A question for my theistic evolutionist friends

[shunyadragon]

I am not discussing traditional doctrine or dogma as expressed in pre-modern creeds or even in modern church pronouncements, except I did mention a couple of cardinals and a pope that have in modern times acknowledged or fully embraced theological diversity and fundamental alternative theological views that are both ancient and increasingly accepted in recent theological thought. Rather, I am explicitly discussing the diversity and development of theological understandings of fundamental doctrines and dogmas, so there is no point in your critiquing my views as not demonstrating what I have never set out to demonstrate.

I do not believe you can selectively discuss only what you want to discuss concerning the theological questions concerning Genesis and Adam and Eve. OK, discuss the diversity, and I acknowledged that 'some theologians' offer alternative interpretations. The problem with this selective view is that it does not acknowledge the fact that the alternatives of 'some theologians' has not changed the foundation beliefs of the traditional churches. You also neglect the fact that ALL the Popes of the Roman Church have in their addresses to the faithful fundamentally have reaffirmed the fundamental Doctrines and Dogmas of the church.

I was quoting your original comment about the literal intent of the original authors that led to our specific discussion, about which you expressed some uncertainty about what you may have said. That you subsequently changed your view in your immediately preceding post is a concession that I quoted and acknowledged in this very post of mine that you are responding to. You previously said that "The dominant belief of the original authors, and the church father's was a very literal understanding of scripture. There is some variation of time issues, and how long a 'day' is in Creation." It is clear that you are certainly including the genesis narrative in this comment in that you make specific reference to the days of Creation.

There was no concession nor change in my view on these issues. I only clarified my view and the error in the post #68 to refer to the NT ONLY.

I merely added a rather literal paraphrase of his views and referred back to the prior link of the fuller context from which you had also quoted selectively. If my literal paraphrase was bad or incorrect, please point out where it was incorrect. Here is the direct quote:

We must reflect a little: if the literal meaning of this story were attributed to a wise man, certainly all would logically deny that this arrangement, this invention, could have emanated from an intelligent being. Therefore, this story of Adam and Eve who ate from the tree, and their expulsion from Paradise, must be thought of simply as a symbol. It contains divine mysteries and universal meanings, and it is capable of marvelous explanations. Only those who are initiated into mysteries, and those who are near the Court of the All-Powerful, are aware of these secrets. Hence these verses of the Bible have numerous meanings. . . .

This is one of the meanings of the biblical story of Adam. Reflect until you discover the others.

Salutations be upon you. [/cite]

That is not the concession I was speaking of, as should be obvious from the quotes I provided. I was referring to your previous statement about 'the dominant belief of the original authors being a very literal understanding of scripture', with specific reference to the creation account in Genesis, and your subsequent concession about that statement, "If I said that I am mistaken."

There never was a concession on this issue, only a correction of post #68. Please, let's go on without further beating this dead horse any more.

But you always refuse to discuss good theology as irrelevant and not meaningful.

I never said, it was irrelevant and not meaningful. I said, "It has not changed the fundamental Doctrines and Dogmas of the traditional churches, except maybe to form new churches like the Unity church.

True, <snipe> . . . but it is very relevant to how the fundamental doctrines and dogmas are understood theologically by leading theologians and schools of theology for centuries and by leading scholars of our own time. [/quote]

This only represents 'some theologians' of our time, and you are over stating the number of 'leading scholars' of our own time.

False, I consider all views, but your 'some theologians' have not led to any changes in the fundamental Doctrines and Dogmas of the traditional Christian churches including the Roman Church.

The question is how are the foundational doctrines and dogmas best understood theologically. The history of Christian theology witnesses to the use of scripture to build alternatives to your purposefully simplistic characterization, eg, the Pauline doctrine of the role of Christ in creation and the deutero-Pauline view of Christ being the purpose of creation, in other words, a view that is quite contrary to the Augustinian view.

For most of the history of the traditional Christian churches the Augustinian view has not been accepted except for some points. It is most of the other Church Fathers that have carried forth the Orthodox views of the traditional Christian churches, including a more literal view of Genesis that stood relatively unchanged and unchallenged until the progress of science from the late 16th to the 19th century.

Not just 'some theologians' but leading theologians from the second century on and major schools of theology that developed over centuries and by many leading scholars of our own time, including Cardinals in the Roman Catholic Church.

Disagreement, yes, 'some theologians,' you will have to cite the Pope you are referring to that acknowledges a significant reinterpretation of scripture that impacts the Doctrine and Dogma of the Roman Church.

