Inclined Plane
And the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that all the impulse of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. Genesis 6:5
Impulse – So, is there a little devil on one shoulder and a little angel on the other battling for your attention and decision? No, I’m afraid not. All that cartoon fantasy is pagan mythology. The truth is about the yetzer ha’ra, not about diminutive spiritual beings. And it’s not about sinful nature either. It’s about the moral inclined plane that affects all human beings.
Genesis does not teach us that we are sinful at birth. It doesn’t teach us that we have no choice but to sin unless we are redeemed by Christ. It doesn’t teach us that our capacity for good is rendered null and void until we say the sinner’s prayer. What it does teach is that we have to become human by our decisions to harness the power of the will. In other words, we have to resist the yetzer ha’ra, the evil inclination, that has become part of the human society and affects every human decision.
Remember Havvah (Eve)? What happened when she listened to the naked snake instead of the Word of God? She gave expression to her own determination of what is good. She listened to her inner voice instead of submitting to the external words of God voice. When she did that, she allowed the moral equation to be changed. She introduced my evaluation of what is good and what isn’t good. Before she sinned, Havvah knew only what was true according to God’s words and what was not true according to God’s words. But after she allowed her own desire to get in the way, suddenly what God said was filtered by what she wanted. True and false became good and evil, only now it was “good for me” and “bad for me.” This is the essence of the yetzer ha’ra.
Now let’s consider, for just a moment, the teaching of Rabbi Soloveitchik on this matter. It reveals something that has probably been obscured in all our Christian theology about sinful nature. God created Man with the potential for good or evil. The very fact that the Tree is within the preview of Man means that Man must decide the path of his own life. There is a choice to be made. One direction leads toward deeper harmony with God and creation. The other direction leads toward self-will and chaos. But there is a real and legitimate choice here. It is a choice that every person must make. While the weight of evil inclination increases with each succeeding generation and the incline of the plane gets steeper, the choice still remains. Listen to yourself or listen to Him.
In one respect, the yetzer ha’ra is the distinguishing feature of what it means to be human. Animals do not struggle with the choice to listen to God. They just do by God’s inherent instinct what they do. Human beings are the ones who must decide. And that decision propels them either in the direction of animal-like existence or in the direction of becoming more and more human, that is, becoming more submissive to the word of the Creator. In this respect, the yetzer ha’ra is what makes us human. It is not something we can escape (unless we want to be nothing but animals) and it is not something we can deny. It is our destiny as human beings to have the power to say “No” to the one who made us. That power makes us human. And that power can also take away our humanity. To become human is to domesticate the power for God’s purposes.
When God saw that all the thoughts of men had become nothing but decisions for the path of animal behavior, He saw that His creation was no longer human. So, He scrubbed the earth of them. Their sin was crossing the boundary between human and animal, preferring to be animals rather than the human beings God intended them to be. As such, they were an abomination to creation and had to be removed.
We face the same consequences if we determine that animalia is the way to go. We may do whatever comes naturally, but in the end we will have denied who we were created to be. And God will have to clean up the mess.
Today, you don’t have to listen to some fictitious devil or angel. Today you can choose to be human by listening to the Word of the Lord and submitting your way to it. You can domesticate that inner power and give it back to Him. And you will be human one more day.
Topical Index: human, domesticate, yetzer ha’ra, animal, choice, Genesis 6:5
Greetings!!!
These two aspects of the human soul are in constant battle with each other. However, the evil urge, the yetzer harah, isn’t really evil in and of itself. The great sages tell the story (as appear in the Talmud) that when some people decided to capture the yetzer harah and lock it up in prison, the result was that houses weren’t built and babies weren’t born. This metaphorical story implies that the yetzer harah isn’t actually evil but rather is an impulse that may be used for constructive or destructive purposes. One more implication of this metaphor is that the evil urge isn’t actually evil but rather has the potential for evil. Ironically, the source fo the potential for evil is the source of creativity.
For Kabbalists, evil is creativity gone sour. The original energy was there to do good and to create something positive, but that initial energy for positive creativity can also be the fuel for something evil. This potential is the reason many of the most infamous villains of history were quite creative people.
Skip …. you have often times delivered a message relative to the “animal choice”. You have taught that submission to His will is essentially the character of a real human being yet the principalities of this world (from the get go) have sought to delude us.
