Evolution and Christianity

This conversation didn't include me much, but it is a very interesting discussion of evolution and creationism. Be warned it is very long (as you might tell by the scroll bar on the right. ;) ) (8,300 words long in fact)

Julie:

Thursday, April 12 at 4:22pm

How does it make sense to assume that something came from nothing, without an outside force to cause it? Well, see, the earth was this boiling conglomeration of toxic substances, and as it cooled, it magically sprouted life forms that could stand these conditions, which evolved into life forms which could photosynthesize and create oxygen, and after they created oxygen, more life forms magically evolved that could live in oxygenated conditions....Wait a minute. According to your theory, the life forms that came before the photosynthesizers would have DIED as soon as oxygen became prevalent - so thus would have ended evolution. It seems as if your argument defeats itself. At least my beliefs make sense. Thus ends my rant against evolutionary theory - for now

Top of Form

Aaron: Simple counterpoint, what caused God?

Julie: He was always there. No, we can't understand that, but at least it doesn't rest on assumptions that poke holes in themselves.

Aaron: If that's the case then what's beyond reason in saying that the material necessary for the reaction resulting in the big bang wasn't always there?

Julie: It has nothing to do with believing in God or not. Evolution contradicts itself. The purpose of science is to create a hypothesis, TEST that hypothesis, and re-evaluate as needed. There is no way to prove the origins of the earth - it takes faith either way. Stop calling it science, and call it faith. They can't even create life in a lab, with all the materials they KNOW they need - the best they can do is create amino acids, but only "left-handed" amino acids. Without "right-handed" amino acids, life cannot be formed (they literally call them that, and I could find and cite the source of that information if I had the time to devote to it). And they KNOW what all they need. For something to spontaneously form out of nothing is impossible, apart from the involvement of the Divine.

FBUser #1: My dad said this: if you look at a car you don't think or try to argue that it somehow magically formed itself. It is too intricately made to have just come from nothing. Someone had to create it. Look at the human body. There's no way this came from nothing. We were CLEARLY created with specific design.

Aaron: Not all science is testable in the conventional sense. For instance, we can't really test what would happen if you fell into a black hole, principally because it would require us to have a black hole, and also drop someone into it. One of which is impractical and the other unethical. Since we don't have these, we form models about how things would work given what we know about quantum physics, photons, gravity and what we can observe from a distance. As such some things aren't so much testable as predictable. We can say, if evolution where true, what would we expect to happen? Interestingly, many of these things occur, whether it's fossil record or similarities in genomes. Of course there are holes, as there are in any scientific theory. Even the laws of physics have things about them we don't completely understand. Meanwhile, creationism, or intelligent design, can't really hold a claim to be science. They're certainly not testable and not really predictable either. And that's ok with me. I'm more than content to believe evolution and in a God who loves me and is daily involved in my life, at the same time.

Andrew: Wait, Aaron, you believe in evolution? How did I not know about this? While I'd agree that creationism can't hold a claim to be science, I would say that it too is predictable. If creationism were true, what would we expect to happen? And many of those things occur as well, such as humans’ genomes mapping back to a single mother or the set of fossilized dinosaur footprints next to the fossilized human footprints. The results of the data depend on how we interpret it through our worldview and our ideas of how stuff is "supposed" to work. What I dislike about evolution is that it seeks to explain everything through a worldview that excludes God.

FBUser #1: Right. I think a lot of science does that...excludes God. I have no problem agreeing with a lot of science and scientifical evidence. I even agree with evolution to a degree. It says God created the world in seven days but who's to say that meant twenty four hours each day? Maybe God's days were years. Who knows? Another example concerning the body: anatomy is a science, and again, the artful way the body works, each piece and its interconnectedness is proven by science and yet undeniably the result of a higher being. But to say that things came from anything but a Creator seems a little ignorant to me. Science is a direct reflection of God, not proof of His absence.

Aaron: ‎"The results of the data depend on how we interpret it through our worldview" - That is an incredibly profound statement! And I suppose I should clarify. I believe in evolution as much as I believe in creationism, which is to say I don't think either really answers all the questions presented them but I am open to either of them being right. Meanwhile, I think the more important issue is that believing in evolution or not is not a prerequisite for being a Christian. They aren't mutually exclusive, despite the desperate attempt on the part of atheists and Christians alike to make it so! So preface the rest of anything I say with the fact that in the end, I'm playing the devil's advocate, and I don't really care if you believe in evolution or creationism so long as you love my Jesus.