You have only just today tried to clarify your previously statement about 'the dominant belief of the original authors being a very literal understanding of scripture' as supposedly not applying to Genesis, despite the fact that for the past 4 days we have been explicitly speaking of the most likely original intent of the authors of genesis (Posts #s 130, 139, 167, 172, 173, 176, 178, 180). So now that you have finally gotten around to 'clarifying' that when you were speaking of 'the dominant belief of the original authors being a very literal understanding of scripture' you were not referring to the original authors, redactors, and editors of Genesis, are you willing to agree with me that at least one/some of these authors/editors did not consider Adam and Eve to be merely a literal historical couple so named rather than a poetic narrative evoking general truths about humanity and our strained relationship to God and all creation?

You keep harping on this ridiculous point. I have clarified my statement in post #68, and admitted the wording error. There is no concession here nor change of view nor belief. Let's move on.

as mankind. Likewise, Paul retains the dimension of

OK, you have affirmed that Adam is a historical person, and the concept of the 'Fall' and 'Original Sin' are grounded in Paul's writings. I have no problem with other possible symbolic or teleological meanings, but that does not change things as far as the fundamental literal meaning of the key points of Genesis that is the foundation of church Doctrine and Dogma as believed by the Apostles, Paul and the dominant view of the Church Fathers.

[shunyadragon]

Pay attention. You have just quoted me as being in favor of viewing all creation as revelatory, including any prior or eternal existence of any and all other universes should we ever become aware of these. This is in accord with Thomas' intellectual willingness to accept Aristotle's eternal universe. But, while his limited understanding of the Latin translation of the book of Genesis led him to believe that this was contrary to revelation, the Hebrew text is much more ambiguous and allows for interpretations other than the traditional creatio ex nihilo.

OK, but it does not allow for Revelation outside the Revelations of the OT, Jesus Christ, and possibly the Apostles.

Of course, and it is not so contrary to the Christian tradition as you believe it to be. I've already given you the references should you choose to broaden your understanding of the Christian theological tradition.

Well, ah . . . you have not provided anything in the way of significant references. You have talked about them, but not provided much if any. There are contradictions on the limits Judaism, Christianity, and Islam put on Revelation compared to the Baha'i view of Revelation. The other significant contradiction is the necessity of certain aspects of Genesis being literal to support the belief in the 'Fall' and Original Sin.''

You didn't! Rather it was I who had to ask you about the Baha'u'llah's teachings regarding Adam and Eve.

What's the problem?!?!? You asked for it and I looked it up and provided Baha'u'llah's citations concerning Adam. Actually these references confirm my view that the Baha'i writings believe in more ancient history of cycles of Adam before the Prophetic Adamic cycle of ~6,000 years before the Bab.

[oxmixmudd]

Glenn, have you asked other evangelical TE's about Balaam's donkey? I think most would agree with you that it was a real miracle. The main miracles that you accept and they don't are in Gen 1-11; Balaam was much later.

I've been struck that a couple of my ASA TE friends (Denis Lamoureux and Bethany Sollereder) are charismatic, which I have a hard time reconciling with science. I discussed this with Bethany last weekend. She has no problem with a personal God who can intervene in our lives for salvation, also bestowing charismatic gifts in the present day.

I think it is overly simplistic to characterize evangelical TE's as simply denying miracles. Some of them may accept more present-day miracles than some of the rest of us, in fact. I think the issue is more a matter of interpretation of Gen 1-11.

I have often found it interesting that many Christians who will quite belligerently berate a Christian TE for not 'believing in miracles' will also argue that miraculous healing and the miraculous gifts of the New Testament 'no longer occur'. It is far easier to believe in 'miracles in the past' than 'miracles in the present'. If God is a miracle working God (and of course I believe He is), then it is an odd kind of hypocrisy that says miracles only happened in the past when they can't be validated, but somehow disappeared just as we have the opportunity to observe them for ourselves.

Jim

[seanD]

I have often found it interesting that many Christians who will quite belligerently berate a Christian TE for not 'believing in miracles' will also argue that miraculous healing and the miraculous gifts of the New Testament 'no longer occur'. It is far easier to believe in 'miracles in the past' than 'miracles in the present'. If God is a miracle working God (and of course I believe He is), then it is an odd kind of hypocrisy that says miracles only happened in the past when they can't be validated, but somehow disappeared just as we have the opportunity to observe them for ourselves.

Jim

I find it perfectly compatible with the state of our condition today. The fact we look for a natural explanation to explain how living organisms formed on earth as opposed to a 6 day miracle, exemplifies our lack of faith and the curse upon which miracles have ceased to this day.