How ironic is it that in our culture the “intelligencia” consistently shovels the religion of evolution down the throats of the people. Obviously this leads to the ultimate conclusion that we are a “random occurrence” …. a statistical probability …. that there is no Intelligent Designer …. that there is no G_D!
Or minimally that Scirpture is not to be taken literally!
As you point out however the logical (intellectual) development of this lie serves only to promote the prospect that by chance and natural processes we humans are the creatures that define good and evil. We creatures are the ones that determine the RELATIVE benefits/detriments of behavior.
As you point out it is a dichotomy …. on one hand acceptance of the lie is a denial of YHVH and consequently denial of The Omnipotent G_D, while at the same time it is the worst form of idolatry wherein people elevate themselves to the position of G_D …. as in the individual knows what is best for them.
Now for the question….. certainly there are segments of Judaism and Christianity wherein evolution is not only tolerated but even embraced. Do we have varying opinions at Today’s Word?
Shalom
I strongly believe that evolution is not true on a Macro scale. Micro yes. Yeshua designed in to us the ability to adapt to our environments. That is micro evolution and what Darwin showed. But macro has never been demonstrated. i.e. Life arising from random events.
A great new book about this that I am now reading is by Stephen Meyer called “Signature in the Cell, DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design.” It is not a complex science book but probably not for those with no science interest either. Basically God left his signature in the cell and shows that there is absolutely no possible way DNA could have arisen other than by design by a Supernatural Being. DNA and the systems that make it work are so incredibly complex and amazing showing the incomprehensible understanding and wisdom of our Elohim.
Hi Skip,
You say that Genesis doesn’t teach us we are sinful at birth. Do you not believe in Orginal sin?
Love your teachings. I print them out for my husband to read and learn.
Thanks,
ruth olson
Dear readers!!!
It is my opinion that every time a person wants to integrate the Jewish worldview to the New Testament interpretation we must be open and willing to get inside some spheres that will act as an “earthquake” in our paradigm. Many of us are not aware of the great “jolts” that we will experience. Thanks.
IGS
William Murchison’s new book says the denomination, like other churches of the American mainline, seems to be in a mad dash to catch up with a secular culture that values self-expression and does not want to promote the holy and just God of the Bible. …”And that’s what makes the church look like the Peace Corps in ecclesiastical drag.”
Now that ought to shift our paradigm, as well it should.
“Outsiders” often see us more clearly than we see ourselves. We need to listen.
Greetings!!
I took the summer to write some papers before the new semester start. Doing this research I read few books, two of them I would like to share its titles, just in case. The first one is from Dr.Jacob Needleman, “Lost Christianity.” The other one is by Dr. Andrew Newberg, “How God Changes Your Brain.” Both ones are excellents. Of course, this is my opinion. Both authors goes beyond say what everybody knows. Their arguments pretends to answer why, particularly Needleman’s book. Newberg’s book it is very helpful to shows us how to reach an expression of spirituality, almost unknown to today’s Church.
IGS
Regarding evolution or God / Ismael’s Sages
I was sending my daughter to a school called the King’s Academy (a Chriistian school).
She was starting the 6th grade, two years ago, and was asked to have her family explain their position on evolution vrs creation in preparation, I guess, for their science and religion classes.
It was due the next morning and frankly I really wasn’t sure what I believed, but the following idea popped into my head and I wrote it down:
“The creation story is the spiritual explanation and evolution is the scientific explanation. Both explanations are very important to understand, but they seem to be contradictory. That must be part of the mystery.”
Speaking of sages, one of my favorite old sages named Lao once said, “if you are talking about the Tao, one thing you can be sure of is that you are not talking about the Tao 🙂
Insightful comments above! What do y’all think about this?
Sin continues to be a choice so we are not bound to continue in it. Taken to the furthest logical conclusion, we could never sin again, thereby “returning” to the fully human state in the garden. So we, like Enoch, could walk with G-d on this earth in complete freedom and perfect domestication.
“Sin continues to be a choice so we are not bound to continue in it”
I would agree with the following modification: change “so” to “but.”
Sin continues to be a choice BUT we are not bound to continue in it.
That is to say we are always free to sin if we so desire.
On the other hand, we could sit and say the Lord’s Prayer all day if we wanted to play it safe 🙂
Thanks for the correction.
Skip
Shalom Rader,
As Paul reveals through Ruach HaKodesh …. what is corruptible will not inherit the incorruptible. The fabric of sin from the time of the fall is embedded into our being … as such we can never by any means return to that pre-fall human state …. until such time that we are made complete into the image and likeness of the second Adam …. YESHUA!
