Religious Views On Evolution

[hoghead1]

I think your understanding of my position needs a major overhaul. Classical theism, the high God of traditional Christianity, presented a world-negating image of God as static and aloof. God was said to be without body, parts, passions, compassion, wholly immutable, having no "real" relationship with creation. I and many others have trouble with the model, as we seek a more receptive and responsive image of God. Mysticism is often seen as just an extension of this classical model. There is some truth to that. Eckhart, for example, said the Godhead pays no attention to prayers and good works, that the crucifixion moved it no more than if it hadn't happened, etc. However, there is also a world-affirming dimension to Eckhart, where he identifies God with the universe and attributes great feeling to God, i.e., "God goes through my pain before I do." This is also true of Dionysius. Hence, mysticism marks an alterative to classical theism and anticipates neo-classical or process theism. Whitehead's aesthetic helps provide a coherent psychology of mystical experiences. That, in brief, is my case. That was the subject of my dissertation, which was published in book form through a major university press. I and a co-author also published a second book, same theme, released through University Press of America. If you want, I can give you the specifics and you can go buy copy.

I don't know what you mean by 'talking past each other." I gather you have a different model of God. Fine. Let's hear it.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

He HAS been giving a different model of God to you. That is what he means by the two of you talking past each other. You have both stated your case for your belief structure multiple times without making any progress.

 

[hoghead1]

Making any progress to what? What are we supposed to be making progress to? Maybe I'm a dummy, I don't know. But I am not clear on hat his model of God is. Is he following classical theism? Neo-classical theism? What? Since you know his model of God, how about you present it to me? A simple paragraph description would do.

 

[shunyadragon]

The next church father . . .

Clement of Alexandria (AD 153 – 217), was famous as a Bible teacher, and he taught Origen. Although some evangelicals think he held to a liberal view on Creation, he actually had a mixed approach. He has an historical date for Creation of 5592 BC (Stromata, or Miscellanies 1:21) and he said about the Creation days:

“For the creation of the world was concluded in six days ...Wherefore also man is said to have been made on the sixth day ... Some such thing also is indicated by the sixth hour in the scheme of salvation, in which man was made perfect.”15

Although the context of the above passage is indeed figurative, it is clear that Clement was referring to a literal six-day Creation with man being “made perfect” in the sixth hour of the sixth day. Clement was influenced by the rabbinical teaching of the six hours in which God completed man, an idea which goes beyond the bounds of Scripture, but yet demonstrates a literalist view.16

In conclusion, my investigation clearly demonstrated to me that the Church Fathers were almost unanimous on the twin beliefs of a literal six-day Creation and a “young earth”. Origen, who was influenced by pagan views and held to some heretical ideas, was the main exception to the rule. Although the Church Fathers were literalists, it is true that they also used Genesis in a figurative way to point prophetically to the return of Christ, and to draw out spiritual messages for their audiences, as do literal creationists today.

It would be interesting take a look at Origen, but his views were so unorthodox he was considered heretical.

 

[hoghead1]

Well, as I have said, Augustine is also an exception. Probably also St. Thomas Aquinas, as I am pretty sure he had the notion Adam and Eve represented a whole society of humans living in Eden. Calvin is very interesting here. In his commentary on Genesis, he says that God did not intend to give us an astronomy lesson, that God accommodates hi8mself to us and speaks in the language and imagery of teh common man. That leaves open the intriguing possibility that he is taking Genesis allegorically, despite his dogmatic literalism.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, as I have said, Augustine is also an exception. Probably also St. Thomas Aquinas, as I am pretty sure he had the notion Adam and Eve represented a whole society of humans living in Eden. Calvin is very interesting here. In his commentary on Genesis, he says that God did not intend to give us an astronomy lesson, that God accommodates himself to us and speaks in the language and imagery of the common man. That leaves open the intriguing possibility that he is taking Genesis allegorically, despite his dogmatic literalism.

I gave sufficient citations that Augustine was not an exception, but gave allegorical meanings as well as literal, with an emphasis of the timeless nature of God, and Creation was a single event in time.

By the time of Calvin the sun was not the center of the universe, and the facts of astronomy could no longer be denied, but he did believe in a literal six day Creation, and the world flood. This trend does indicate that progressively the advances in science forces alternate interpretations, but the beliefs of the authors of the NT, and the church fathers who established the doctrines and dogmas based on a literal Genesis makes the negating this view difficult and contradictory among Christians. This is where the progressive Revelation over time resolves these contradictory issues, and the Revelation of the Baha'i Faith. Literal scripture interpretation of religions, including the Baha'i scriptures, must be interpreted and understood in the light of the evolving nature of science. The problem remains with older religions is that attempts to change bring divisions, and contradictions within the faithful, and the the lack of guidance in the modern world.