The different between evolution and creationism in terms of science is that we can make claims regarding the way things evolved and then test to see if those claims make sense. In creation, you have to say "cause God made it that way" which isn't a testable statement, which is why evolution holds a greater claim to science than creationism ever will.

@Julie - Science isn't concerned with God. Science answers what, how, when and who. God answers why. Saying that science excludes God is like saying that Culinary Arts excludes a lesson on Internal Combustion Engine Design. They're entirely different topics and we, as Christians, shouldn't be frustrated with that fact. We should revel in the notion that we can study the universe around us without worrying that somehow we're going to stumble on some knowledge that disproves God. I do agree that science is a reflection of him, and I can do that and believe that evolution is valid at the same time.

Finally, Julie M, let me ask you, if anything is so ordered that it must have a creator, then that creator must be more ordered than his creation (i.e. a car is made by something more complicated than itself). This still leaves the question of what created God, or, if you prefer, if God is allowed to be complex and uncreated, why can't other things?

Julie: I disagree. The complexities found in, for example, the human eye, could not have formed themselves. I like Julie's analogy - I've heard others just about the same. The problem with scientists, is that they assume that everything that is happening today MUST have happened at the same rate, the exact same way, for all of time. Therefore, the earth MUST be billions of years old, in order for __ to be this way right now. The funny thing is they didn't apply that same logic to, say, the fact that the moon moves further away from the earth each year. If you traced it back at that rate, the earth CAN'T be as old as they say it is, because the two would have collided (or really, come apart) way earlier than they think they "should."
Okay, Aaron, so correct me if I'm wrong, but last I heard, scientists didn't have any successful tests to see if their claims made sense. In creation, you don't HAVE to say "'cause God made it that way." Yes, I think God made everything. However, I still believe in micro-evolution - what Darwin observed about the finches happens in every animal species. Animals specialize, adapt, and evolve in order to better survive in their environments. However, I do not believe in macro-evolution - I do not believe that species evolve into other species. Why? Because I believe in the Bible. No, believing in creationism vs. evolutionism has nothing to do with being saved. You can believe God used evolution and be a Christian. It does, however, affect your worldview. Do you believe the Bible is true? The Bible says that God created everything. The Bible says that God created man, in His own image. That belief affects SO many aspects of worldview. Do you believe abortion is wrong? I do. Why? Because God created people, in His image, and said not to murder. Killing unborn babies is murder. Here's a kicker - science chooses to abdicate when it comes to abortion. They say that the unborn baby is a "fetus" (which, I believe, is Latin for "little one"), and that it isn't human, and therefore abortion is okay to allow. But that ignores all scientific data that shows that creatures produce after their own kind. A puppy in a dog's womb is a puppy, not a fetus. It doesn't matter how far along it is. If someone forced a dog to abort, the animal rights activists would be all over it in a heartbeat. They just choose to have different beliefs when it comes to human babies.
But, I digress. I firmly believe that whether or not you accept the Bible at face-value, as it was written, as the infallible Word of God, will affect every aspect of your life. Your worldview influences the way you look at /everything/.

Julie: I had typed a bunch into here and then accidentally clicked something and left this page, so it's all gone. Oh well. I'll try to remember what I wrote. :P
Science and religion do seek to answer different questions. But that doesn't mean that you have to pick one or the other. I can be a Christian and believe in all the scientific discoveries today. I just don't believe in evolution. I think that scientists are trying hard to find reasons for the world apart from God. They have this worldview that presupposes that there is no reason for anything - that it all came about by random chance. If that's the case, then there is no such thing as true morality. Who's to say what's right and wrong? We're all accidents! That worldview affects every aspect of life. Your worldview shapes how you see, and interact with, the world. I agree, we aren't going to find anything that disproves God. We're only going to find more that proves the ingenuity of His creation. "The heavens declare the glory of God."
So, Aaron, do you think that just because we (flawed, finite humans with finite brains) cannot understand/do not know where God comes from, that we cannot believe the truth of the Bible? Since when is understanding everything about God a prerequisite for taking His Word at face value and believing it is true? We are never going to understand it all. I don't think that will be possible. Of course that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to understand as much about His Word as we can, but I don't think we will ever understand all the mysteries of the Bible. We only see "as through a glass, darkly" - until we reach heaven, there are some things we won't, and cannot, understand. I think God's origin is one of them. The Trinity is one for me.
I believe that every word in the Bible is true. If something appears to conflict with what I observe in real life - that does not make it wrong - it means I don't understand either what the Bible is saying there, or I am interpreting what I observe incorrectly. I am far more likely to believe that I am mistaken than that God was mistaken.
For example, the Bible very clearly says that God created the world in seven days. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1). God made light (1:3). "And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day." (1:5). Now, if that doesn't sound like a 24-hour day, I don't know what does. Why do you suppose He included that qualifier? It makes sense to me that He was making sure we'd know this was literally one day, not one of those "a day to the Lord is like a thousand years" things (Ps. 90). However, we'll leave that one alone for now and focus only on the order in which He created things:
Day 2: The sky, separating the oceans from water over the earth (which later came down in the flood).
Day 3: Sea and dry land. Vegetation: trees and plants.
Day 4: The sun, moon and stars. I'm pretty sure all the other space phenomena (nebulae, etc.) are included in that one. Remember, just because not everything scientifically discovered is in the Bible doesn't mean it wasn't included in His creation. He was speaking to the Israelites here, on a level they would understand.
Day 5: Water creatures (everything under the sea) and birds (every winged bird).
Day 6: All the land animals. This includes dinosaurs. Then, the Bible specifically states: “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” (1:26). God made man, in His image. Here's one instance where the Bible references the Trinity - hence the "us."