And of course that will not even count as returning to our original state but rather transforming to the image and likeness of the new creation. If we could transform into an incorruptible state (no fabric of sin) through Ruach HaKodesh in our current Earthly vessels then we would not have to wait for the “blink of the eye”!
Or so this is one opinion! 🙂
Let us remember the words of YHWH- “the just shall live by faith.” And where does this “faith” come from? Let the scriptures speak again.. “faith comes by hearing and hearing by the words of G-d.” “What saith the scripture” is where we need to take our stand and to find our roots. Do you think it a serendipitous coincidence Yeshua said to HaSatan three times.. “it is written?” ‘You do err not knowing the Scriptures or the power of G-d” is a constant challenge to me. I need to know what is written in G-d’s book. This is the Source. This is the Secret. This is the Strength. It is not from “my good side, not from my bad side.. not from the Mexican food I had to eat last night. I need to align my life (and thinking) with G-d’s words and the demonstrated life of Yeshua. This is righteousness. This is peace. This is life. This is Love. All this “leaning this way and leaning that way”, we had better learn to lean hard on the living HaShem and rely on His words that are reliable, faithful and true. The grass withers and the flower fades but the word of G-d endures forever. Our Rabboni was viciously and vicariously nailed to a tree and rose from the dead three days later. He was who He said He was and He is who He says He is. We should heed the advise of His mother and listen to Him and the words of Proverbs 3.5,6 “and lean not to your own understanding, but in all your ways acknowledge Him and He will direct our paths.
Carl…Yes, and Amen. I say, too, “knowing what is written in G-d’s book.” My 15 year old daughter brings home alot of questions from all facets of life and wants to know what I think. I always answer, “let’s see what G-d says on the matter” and I open the Scripture.
Carl: Oswald Chambers spoke to this in yesterdays devotion in Utmost. I think it also suggest prioritization of our focus: Here is part of what he said “There is a connection between the strange providential circumstances allowed by God and what we know of Him, and we have to learn to interpret the mysteries of life in the light of our knowledge of God. Until we can come face to face with the deepest, darkest fact of life without damaging our view of God’s character, we do not yet know Him.”
http://www.rbc.org/devotionals/my-utmost-for-his-highest/07/29/devotion.aspx
Shalom
Does somebody ask yourself who design the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? If that tree were designed by HaShem why He/She put that particular characteristics in it? What was His/Her objective? What we must be willing to learn even if what we learn is against our paradigm? Read about this wonderful theme that Dr. Moen wrote today without labeling and then we will be ready to learn. Remember Rabbi Yeshua, how many people discard his teachings because didn’t fit in their minds.
The yetser ha’ra and the yetser tov. Two conflicting desires or propensities (leanings) as brother Skip would say. Is there a “desire” within us to worship? Do we have a built-in, deep down desire to know our Creator? Is there within the hidden recesses of the heart a passion to hear from and to know the invisible, unseen Elohim? Is there a longing within to purposefully live clean before Him and to grasp and to obey what He reveals within His Torah, that we may live in peace with Him and with each other? Since we have met the Savior (by faith) and been “born again”, is there a new desire to live a life pleasing to Him in all we say, think, act and do? Has G-d Himself placed a new “yetser” within us? Is there a new love for the brethren within? Do we enjoy our prayer life or is it a religious “duty?” Even though we do not live in the “garden” environment of Eden, do we still enjoy fellowship with our G-d who is holy? Do we run from Him or to Him? What is this new desire of my heart?
Has G-d Himself placed a new “yetser” within us?
Hi Carl,
That’s a good question. I think some people seem to transform their “yetser” into a love of God and a love of other people. And a few people seem to have a mystical desire from a very young age. But I think most of us develop a desire for God out of a “wilderness experience,” after the old “yetser” gets us up to our neck in “hot water.”
It looks like we need a longer discussion about the Jewish idea of the yetzer ha’ra. It’s so easy to think of the inclination toward evil as EVIL itself, but this is not what is meant. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is not evil. There was nothing wrong with the Tree. It was merely a representation of the power of human choice to refuse to be obedient to God’s view of true and false. Jewish sages make this point. We can think of the yetzer ha’ra as the POTENTIAL to judge what is morally correct on my own, apart from God’s word. It is the POTENTIAL to act independently of divine instruction. Of course, that is what it means to have moral agency, something not found in animals. But that POTENTIAL exists only for human beings, regardless of whether or not it is exercised. To submit that potential to obedience is to act under divine instruction. To exercise that potential without obedience is to sin, as James so eloquently puts it (whatever is not of faith – where faith is a verb for trusting the Lord).