[oxmixmudd]

When you're actively giving God responsibility for all evil, your effectively taking free will out of the equation. This means God would be directly engaging in evil. This also means He must be controlling people in such a way that they have no free will. At least not any that's worth calling "free will", if you are going to assign the blame of their actions to God anyway.

There is a huge difference between actively engaging in evil, and using what evil people have done for good. Using evolution to create, while calling it all goodFor what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? 15 What harmony is there between Christ and Belial[a]? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever?

1 John 1:4-6New International Version (NIV)

4 We write this to make our[a] joy complete.

Light and Darkness, Sin and Forgiveness
5 This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. 6 If we claim to have fellowship with him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live out the truth.

Psalm 45:7 You love righteousness and hate wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.

These kinds of arguments and disagreements are inevitable but fails to fully recognize the implications of the fact that God is not a being that can be fully understood in human terms, and that many aspects of who He is appear paradoxical from our perspective. If I project a three dimensional cube onto a two dimensional surface, then it can take on several, apparently contradictory and uneven, appearances. Yet it is in fact a real object that in three dimensions is perfectly regular, in spite of how it appears in its many possible 2D projections. God's word reveals God to us in all His glory to the extent we can comprehend Him. But it also presents us with what appear to be paradoxical or contradictory accounts of who He is. Free will or determinism? God of love or God of Justice? Compassionate and Merciful or Vengeful and Jealous? To look only at one element of the scripture's revelation and then try to 'fit' the contrary elements (as we view them) into our preferred rendering can not help but at one point or another result in the actual denial of some real element of God that is revealed in scripture to be true. Our only choice, I believe, is to recognize that these elements are all accurately revealed, and yet at the same time irreconcilable because we are effectively 2 dimensional in our thinking, and God is 3 dimensional in His reality.

That is not to say that struggling with these paradoxical elements should not be undertaken. But to effectively deny one or the other is to stunt our journey to understanding His revelation. God is omniscient w/o denying us our ability to choose. As an example, God created a universe suitable to the unfolding of evil without Himself being evil, even though in our understanding we can't find a way to fully reconcile the two. And this goes even to the issue of evolution itself. To reject the history of life recorded in creation because we can't reconcile our understanding of God as 'good' with that method of creation is a precarious position at best. How can the history recorded in the Universe be a lie, or how can it be true? Either conclusion results in a theological conundrum.

Even more explicitly, God gives us the direct revelation of Him demanding genocide. How can we then confess that reality as true and somehow consistent with God as 'good' and simultaneously then turn and accuse our brethren of painting God as evil because we think the record of creation implies He used evolution in the creation of life? Is one really any more contradictory than the other?

If a TE accepts God used evolution in the creation of life AND as true the revelation that death is an enemy to be destroyed, than that simply means TE's, as all Christians MUST do on some point or another, accept it as a kind of paradox where both are true. We must struggle with it, work with it, have faith in spite of the apparent contradiction.



Jim

[oxmixmudd]

I find it perfectly compatible with the state of our condition today. The fact we look for a natural explanation to explain how living organisms formed on earth as opposed to a 6 day miracle, exemplifies our lack of faith and the curse upon which miracles have ceased to this day.

I rest my case ...

[Irate Canadian]

I rest my case ...

Ah, you've met SeanD... I find it kind of ironic his sig states "Just the Historical Facts".

[Irate Canadian]

I find it perfectly compatible with the state of our condition today. The fact we look for a natural explanation to explain how living organisms formed on earth as opposed to a 6 day miracle, exemplifies our lack of faith and the curse upon which miracles have ceased to this day.

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

yes, because all science can tell us are lies.

[Sea of red]

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

yes, because all science can tell us are lies.

*truth time*

I'm apart of a vast communist conspiracy that is trying to indoctrinate your children into the outlandish idea of a methodology that looks for testable, repeatable, ideas that can be formulated into a predictive framework.

[seanD]

Ah, you've met SeanD... I find it kind of ironic his sig states "Just the Historical Facts".

It's based on apologetics about the New Testament. There's nothing in the articles about evolution. Where's the irony when the subjects aren't even related?

[Irate Canadian]

It's based on apologetics about the New Testament. There's nothing in the articles about evolution. Where's the irony when the subjects aren't even related?

Oh, it's a link. Thought it was just a statement in your sig. The irony I got out of it (thinking it was a statement about your worldview) was that you don't seem to want to actually listen to history at all. Evolution for one.

[seanD]

Oh, it's a link. Thought it was just a statement in your sig. The irony I got out of it (thinking it was a statement about your worldview) was that you don't seem to want to actually listen to history at all. Evolution for one.