Julie: Now, for what the evolutionist view says. Evolution says that the sun formed before the earth. The Bible says that God created the earth first - in verse 1 - and then the sun later - in verses 14-19 (Day 4).
Evolution says that there was dry land before sea. The Bible says that God created the sea first (Day 2) and then dry land (Day 3).
Evolution says that atmosphere formed before the sea. The Bible says that God made the sea before he made the atmosphere (the atmosphere separated water that was already there).
Evolution says that the sun formed before there was light on earth. The Bible says that God made light before He made the sun.
Evolution says that stars formed before the earth did. The Bible says that God made the earth first (in the beginning - either on or before day one) and the stars later (Day 4).
Evolution says that sea creatures evolved before land plants. The Bible says that God made land plants (day 3) before sea creatures (day 5).
Evolution says that earthworms evolved before starfish. The Bible says that God made starfish (a sea creature - day 5) before earthworms (a land animal - day 6).
Evolution says that land animals evolved before trees. The Bible says that God made trees (day 3) before land animals (day 6).
Evolution says that reptiles came before birds. The Bible says that God made birds (day 5) before reptiles (day 6).
The same applies to dinosaurs, which evolution says evolved before birds, while the Bible says the opposite.
Evolution says that land mammals evolved before whales. The Bible says that God made whales (day 5) before land mammals (day 6).
Evolution says that land mammals evolved before bats. The Bible says that God made bats either on day 5 (if they count as "birds" - remember the audience here; the Israelites didn't know bats were mammals) or on day 6, the same day as land mammals. I would assume that He includes all flying things in day 5.
Evolution says that insects evolved before flowering plants. The Bible says that God made flowering plants (day 3) before insects (day 6).
Evolution says that the sun formed before plants. The Bible says God made plants (day 3) before the sun (day 4).
Evolution says that dinosaurs evolved before dolphins. The Bible says that God made dolphins (day 5) before dinosaurs (day 6).
These are but a few examples of the disparities between evolution and the Biblical account. And that's just in the way of order.

Julie: What if we were to consider, for example, what the Bible says about death, as opposed to what evolution says? Evolution says that it took millions of years of death, disease, violence, and extinction in order for species to evolve. But the Bible says that there was no death until after every living creature was created - after man sinned (Gen. 3).
These are just a few examples of why I find belief in evolution incompatible with belief in the Bible. I do not believe that the six days were long periods of time - millions of years. That contradicts what the Bible says about sin and death. No, I won't say that Christians who believe in evolution can't be Christians. But I will say that they have not been educated about the differences between evolution and the Bible which cannot be reconciled with each other, and about the vast evidence that points to Intelligent Design in the world.

Aaron: I also believe in the absolute authoritative nature of the Word of God. I also believe that it was written as a joint effort between God and men. Which means it was still written by men. I don't believe the Bible can (often) be read as a historically accurate document (if you don't believe me, try reconciling the timeline presented in Kings with the timeline presented in Chronicles. I'll save you the time, if you'd like, by telling you that they are irreconcilable. So which one is true? You can do the same trick with the gospels.) I'm ok with believing that the Bible can be historically inaccurate, and the authoritative word of God at the same time.

Furthermore, the Bible isn't always literal. If you want to debate that, I encourage you to read Song of Solomon. The woman the author describes would not be attractive in the least if it was a literal description. Therefore we have to assume he's being metaphorical, or allegorical, or SOMETHING else. Now, let’s address Genesis.