The secret to becoming human is to domesticate the power of choice so that it is under submission to God. To act otherwise (to choose because I can do so, without regard to God’s instructions) is to move in the direction of animal behavior – to allow my own power to dominate my actions.
Since Adam and Havvah, the yetzer ha’ra has been a factor in every moral choice. What they introduced into the moral equation is “me,” “my desires” and “my will.” They demonstrated that human beings can choose other than God’s direction – and we live with the consequences of that choice. But this is not the same as saying that we are BORN sinful. I do not believe that we have NO CHOICE other than to sin. If that were the case, culpability would be removed from me. I do not punish a dog for acting life a dog. How could God punish a sinner if there were no way for me not to sin? Moral culpability and moral responsibility depend of legitimate choices. I believe that the Scriptures teach us that every human being does in fact exercise his or her choice to disobey and that the cumulative weight of human sin continues to increasing affect each of us. In fact, that weight soon became so great that every human being has and does choose to act against God’s voice. But the choice is still real. If that were not the case, we would be forced, like Catholic theology, to write doctrine to expunge Yeshua of a sinful nature. Furthermore, the temptations would be a farce.
So, if all of this is true, why did God put the Tree in the Garden in the first place? Was it only about the choice that makes us human? David Forhman suggests that the yetzer ha’ra is also the creative energy that drives human achievement. It is about passion. His discussion of Genesis 4 is very illuminating. That force within each of us that can either be domesticated for God’s purposes or used to power our own desires is really what enables us to be the creative agents that we are. It is our share in God’s creative capacity. Used for Him, we enter into mutual partnership in world redemption. Used against Him, we attempt to create the world in our image. The power of the Tree is neutral. What I do with that power is not.
Skip, I’ll add another profound verse from James that someone brought up this week. “…to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin. ” Js 4:17
Greetings!!!
These two aspects of the human soul are in constant battle with each other. However, the evil urge, the yetzer harah, isn’t really evil in and of itself. The great sages tell the story (as appear in the Talmud) that when some people decided to capture the yetzer harah and lock it up in prison, the result was that houses weren’t built and babies weren’t born. This metaphorical story implies that the yetzer harah isn’t actually evil but rather is an impulse that may be used for constructive or destructive purposes. One more implication of this metaphor is that the evil urge isn’t actually evil but rather has the potential for evil. Ironically, the source fo the potential for evil is the source of creativity.
For Kabbalists, evil is creativity gone sour. The original energy was there to do good and to create something positive, but that initial energy for positive creativity can also be the fuel for something evil. This potential is the reason many of the most infamous villains of history were quite creative people.
Re creationism vs. evolution — go to the website http://www.creationism.org. Paul Abramson of Master’s Divinity School started this site and it is fantastic. It is done in many languages, lots of valuable links, offers articles from the evolutionists for your to see the ‘holes’, has links to the creationism museums, discussion on dinosaurs, etc. There is plenty of information to help you decide, once and for all, how you feel about this subject.
My 10-yr-old grandson, Tony, spends a lot of time on that site. Last week Tony went to Science Camp at the Orlando Science Center. The teacher mentioned a man, French I think, who had lived to be 123. Tony piped up with Mathusala’s age – 969. This set off a firestorm from the teacher, saying they could all be sued because he was preaching religion — separation of church and state — etc., etc., etc. After a lot of additional ranting about evolution, Carbon 14, etc., she told Tony that he had no right to talk about these things because he did not have a degree in Scientific matters. He said, “Neither did Darwin when he wrote his college papers.” When she got back to Carbon 14, Tony said he knew he’d won this one. “Myth Busters”, a TV show, had shown the day before, a one-day-old spoon that tested by Carbon 14 to be billions of years old. The management at the Science center has handled the matter with the uninformed teacher. However, if you really dig into these matters, you will probably be surprised at how much evidence there is for Creationism, and none for evolution.
Ahmein Donna … nice inputs …. 🙂
“how much evidence there is for Creationism”
With all due respect for Donna and Drew, I’m afraid their “input” is not going to pass “Quality Control” without a little “push back” 🙂
On the one hand, I don’t think we have a very good way to explain how intelligent apes in the stone age evolved into the master architect/engineers who built the pyramids in Egypt.