I doubt you didn't know it was a link, but whatever. I've had many arguments with Jim in the past, and he never resorted to any type of cheap personal attack like that and he's as passionate as they come about ToE. Carry on, dude.

[Irate Canadian]

I doubt you didn't know it was a link, but whatever. I've had many arguments with Jim in the past, and he never resorted to any type of cheap personal attack like that and he's as passionate as they come about ToE. Carry on, dude.

Okay then, what do you have against the ToE then?

[robrecht]

I do not believe you can selectively discuss only what you want to discuss concerning the theological questions concerning Genesis and Adam and Eve. OK, discuss the diversity, and I acknowledged that 'some theologians' offer alternative interpretations. The problem with this selective view is that it does not acknowledge the fact that the alternatives of 'some theologians' has not changed the foundation beliefs of the traditional churches. You also neglect the fact that ALL the Popes of the Roman Church have in their addresses to the faithful fundamentally have reaffirmed the fundamental Doctrines and Dogmas of the church.

I can discuss whatever I like. I actually think you are the one being not only selective but also reductionist in preferring to distinguish and discuss only foundational doctrines and dogmas and not the theological understanding of those doctrines and dogmas. In fact, there's really no such thing as doctrines and dogmas apart from the theological understanding of those theological doctrines and dogmas. One can make an analogy to scientific theories. The reality under study, eg, gravity, does not change much over millions and billions of years, but the scientific theories by which one seeks to understand the reality is continually evolving and the manner in which this evolving theoretical knowledge is applied in various practical applications is also subject to continual change and novelty. This is why fundamental theology and scriptural exegesis can have a profound effect upon how doctrines and dogmas are understood theologically. Thinking that you can discuss theological doctrines and dogma apart from their (evolving) theological understanding also betrays your literalist and propositional approach to revelation, at least your attitude toward the revelatory texts and pronouncements of other religions.

Once again, your 'some theologians' seems to minimize the import in that I am referring not merely to 'some theologians' but much more expansively to leading theologians from the second century on and a major school of theology that has developed and flourished over centuries and by many leading scholars of our own time, some have even claimed the majority of contemporary Catholic theologians, including at least a couple of Cardinals. The theological diversity that I am referring to here does indeed represent a significant voice in the earliest tradition in a couple of critical issues and as it has been more completely fleshed out more recently.

There is no need to acknowledge the tautology that traditional churches maintain traditional theological interpretations of traditional doctrines. That is merely your preferred polemic, which does not engage good theology.

There was no concession nor change in my view on these issues. I only clarified my view and the error in the post #68 to refer to the NT ONLY.

I understand that that you have now corrected your remarks to only refer to NT authors, but it is important to consider the likely intent of the original authors and editors of the authoritative text, which for the Catholic church at least, is the Hebrew text. You cannot understand the Hebrew text of Genesis by only relying upon Paul's allusive use.

We must reflect a little: if the literal meaning of this story were attributed to a wise man, certainly all would logically deny that this arrangement, this invention, could have emanated from an intelligent being. Therefore, this story of Adam and Eve who ate from the tree, and their expulsion from Paradise, must be thought of simply as a symbol. It contains divine mysteries and universal meanings, and it is capable of marvelous explanations. Only those who are initiated into mysteries, and those who are near the Court of the All-Powerful, are aware of these secrets. Hence these verses of the Bible have numerous meanings. . . .

This is one of the meanings of the biblical story of Adam. Reflect until you discover the others.

Salutations be upon you. [/cite]

You had already (also selectively) quoted this section and I referred back to your link and gave additional information that is indeed also important to to this topic. My point in giving this particular additional quote was not to argue for the additional material being based on a literal interpretation, but rather to show some similarity to Christian interpretations of the text of Genesis, which are undeniable.

There never was a concession on this issue, only a correction of post #68. Please, let's go on without further beating this dead horse any more.

I've noted this multiple times now, but I nonetheless wanted to correct you on what I took to be the issue being clarified, ie, your restriction of your earlier remarks as not referring to the authors of the Hebrew scriptures.

I never said, it was irrelevant and not meaningful. I said, "It has not changed the fundamental Doctrines and Dogmas of the traditional churches, except maybe to form new churches like the Unity church.

It is a constant refrain in your oft repeated refusal to discuss theology, preferring instead your tired religious polemic.

This only represents 'some theologians' of our time, and you are over stating the number of 'leading scholars' of our own time.

I have not stated the number, but I have noted that others have referred to this view being the majority view of contemporary Catholic theologians. My own experience is anecdotal as I can only speak of the hundred or so theologians I have studied with and known personally, among whom there is almost universal agreement on this point.