1. Compare Genesis 1 - 2:3 and Genesis 2:4-15. You will find drastically different descriptions of the process of creation. So drastic in fact, that it is accepted that they are by different authors. Genesis 1 depicts instantaneous creation while 2:4-15 presents a gradual creation. The fact that you have chosen Genesis 1 to be part of your worldview is arbitrary. I could just as easily say all the water and greenery on the earth gradually came up over time, rather than in an instant, and would be, according to Genesis 2, completely correct. You tell me which one is more right.

2. Genesis 1 is poetry. It follows the exact model of Hebrew poetry so perfectly that the translators of your Bible have chosen to have a hanging indent on the first line of each stanza, just like Psalms or Song of Solomon. You are attempting to interpret Genesis 1 as a scientific or historical document, which is analogous to me interpreting the description of the Shulamite woman in Song of Solomon as an anthropological field study describing what the women of Solomon's day looked like. Misinterpreting the genre of the text will lead you to missing the point of the passage, which, if you read over Genesis 1, you will easily discover, since any time Hebrews wrote poetry the repeated the important parts over and over. In Genesis 1, it isn't "God created all this stuff in six literal days in this specific order." it's "God created everything, and he created everything good (you'll find these two statements over and over and over again)." This point is crucial for a good interpretation of the REST OF THE BIBLE. It puts the entirety of the book in context. (and for the record, I do believe God created everything)

If you need more evidence for the fact that Genesis 1 is not a scientific treatise, please observe that plants are created before the Sun.

3. Finally, remember that Genesis 1 was written about events that occurred before humanity. Thus no one was actually around to witness them. Now you can say that, well, God told them what to write, and that’s fine, you can ignore this last point in that case. Personally I don’t believe that the authorship of the Bible worked like that, but that’s another debate.

So where does this leave me? Someone who believes Genesis 1 and 2 is authoritative and also believes that evolution is reasonable? I choose to believe that God uses these two chapters not to reveal to us his methodology in creation, but in his personality in creation. I frankly don’t care about how the universe was created. I care about my God who created it. You can say I’m trying to mesh two incompatible views together, but my mind is at ease.
Now, for a moment I want you to consider what happens if evolution is conclusively proven true. What happens to your faith? You have to choose to hoist everything you believe overboard, or cling to what you espouse now in the face of incontrovertible evidence. Furthermore, what about those individuals who we spend so much time trying to convince them that their perspective of evolution is wrong and therefore cannot be Christians?

You’re right. Evolution is being used as an excuse for people not to believe in God. But it’s only able to continue to do that because Christians keep making it an issue. We are falling right into the trap that they have set but arguing about it with them, completely hijacking our own efforts to reach out and speak to them about the love of Christ and instead getting caught up on how wrong they are.

I hope you see my heart and passion in this. I love Genesis, it’s one of my favorite books of the Bible and I have studied it liberally. I also love my fellow Christians who don’t share my perspective. They are my family, and the beauty of Christ is that there is unity despite differences of opinion (for further evidence, see my wife, who disagrees with me, and still loves me ) I also love the lost, and do not want to let something that shouldn’t be an issue get between them and something life changing. I’m really not here just to get into a debate over evolution; I’m trying to break down barriers. I also hope that your opinion of me is in no way demolished (mine opinion of you certainly is not, and I appreciate the opportunity for discussion).

Aaron: Also, sorry for that giant wall of text ;)

Julie: I'd have to do some research on it, but I don't think that anything in the Bible is irreconcilable with anything else in the Bible. I think that if it appears that way, there is a problem with understanding on our end, or we're not looking at what the original Greek/Hebrew was saying. The gospels are great examples of different perspectives on the same event. For example, someone (I'd have to go find out who) said that when Jesus was dying, he "cried out." John, who was right at the foot of the cross, put what He actually said. Do these contradict each other? No, they complement each other. The gospels are not irreconcilable. I also do not think that the Bible is historically inaccurate. Discoveries in archaeology are finding evidence that proves the factual accuracy of the Bible all the time.

No, the Bible is not always literal. The Song of Solomon can be interpreted as love letters between a man and wife, or as metaphorical interpretations of God's love for us. What did God intend? I don't know. But to say that we know absolutely everything about how the Bible should be interpreted is prideful, and I think it's wrong. Obviously the comparisons he was making can be likened to Shakespeare and other authors who wrote love sonnets comparing their lovers to actual objects. If someone's eyes really were like the sun, that wouldn't be very attractive. It's a metaphor meant to imply beauty, and even though we don't necessarily connect with the cultural significance of the images used in Song of Solomon, doesn't mean it wasn't intended that way. To say that Genesis is not literal is to make a jump in logic that does not compute.