 

[Thomas]

This trend does indicate that progressively the advances in science forces alternate interpretations, but the beliefs of the authors of the NT, and the church fathers who established the doctrines and dogmas based on a literal Genesis makes the negating this view difficult and contradictory among Christians.

To some, yes, but not all.

"... In this area, the need to make the biblical message something real for today is ever more obvious. This requires that exegetes take into consideration the reasonable demands of educated and cultured persons of our time, clearly distinguishing for their benefit what in the Bible is to be regarded as secondary detail conditioned by a particular age, what must be interpreted as the language of myth and what is to be regarded as the true historical and inspired meaning. The biblical writings were not composed in modern language nor in the style of the 20th century. The forms of expression and literary genres employed in the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek text must be made meaningful to men and women of today, who otherwise would be tempted to lose all interest in the Bible or else to interpret it in a simplistic way that is literalist or simply fanciful." (The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church)

The dogmas and doctrines that can be traced back to Genesis, and I suppose Original Sin is perhaps the most obvious (certainly the most misunderstood and most vexatious), does not necessarily depend on a literal interpretation of the text. Put another way, modern Catholics can accept that Adam and Eve and the Garden is a are figures in a mythopoeic narrative that points to certain truths regarding the nature of God and man and the relationship between the two.

As science has and can have nothing to say about Divine, angelic and spiritual realities, which is what Scripture addresses, then the advances of science are, in that sense, of no relevance. (They can serve however, as a source of inspiration.) In that sense those who posit science as undoing the dogmas and doctrines founded in Scripture are simply prolonging the science v religion debate, which I thought we had all agreed was a nonsense. Those who so do are, in my opinion, barking up the wrong tree (pun intended!)

I don't know how many times I have to repeat that greater minds than ours are well aware of the objections you raise, but find them no impediment to belief, so really all you're doing is rehearsing your own doubts and suppositions as if they were infallible.

This is where the progressive Revelation over time resolves these contradictory issues, and the Revelation of the Baha'i Faith.

What does science say about Revelation?

Literal scripture interpretation of religions, including the Baha'i scriptures, must be interpreted and understood in the light of the evolving nature of science.

Only if they make statements about the nature if science.

The problem remains with older religions is that attempts to change bring divisions, and contradictions within the faithful, and the the lack of guidance in the modern world.

There is no lack of guidance, just the lack of the looking for it, as people tend to entrench in their positions and refuse to budge.

 

[hoghead1]

Again, Shuny, I pointed out where Augustine is in fact an exception. You do not seem responsive to what I am saying, so I am not going to address this topic any more with you.

 

[shunyadragon]

Again, Shuny, I pointed out where Augustine is in fact an exception. You do not seem responsive to what I am saying, so I am not going to address this topic any more with you.

Firstly, even these three leaders who interpreted Scripture in a more symbolic way than the others, never once tried to mix the long ages of the pagan philosophers like Plato with their teaching. Every single person among the Christian leaders who spoke about Creation said it had happened much less than 10,000 years ago. Augustine (AD 354 – 430) could write:

“fewer than 6,000 years have passed since man’s first origin,”

and he referred to the pagans’

“fairy-tales about reputed antiquity, which our opponents may decide to produce in attempts to controvert the authority of our sacred books....”9

Liberals are keen to get Augustine on their side because apparently he believed that the days of Creation were symbolic, and not literal. He tells us in his City of God what he understood about the Creation days:

“The world was in fact made with time, if at the time of its creation change and motion came into existence. This is clearly the situation in the order of the first six or seven days, in which morning and evening are named, until God’s creation was finished on the sixth day, and on the seventh day God’s rest is emphasized as something conveying a mystic meaning. What kind of days these are is difficult or even impossible for us to imagine, to say nothing of describing them.

In our experience, of course, the days with which we are familiar only have an evening because the sun sets, and a morning because the sun rises; whereas those first three days passed without the sun, which was made, we are told, on the fourth day. The narrative does indeed tell that light was created by God…. But what kind of light that was, and with what alternating movement the distinction was made, and what was the nature of this evening and this morning; these are questions beyond the scope of our sensible experience. We cannot understand what happened as it is presented to us; and yet we must believe it without hesitation.”10

From this we realise that Augustine held to a literal interpretation of the Creation days, although he admitted he had to take it by faith, rather than by reason. In his earlier book (AD 397 – 398), Confessions, he does spiritualize the Genesis account of Creation to communicate with a different audience, but his City of God was completed only four years before his death, and, as shown above, this later book shows a literal understanding of the days of Genesis.