False, I consider all views, but your 'some theologians' have not led to any changes in the fundamental Doctrines and Dogmas of the traditional Christian churches including the Roman Church.

This is another characteristic of religious polemics, citing tautologies as if they are self-evident and meaningful. They are indeed self-evident, but also meaningless. Failure to engage good theology.

For most of the history of the traditional Christian churches the Augustinian view has not been accepted except for some points. It is most of the other Church Fathers that have carried forth the Orthodox views of the traditional Christian churches, including a more literal view of Genesis that stood relatively unchanged and unchallenged until the progress of science from the late 16th to the 19th century.

Yes, this too is very true. Modern views of scripture did not arise until modern times. Is this too supposed to be meaningful?

Disagreement, yes, 'some theologians,' you will have to cite the Pope you are referring to that acknowledges a significant reinterpretation of scripture that impacts the Doctrine and Dogma of the Roman Church.

You are not quoting me correctly. I was merely referring to Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI as acknowledging theological diversity and fundamental alternative theological views as expressed by Hans Urs von Cardinal Balthasar, but I could also refer back to Paul VI, speaking through a spokesperson, being open to the process of rethinking the theology of original sin to be in accord with the properly scientific theory of evolution. While he personally expressed a very traditional theology and signaled some reservations about some contemporary proposals, he nonetheless encouraged the rethinking process to continue and was evidently comfortable with the theology of original sin being in a state of flux at the time. Subsequently, Cardinal Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XVI, was himself accused by traditionalists of denying the dogma of Original Sin. Of course, he did not deny the dogma, but his theological expression of its meaning in contemporary terms was unacceptable to those who, like yourself, prefer religious polemic to good theological dialogue and debate

You keep harping on this ridiculous point. I have clarified my statement in post #68, and admitted the wording error. There is no concession here nor change of view nor belief. Let's move on.

But why do you still avoid the question? Why avoid the topic of the most likely original intent of the authors of the book of Genesis? My point is that at least one/some of the authors/editors of the book of Genesis did not consider Adam and Eve to be merely a literal historical couple so named but rather a poetic narrative evoking general truths about humanity and our strained relationship to God and all creation. Have you nothing at all to say about this point? Other than the anti-intellectual stance that we cannot know the original intent of the authors/redactors/editors? Why would one so flippantly dismiss huge swaths of scholarly method and opinion?

OK, you have affirmed that Adam is a historical person, and the concept of the 'Fall' and 'Original Sin' are grounded in Paul's writings. I have no problem with other possible symbolic or teleological meanings, but that does not change things as far as the fundamental literal meaning of the key points of Genesis that is the foundation of church Doctrine and Dogma as believed by the Apostles, Paul and the dominant view of the Church Fathers.

No, I have not affirmed that Adam is a historical person. You completely misunderstand my perspective and have yet to engage it properly.

[robrecht]

OK, but it does not allow for Revelation outside the Revelations of the OT, Jesus Christ, and possibly the Apostles.

Nonsense. What part of 'all creation is revelatory' do you not understand?

Well, ah . . . you have not provided anything in the way of significant references. You have talked about them, but not provided much if any. There are contradictions on the limits Judaism, Christianity, and Islam put on Revelation compared to the Baha'i view of Revelation. The other significant contradiction is the necessity of certain aspects of Genesis being literal to support the belief in the 'Fall' and Original Sin.''

I have referred you to the key theologians; it's up to you read them if you care to better understand the Christian intellectual tradition. I doubt you have ever taken my advice to better acquaint yourself with modern Catholic fundamental theology of revelation so your view of Christian limits put on revelation are probably uninformed.

What's the problem?!?!? You asked for it and I looked it up and provided Baha'u'llah's citations concerning Adam. Actually these references confirm my view that the Baha'i writings believe in more ancient history of cycles of Adam before the Prophetic Adamic cycle of ~6,000 years before the Bab.

My point is that you require me to begin with citations of the the Baha'u'llah when discussing Baha'i views of Adam and Eve when you yourself did not do so. The extreme irony of this point is that I was merely asking you for such citations in an effort to educate myself about additional Baha'i views, about which you yourself were evidently ignorant. My question of you is still essentially the same. Aside from figurative or symbolic allusions to other Adams, we have established that you do, in fact, believe that Adam and Eve lived approximately 6,000 years ago as a real historical couple, 'though not necessarily the first human couple. I don't think you have yet answered my question as to whether or not you believe that all modern humans are descended from this couple that lived 6,000 years ago.