The accounts in Gen. 1-2:3 and 2:4-15 do not contradict each other. They complement each other.
Gen. 2 says that God had made the heavens and earth, but not yet any plants on the ground. That matches up with Gen. 1. It also says that there was water on the ground. That matches up with Gen. 1. The difference between the two accounts is that the first gives a broad, sweeping account of the entirety of creation. The second focuses in on smaller instances of creation.
The Gen. 2 account skips ahead to God creating man. Just because it moves from one thing to another, much like a narrative in a novel, does that mean it's saying that God didn't make everything in between there just like Gen. 1 says He did? No, far from it. It is simply skipping parts to focus in on particular points in time and elaborate.
Note, for example, that in 2:5, it says there were no plants, and then in 2:8, it says God had planted a garden. Contradiction! Actually, no it's not. There weren't any plants at the point in time when verse 5 was describing. Then, God created the parts of the world as described in Gen. 1, and in that time, He created plants (as it says in Gen. 1), and among those plants were the Garden of Eden, which He specifically created in a specific order for a reason. Then God made the sun, moon, stars, water creatures, flying creatures, and land animals. No, Gen. 2 doesn't repeat this - what need is there to repeat it, when it just told you one chapter before all about the order of God's creation? So, instead of wasting time repeating that, it focuses on the important parts. You need to know there's a garden that God put Adam in, in order to understand the rest of the story. So now, where it is appropriate, the account expounds and explains that. You didn't need to know that in Genesis 1. The events that succeed this all follow the Gen. 1 account - God had already made the wild animals and birds, and now He brought them before Adam. Then He made woman. None of this contradicts Gen. 1. It only expands and further explains items of importance. I don't know who accepts that they are by different authors. That doesn't make any sense to me. Genesis 2 does not depict a gradual creation. Far from it! As I said, it only focuses in on certain important instances of time, to further explain them. Authors use that technique all the time. The fact that I have chosen Genesis 1 to be part of my worldview is not arbitrary. I choose the entirety of the Bible to comprise my worldview, and when it /appears/ that it contradicts itself, I recognize that I, and other humans, do not know everything there is to know about everything, and clearly we do not understand. Genesis 2 does not say that all the water and greenery on the earth gradually came up over time. It just doesn't say that.

Genesis 1 may be written in the format of poetry, but does that mean it's not true? David wrote poetry about God. Should we say it wasn't true just because it was poetry? Of course not. People use poetry to describe the real world all the time. In fact, most poetry is just that - a description of something from reality. You're making leaps in logic to say that interpreting Genesis as a historical account is akin to interpreting the Song of Solomon as literal. Presenting something in poetic form does not mean that what you are presenting did not happen. It's presenting it in a prettier, more lyrical way, meant to resonate and be easier to remember. Yes, Genesis emphasizes that God created everything, and He created everything good. Those are important points to emphasize. The fact that He created __ in one day is also repeated. I think that's an important indication that He created what it says He created in each day it says He did. Yes, plants were created before the sun. So? Is He not powerful enough to enable them to survive, outside the laws of physics, for one day? Do you believe in miracles? Do you believe that the biblical accounts of God's miracles in the Old and New Testaments are accurate, or just made up? How powerful do you think your God is? Or should we limit Him to human limitations?

Julie: The Bible is the inspired Word of God. The fact that so many authors contributed, with so few contradictions, is a testament to that. As I said, I firmly believe that any apparent contradictions are merely due to lack of understanding on the part of the reader, not the writers.

We don't know HOW God created it. I think that accepting that He created it, because His Word says He did, follows logically from believing that His Word is Truth.

Evolution will never be proven conclusively true, because it isn't. However, for the sake of argument, I will suppose that one day evolutionists find all their mysteriously absent missing links and prove in every way possible that evolution is true. What then? Why, obviously, that means I interpreted the Bible wrong. Do you see what I am saying? Anything that I do not understand is a sign that I don't get it - I'm missing something - not that God was wrong! No, I don't have to hoist everything I believe overboard. Because I know that I don't know everything. "Furthermore, what about those individuals who we spend so much time trying to convince them that their perspective of evolution is wrong and therefore cannot be Christians?" You apparently chose to ignore what I wrote about that. I do not spend "so much time" trying to convince anyone that their perspective of evolution is wrong, and therefore cannot be Christians. I don't think evolution vs. creation is a salvation issue. I said that. Multiple times. In fact, this is the first argument I've had with a Christian about anything evolution-related. I've only had one discussion about evolution prior to this, I believe, and I never made it a salvation issue.