But, on the other hand, I don’t think we have any evidence to explain how God created man; and my understanding is that Adam and Eve didn’t write it all down for the benefit of posterity???
I think this a healthy debate, and I like to argue as much as anybody, but I think if God wanted us to have one view of creation, He wouldn’t have given us two views.
1.26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
2.7 Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
Hello Brother … I think I’ll get the popcorn out on this one for a while and see what boils up to the top! 🙂
Hello!!!
I don’t know if you are interested to go a step further in this theme but if you are, the book is “Sefer Yetzirah.” Here is the link to the book as analyzed by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan. Take time to read it and you will see a differrent universe.
http://www.amazon.com/Sefer-Yetzirah-Creation-Aryeh-Kaplan/dp/0877288550/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248907000&sr=1-1
Hi Ismael,
Sefer Yetzirah looks very interesting, but I don’t know much about the subject matter; I’ll check it out.
I read Gerald Schroeder’s book “The Science of God” some years ago together with The Tao of Physics, by Fritjof Capra, and learned a lot from them.
Both are excellent books IMO 🙂
Polarized minds. Black or White. Dark or Light. If HaShem is God He/She is God of everything. He/She is God of all and at the same time is God of Nothing. Everytime that we labels things we stop our process of learning. Take time to read Dr. Gerald Schroeder’s book “The Science of God.”
http://www.amazon.com/Science-God-Convergence-Scientific-Biblical/dp/1439129584/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248888111&sr=1-1
or the book “Genesis and the Big Bang: The Discovery Of Harmony Between Modern Science And The Bible”
http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Big-Bang-Discovery-Harmony/dp/0553354132/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248888111&sr=1-3
Both concepts are not mutually exclusive.
Thank you!!!
Re creationism: go to http://www.creationism.org/articles/genesis.htm
That’s the short article. There’s a 40-page one that’s better. And links to some even better than that.
Maybe I can talk Paul Abramson into blogging here with you. He’s much better armed than I am. It’s been several years since I took that class, and all the file drawers in my brain are getting rusty. I feel like I need a defrag on my hard drive — not the one on the computer, the one on my shoulders.
Hi Donna,
In “ORIGINS – THE GENESIS” (Section 3 of 30) in the 5th line of the section, Mr Abramson states:
“I cannot prove that Creation & the Flood as recorded in the Bible are true.”
That was my point. If Mr Abramson had any real evidence, he could prove Creationism is true.
But he doesn’t, so he can’t. I suspect he is trying to sell you something. So please be careful 🙂
Just one quick question: since we can’t scientifically prove this aspect or much of what is in the Bible … what are you saying …. that everything is subject to conjecture until scientifically verified? Like Yeshua’s Ressurrection for instance? Crossing of the Red Sea? ETC?
The broad implication of your point … no hard evidence … leaves one asking “where is faith?”
Hi Drew,
Yes, I think everything is subject to conjecture until scientifically verified.
And I think that is what makes faith possible, doubt.
I don’t doubt that water freezes at 32 degree F, that is a scientific fact.
Shalom Michael,
Doubt does make faith possible but faith removes doubt!
So I view Yeshua’s Ressurrection as a fact and not conjecture despite science’s inability to explain it!
But we are moving into different waters here brother … the issue at hand is the literal versus symbolic rendering of the Biblical Creation account.
And if we differ on this matter and serve the same Master in truth and spirit … well this simply means that ultimately we are two slaves to the same master … 🙂
Dear Michael,
I don’t want to burst your scientific bubble TOO soon (just as soon as I can :)), but this naive view of scientific verification, held by most of the culture, has a load of logical and historical problems. If you want to see where the current argument over verification is headed, start with Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, and then proceed to Karl Popper, W.V.O. Quine and a host of others. Science isn’t what Baconians actually believe. Kuhn points out that progress in science is much more like “conversion” than it is like verification of the facts.
You will enjoy his work and hopefully gain a new appreciation for the mythology of the scientific method.
Skip
Hi – so you’re discussing our Origins now. 🙂
Instead of “evolution vs. creationism” let’s term the debate as “Every action has an equal and opposite reaction vs. Something from nothing for no reason”.
The “Every action…” is scientific, yes? Whereas, “…From nothing…” is inherently unscientific, correct?
— Can we all agree on this so far?