He did teach an idea known as the “seminal principle,” which some liberals have jumped on with glee, stating that Augustine was a theistic evolutionist. This is, however, reading too much into his work from a post-Darwin mindset. He simply believed that all living things contained within them seeds, which grew to form the complete species, but that all kinds of living things had fixed boundaries. These seeds, he believed, grew rapidly into fully mature living forms during the creation process – there was no thought about millions of years in between each stage of the days of Genesis.

In claiming Augustine is an exception you have not responded to this reference, which is clear that Augustine believed in a literal Genesis concerning the time issue. The exception is he believed Creation took place in one day or probably in an instant.

 

[hoghead1]

Shudny, I dam done, d-o-n-e, discussing this issue with you.

 

[shunyadragon]

Shudny, I dam done, d-o-n-e, discussing this issue with you.

Duck, Bob and Weave dodge acknowledged.

 

[omega2xx]

In claiming Augustine is an exception you have not responded to this reference, which is clear that Augustine believed in a literal Genesis concerning the time issue. The exception is he believed Creation took place in one day or probably in an instant.

 

[omega2xx]

In claiming Augustine is an exception you have not responded to this reference, which is clear that Augustine believed in a literal Genesis concerning the time issue. The exception is he believed Creation took place in one day or probably in an instant.

I know I am a little late to this dance, but if you would like to continue, let me offer a few thoughts.

The Bible is written in indelible ink, not pencil.

You can't take Genesis literally and then say it took place in 1 day.

There is nothing in Genesis to indicate a day was more than 24 hours. For an omnipotent God that would be piece of cake. Anytime in the Bible where a number is mentioned with "day" it ALWAYS means 24 hours.

Also, since plant life was created after the sun was created, they would have all died if day meant millions of years.

I promise I will not weave or dodge, and think Bob just got tired of responding, knowing it was falling on deaf ears. I will always give you an answer, usually from the Bible or I will admit I don't know.

 

[Thomas]

Anytime in the Bible where a number is mentioned with "day" it ALWAYS means 24 hours.

I'd be careful about asserting that.

Generally scholarship accepts that there are many genres of text in the Hebrew Scriptures, and that the Hebrew language is rich in figurative allusions. It's also accepted that texts encompass a whole raft of meanings, and have to be read with great care, and not literally, to the exclusion of any and every other interpretation.

Genesis opens with 'in the beginning', but the term re'shiyth can refer to 'beginning' in times of first in time, the first in order, in place, in hierarchy, etc. so we should turn to the traditional commentaries to determine what is meant when words or terms have multiple meanings.

The Jewish scholars who translated their Scriptures into Greek – the Septuagint – chose the Greek term En arche as the equivalent, signifying that they understood re'shiyth in the ordinal sense (hierarchical), rather than the cardinal sense (numerical).

Thus John, in the prologue to his Gospel, reflects the Hebrew understanding in the first verse En arche as meaning in principle rather than in time.

The latin Vulgate translation uses 'In principio'. If a temporal beginning was the primary reading, then the Fathers of the Septuagint would have used the Greek protista, and the Latins inceptium or initium.

For example the Hebrew texts say: "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High" (Psalm 82:6, Isaiah 41:23 and Our Lord in John 10:34) — but the text is not saying literally we are gods, rather that the term elohiym has a number of meanings: God, god, goddess, judge, great, mighty, angels ... one has to be conscious of context and commentary when reading Scripture.

 

[omega2xx]

I'd be careful about asserting that.

Show me where it is wrong and I will stop. Deal?

Generally scholarship accepts that there are many genres of text in the Hebrew Scriptures, and that the Hebrew language is rich in figurative allusions. It's also accepted that texts encompass a whole raft of meanings, and have to be read with great care, and not literally, to the exclusion of any and every other interpretation.

True, but that does not eliminate the genre of literal. I believe there are only 2 genre in the first 2 chapters of Genesis---literal and allegory. However all allegories are based on a true, literal event. WE must also read with great care, which I have done for many years, and not figuratively to the exclusion of the literal. Since their must be an omnipotent God for the universe and life to exist, I don't understand why a literal interpretation is so hard to accept. Especially by Christians.