Yes, some Christians choose to make a huge issue of this. In case you haven't noticed, Christians tend to do that a lot. About a lot of things. Like predestination. Do you have to believe in it to be saved? No. But do your beliefs about it affect your view of God, and what you believe about Him, and Who He is? Yes. Throughout the entire history of Christianity, Christians have made fools of themselves, representing God in harmful ways, all because of their bigotry and idiocy. That has been very harmful to the message of Christianity. It doesn't mean God can't work through circumstances to bring people to Him anyway. And personally, as I said, I have NEVER made this an issue with non-Christians or Christians. I am enjoying the discussion, and the opportunity to talk to someone who disagrees with my views. Am I desperately trying to get you to "see the light" so that you can be truly saved? Of course not.

"But it’s only able to continue to do that because Christians keep making it an issue." False. People who don't want to accept God will continue to fight Him in every way they can find, and it has nothing to do with Christians "making it an issue." Personally, I've never come in contact with anyone who has "made it an issue" to the exclusion of the Gospel. I have profound appreciation for Christian apologists who seek to educate Christians about these things. That's where I learned about the vast differences between evolution and the biblical narrative, and how incompatible they are. Are the people who teach this trying to "save" people by convincing them to believe in creationism? No. They're trying to educate Christians in order to arm them against the barrage of attacks they will face every single day from a world hostile to God. There's nothing wrong with that.

Again, you seem to have missed what I have said over and over and over again. I do not think poorly of any Christian who disagrees with me on evolution. If they're open to debate, then I will not shy away from presenting my arguments. Does that mean I don't love my fellow Christians who don't share my perspective? Of course not. I love everyone the same, no matter what we disagree on (and there are PLENTY of things to disagree on), as long as we agree that Jesus is the Son of God who died to give us life. That's the bottom line. Does that mean we can't discuss the things we disagree about? No! I've had hours-long discussions about predestination and eternal security with people who believe all across the board, and it was tons of fun. Were we trying to "convert" each other to believe what we do? No. I think it's stupid that the church is so split by all these "little" issues. We should be able to worship together in spirit and in truth, and lay our differences aside. That doesn't mean we can't discuss those differences in a friendly attitude. I've learned so much from other people's perspectives on a lot of different things. I'd hate to ever be so closed to hearing others' views that I never want to talk about it. Not that I'm saying you are, I'm just saying I don't want to be.

I think we're both arguing the same points here. I just felt like you thought I was making this a salvation issue, and I'm really not. And no, my opinion of you hasn't changed a bit. I LOVE philosophical discussions and arguments like this, as long as everyone's on the same page and understands that I'm just arguing because it's fun. :)

Julie: Sorry I'm so long-winded. It all looked way shorter in Notepad. :P

Aaron: Just wanted to clear something up. I didn't add that last paragraph in my message as some sort of castigation. I added it just as an attempt to make it clear that at no point in time did I mean anything in this discussion to be taken as a personal slight. I did not attempt to make the point that you didn't love your fellow Christians who don't agree with you, I was trying to prevent just the opposite of that from happening.

I think we've both pretty much gotten what we want to get out there...uh...out there, so I won't really drag this last message on, just clarify one or two things.

1. Yep, indeed enough, there are things in the Bible that directly contradict. Luke says "Blessed are the poor" and Matthew says "Blessed are the poor in spirit." Which one is telling us the truth? Are they both? Does it matter? Like I mentioned earlier, Kings and Chronicles is the most profound example. It's impossible not to come to the conclusion that at least one of them is historically inaccurate. No amount of perspective can replace the conclusion that the two authors simply wrote things down differently.

2. I take Genesis 1 metaphorically (and sometimes literally!) just like I take Song of Solomon metaphorically (and also literally in some places!). I guess this is just a difference of perspective. I've found that I cannot take all of the Bible as inerrant. Else I would have to demand that my wife remain silent in church, not braid her hair, and also birth children so as to be saved (none of that would have mattered though because I would have been compelled to stay single). I live quite content with a strong conviction that the Bible has the flaws of human authors within and also is the authoritative word of God. I love God, I love his word (I go to a Bible college!) and I suppose I am an example of what many Christians claim cannot exist.

