject.

Sure the cultural influences of the time continued to have effect, and the people moved between them, as evidenced by the idols and gods continually referenced, and worshipped by the Israelites.

[Angrboda]

Ignoring the problem in justifying "literalist" interpretations themselves, once you start "deliteralizing" the text, there is no justifiable stopping point that doesn't depend, ultimately, on ad hoc reasoning and special pleading. So, the quandary for the modern Christian is, they cannot stomach literalism, they won't accept treating it as completely fictional, and there is no stopping point between Scylla and Charybdis which doesn't end up being crushed by reason and modern scholarship.

[fr0d0]

Apo: The "literalist" we're now rejecting isn't literal at all. Literal doesn't mean bolting modern materialism onto a non materialist tradition.

No, this actually is literal. Trying to extract from the text the exact original meaning. Modern scholarship is destroying the ill considered and under researched.

[Angrboda]

Apo: The "literalist" we're now rejecting isn't literal at all. Literal doesn't mean bolting modern materialism onto a non materialist tradition.

No, this actually is literal. Trying to extract from the text the exact original meaning.

You, like Drich, don't have the first fucking clue what you're talking about with respect to textual interpretation and the bible. You're just painting pictures with words until you've obscured the truths you don't like and constructed the ones that you do like.

[fr0d0]

You say so and it must be true right apo?

Until you've seriously considered it I shall regard your opinion as uninformed.