Genesis opens with 'in the beginning', but the term re'shiyth can refer to 'beginning' in times of first in time, the first in order, in place, in hierarchy, etc. so we should turn to the traditional commentaries to determine what is meant when words or terms have multiple meanings.

The Jewish scholars who translated their Scriptures into Greek – the Septuagint – chose the Greek term En arche as the equivalent, signifying that they understood re'shiyth in the ordinal sense (hierarchical), rather than the cardinal sense (numerical).

Then they did not use good translation methods. The Sept is helpful to see how words were used at that time, but it is not a good source for translating the OT.

Thus John, in the prologue to his Gospel, reflects the Hebrew understanding in the first verse En arche as meaning in principle rather than in time.

It does not. It reflects an accurate understanding of Genesis 1:1. That is a liberal attempt to discredit the literal 6 day creation account.

The latin Vulgate translation uses 'In principio'. If a temporal beginning was the primary reading, then the Fathers of the Septuagint would have used the Greek protista, and the Latins inceptium or initium.

You can quote all of the various interpretations you want. The first chapter of Genesis clearly states God did it in 6 literal days. Everything you have mentioned is the work of theologians who can't accept the omnipotence of God. There is no reason to do a tap dance around it being literal except that some can't accept it.

For example the Hebrew texts say: "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High" (Psalm 82:6, Isaiah 41:23 and Our Lord in John 10:34) — but the text is not saying literally we are gods, rather that the term elohiym has a number of meanings: God, god, goddess, judge, great, mighty, angels ... one has to be conscious of context and commentary when reading Scripture.

Those verses are saying we are gods, not Gods, in the sense that we are immortal. Surely you are not suggesting that elohim in Genesis 1:1 is referring to a goddess or an angel. Actually there are no literal goddesses so it can't refer to them. I see no use of an angel being called elohim. Since God is a great and mighty judge , that does no harm to taking a literal view of Genesis.

 

[wil]

So, omega.... are you saying you believe the earth and universe and all to have been created 6k years ago and in 6 days?... literally?

Or are you simply saying that is what the allegory in the bible says?

 

[Devils' Advocate]

Show me where it is wrong and I will stop. Deal?

He just did! You don't like his answer. Okay. Doesn't change the fact the he did show you where you might be wrong.

I'm curious. Since you seem to like literal facts. Science has proven the Earth is 4 ½ billion years old. The Universe 14 billion, give or take a few million. These are literal facts. How do you explain the disparity between the science and your book?

 

[omega2xx]

He just did! You don't like his answer. Okay. Doesn't change the fact the he did show you where you might be wrong.

I'm curious. Since you seem to like literal facts. Science has proven the Earth is 4 ½ billion years old. The Universe 14 billion, give or take a few million. These are literal facts. How do you explain the disparity between the science and your book?

He did not. In fact I showed him where he did not understand the verse he used. I don't like or dislike answers. I evaluate all answers and sometime I am wrong but not in this case.

Evidently you do not understand the problems of radio metric dating. Since the Bible does not give the age of the earth, there is no disparity between science and God's inspired and inerrant word. FYI there is no scientific way science can determine the age of the universe or the earth.

Actually the universe is only13.9257 years old + or - .0005.25 years.

 

[omega2xx]

A couple of points:

What the Fathers thought does not itself determine Church doctrine, and no Father is infallible – so arguing that this father thought this and another that is interesting from an historical perspective, but it does not therefore show what a denomination holds as doctrine or dogma.

Shunyadragon cites all his arguments from one pro-literal source. I could offer other citations that say otherwise. Origen for example clearly states that the six days are anagogical, and so do others, but it would seem from reading the commentaries by The Edinburgh Creation Group that they might perhaps be reading the Fathers a bit too literally and with a mind to finding what they're looking for ... in short, eisegesis.

From my readings, some Fathers did, some didn't. Some, like Augustine, are very difficult to fathom at times and I'm not sure citing a couple of lines does the author justice. Some, like St Basil, highlight the necessity of pastoral consideration in preaching, and seem to hold both views, so the views are broad and various, and the Edinburgh group is over-stating the case in favour of their own position.

In the Catholic faith, for example, Genesis 1-11 are regarded as mythical texts, although we tend to allow a lot more of myth than the modern mind, which tends to equate myth with fairy tale.

Nothing and I repeat nothing in the Bible is a myth. Some of it is figurative, but figurative is not even close to being a myth.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

FYI there is no scientific way science can determine the age of the universe or the earth.

Okay. So how did science come up with those numbers. Dart board? Random number generator? Ouija board? Inquiring minds want to know!