3. I would never have this discussion with a non-Christian, or with someone who was a staunch believer in evolution. I thought long and hard about getting it rolling here. Because the fact is, I have completely blown a good conversation out of the water by getting hung up on evolution in the past, when I was a staunch apologist. It happens to people all the time. It's happened to me before, and I've seen just how powerful it can be when we disregard evolution and talk about God, and just how devastating it can be when someone like Al Mohler says you cannot believe in the Bible and evolution. I am not an apologist in the traditional sense anymore.

4. I am really happy that Heaven has room for both of us ;) I can't wait for the day we can ask God about all this stuff and shrug our shoulders as we find that neither of us had the whole picture and that we were still love by him all the while.

Aaron: That went longer than intended ;) P.S. are you guys still in Colorado Springs?

Julie: ‎1. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.
2. Yes, there are passages like the ones regarding women that Christians disagree on. I'm not sure what to make of those, either.
3. It all depends on how you approach it. Things are easier to understand in person - less margin for misunderstanding. But either way, it is possible to make too big of an issue out of it. I might have this kind of conversation with a non-Christian; as long as I made sure they understood that I believe it's not crucial to salvation to agree with me on this. It really depends on the situation. It's interesting that only Christians commented on this status. :)
4. Yep, it's pretty cool that He doesn't care if we're wrong about this stuff, as long as we get the big one right. :)

No, we're living in New Mexico.

Aaron: Hmmm, well, we're doing a BBQ at our house tonight, and you're invited, but I imagine that's a little bit of a drive.

Julie: Yes, unfortunately. Thanks for the invite though!
Okay, so - you brought up the fact that Brittany disagrees with you and loves you anyway. So, that reminded me of a question I'm trying to figure out. The Bible says that wives should submit to their husbands. What do you think that means? I don't think it means they have to agree on everything, but what should that look like when you do disagree?

Aaron: The same thing it looks like when you disagree with your parents, and still honor them. The Bible, in fact (in Ephesians even!) says that all believes should submit to each other, not just wives to their husbands. In this case, submitting looks like her disagreeing with me but also listening to what my opinions are and while she can verbalize where she thinks I’m wrong, she also does that respectfully, and doesn't tear me down in public.

Now if were talking something big here, like how we raise our kids, it's a different dynamic. We can't disagree on that, we have to come to an agreement, and that might mean a compromise for both of us. Ultimately, I need to love her like Christ loves her and be willing to see things from her point of view rather than just from mine. Remember, we're one flesh, which means that her concerns are my concerns, even if they aren't really an issue to me. I CANNOT make a big decision like that without weighing her feelings on the issue. Meanwhile, on her side of things, she needs to trust me, that I'm not going to make a decision selfishly, but will have her interests at heart, even if the one I make isn't the one she wants. At the end of the day, if I decided to go with the option that she is against, she needs to let me. I, meanwhile, have to know that I'm accountable to GOD for my choice and I better not go against her desires and needs without the kind of humility that is prepared to answer for my actions if it screws up.

You know, that's a big question, and really this medium isn't the best place to lay out my thoughts on it, but the above is roughly it.

Julie: Thanks for sharing. I think that sounds about like Josh's thoughts on the subject. I was just curious what another married man would say. :)

FBUser #1: This got too complicated for me lol. But I learned a lot so I’d like to clarify that I believe in adaptation lol not evolution, and thanks for reminding me of the specifications on a day in Genesis. And Aaron I think you asked me a question in all that reading I just did but I can't remember and I'm sure you don't either so sorry I didn't address it but it was more rhetorical anyway I'm assuming

Andrew: Just to shoot the part of the dead horse that's still kicking... =P
I heard an explanation of the Kings and Chronicles disconnect. Warning: I don't remember it exactly, but I will try to describe the main points.
It has to do with the fact that one was written from an "Israelite" perspective and one was written from a "Judahite" perspective. Each one had slightly different methods for marking time. For example one measured from the beginning of a king's reign from the day the old king died and the new king started. (Logical right?) The other one measured from the time the new king took over responsibility, even though the old king wasn't dead yet. Well, there's a 1 or 2 year overlap there. Also, (I think I remember that) one measures the start of the reign after a kingdom tour which also added a year or so. If I remember where I heard that explanation I'll post a reference to it.
In the end, there's a 3 year discrepancy due to the differences in counting when the king's reign started. So, if you take that into account, the two books really are consistent.

Also, Aaron, that is an awesome explanation of submission. =)
Finally, would anyone mind if I copy this massive discussion to my blog? This stuff is too good to get buried on facebook. =) (That's the format of my blog, copying stuff worth saving. =) )

Andrew: ok, so there are other discrepancies than the one I was thinking of. My Google search turned up some other discrepancies as well. Also, most of the Google results were pages explaining the discrepancies. *shrug* I think these are minor issues though, not something affecting the inspiration of the Bible or its authority.

FBUser #2: I grew weary of reading some of these long diatribes, some that include faulty logic. "Lean not on your own understanding" and get the facts. My very last choices for getting factual information would be academia and the Internet. My first choice would be the original Greek and Hebrew for the infallible Word of God. I dare those of you who "believe" that you can be a Christian and accept any part of evolution to watch "The Truth Project." You will find ...
1. There is NO scientific evidence to support the theory of evolution. The supporting fossil records have been deemed false yet many have been duped into believing they are factual through the power of textbooks and education. It's a big lie.
2. There is much scientific evidence and compelling alternative historical records to "prove" Biblical records. Sadly this truth is prohibited from mainstream academia. Try reading "Worlds in Collision" and you will find some of your "metaphorical" assumptions were, in fact, miracles and the very hand of God.
3. The Bible does NOT contradict itself. It is inspired by God and is worthy as THE BEST teaching tool. What may be in question is the translation into our feeble language and cultural point of view.
4. Christians should spend less time arguing with one another and become more Christ-like. The world needs to see true Agape love from you rather than Eros. I sense a lot of pride and foolishness above. Nobody cares how much you claim to "know;" they need to know how much you care. When's the last time you helped a widow or orphan? Do you honor your parents in all you say and do? How often do you sit at the feet of Jesus and meditated on His Words? When was the last time you showed an unbeliever that the heavens declare the Glory of God? Unless we become as little children …

Aaron: ‎"I sense a lot of pride and foolishness above" - I'm sorry but that's uncalled for. I was fully prepared not to respond to this message because I know you have your beliefs and I have mine and no amount of debate will change that. I'm perfectly ok with that. You're clearly a Christian who loves God, and so am I.

But I did not write line after line up there to stroke my own ego, and if you read through the whole series of posts then you know that the discussion between me and Julie was not a matter of argument, it was a lively but friendly discussion between Christians.

Furthermore there is NO reason why I can't express my perspective as I did above AND also grow to be more Christlike at the same time. I love God, I also love people and I act like it. I reach out to the lost, I try to help support my friends, I read my Bible, and pray to my Father. My Christian walk rarely punctuated by discussions like the one above and I acknowledge that it's merely a casual hobby and not the important part of my faith. The cornerstone of my faith is far and away focused on loving people.

You know nothing about my pride and how much of how little I struggle with it, and foolishness is nothing to be ashamed of when you're a servant of God, the most wise. I appreciate your conviction and your heart for God, and I will gladly listen to your thoughts on evolution and creation all day long, but please leave my personal relationship with my Father out of the discussion.

Julie: Andrew, I don't mind at all if you share this - I was thinking the same thing, that it would be a shame to lose it all. I immensely enjoyed the discussion. :)
FBUser #2, no one was exhibiting pride or foolishness that I know of. We were both simply presenting our viewpoints, arguments, and counterarguments. Also, we both clarified on multiple occasions that the point of the discussion was just for fun, not to try to convert the other. Our focus was to engage in a discussion of a point we disagree on, in Christ-like love. I certainly tried to word my posts so that they would be received in that way, and I certainly believe Aaron did. I didn't read anything of his that exhibited pride or foolishness, and in fact I was impressed by how professional he remained throughout the whole thing. I agree with all Aaron's points in his post above; I think that these types of discussions, if done right, actually do make us more like Christ. At the very least, they help us to test our beliefs and see why we believe what we believe. They alert us to things we were previously ignorant of (like the discrepancies between Kings and Chronicles, which I now want to look into), and challenge us to extend ourselves and try to learn more about God's Word. In fact, I'd much rather discuss these things with someone whom I know is a Christian, in order to learn opposing points of view, than with someone I am trying to witness to who is presenting points about why the Bible isn't valid. That wasn't what Aaron was doing, but I could see it happening with a non-Christian. I'd rather be aware of these points and do my research and prepare myself to address them than to be ignorant of them. You don't have to read such long discussions if you don't want to; however, you might want to watch how you word responses when you haven't read the whole thing. :)Bottom of Form

Bottom of Form