The reason I consider this important is because I don’t have enough faith to believe in “Something from nothing for no reason”. In other words, I am not an atheist, as that is what they believe.
They think that the universe exploded itself into existence – poof – like magic. But I, being scientific, see cause and effect, laws of science, inherent … design. Since: “Every action has an equal and opposite reaction” this necessitates an initial “action” or a “First Cause” to make that subsequent “Effect”, i.e. there is a Creator(s). Right?
So – can we all agree that atheism is inherently unscientific? The “Big Bang” theory (without God) is a religious belief, not a scientific expectation, correct?
Once we are all UP to THEISM – then folks can discuss just what our God(s) is like. Is He/She/It/They … strong or weak; honest or dishonest; loving or uncaring? …
Hi Paul,
Let me introduce my position: I said there was no evidence for creationism (God creating Adam).
I said this to a community of people who presumably believe that Genesis is a sacred text.
The word of God is all that we need; it is sufficient for us.
But what evidence do we have for creationism that I can give to my old friend from grad school?
David L. Woods, Professor of Neurology, Dept. of Neurology,UC Davis,
Chief, Clinical Neurophysiology and Chief, Research MRI
I’m well aware of Thomas Kuhn and I don’t want to defend a naive view of scientific verification.
And I did not say there are no valid arguments for creationism, just no concrete evidence.
If you have any evidence, please show it to me.
Thanks,
Mike
Michael and Drew,
I am not excluding faith from the subject matter; but Mr. Abramson has collected a great deal of scientific and archaelogical evidence of a worldwide flood (plate tectonics, salt-water fossils in inland mountain regions, etc.). No he can’t prove that’s the same flood as Noah’s flood, but there is definite scientific proof of a flood of that proportion. It is far more likely that Noah’s flood did occur as the biblical account says, than having a “little bang” result from his little empty box on the shelf. He also has a lot of information on the Grand Canyon, (which was not formed by the tiny river that has produced no delta, etc.) He shows a huge number of these evidences, most of which are clearly documented by archaeology or other scientific findings. Please hear him out. He has large numbers of respected scientists, and their museums, centered there and linked to his website if you need verification.
We all know that the Carbon 14 dating that adds billions of years to the age of the earth and its contents, is a hoax. This has been proven over and over.
As far as evolution goes, even computer models cannot produce any ‘upward motion’ in the creation chain. Mutations normally move sideways (e.g., adapting to differing climate, but keeping the same classification of animal) or downward (most mutations are not beneficial; in chromosomal mutations the number of chromosomes may be altered, or segments of chromosomes may be lost or rearranged.) These normally result in ‘less than perfect’ species; e.g., down syndrome and other genetic difficulties. These mutations would be less likely to survive in a “survival of the fittest” situation.
Anyway, it wouldn’t hurt to peruse the site and give him, and the scientists that agree, a fair hearing. We have been hearing the evolutionists’ point of view for so long it begins to sound right to us. Is this just a good example of hegemony? Social correctness? Fear of man? Who knows?
Hi Donna,
Let’s wait and see what Paul has to say.
I want to see what cards he puts on the table.
His last two responses are not for real IMO.
So … to follow up 🙂
Is our Maker strong or weak? Honest or dishonest? Loving or uncaring?
The god of (theistic) evolution is weak, dishonest, and uncaring. (That clown is believed to have watched for millions of years of pain-suffering-death, pain-suffering-death, ….) What evil.
The GOD of the BIBLE though is: Strong, Honest, and Loving!
I follow the God of the Bible myself, how about you?
There are some 40 human authors for the Bible’s 66 books. A couple of portions were written by God’s own hand. Now, even if a person doubted some of it, doesn’t it seem like what God wrote Himself – would be pretty true? So note this from the middle of the Ten Commandments:
Exodus 20:11 “For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, …”
Oh, “the sea, and all that in them is” too. So no “Pre-Adamic Flood” or other nonsense, right?
Evolution: DEATH CAUSED MAN
Genesis: MAN CAUSED DEATH
Ya can’t have it both ways! And remember why Jesus came to die on the Cross, to pay the price for sin!! (…And sin had caused the first death, see Genesis 3.) Ahem, there was no death before sin, right? (Plants don’t count; they don’t have the “breath of life”; recall that Cain’s sacrifice was insufficient, etc.)
Anyway – folks I have lots and lots of stuff on-line on my site: http://www.creationism.org
Read the FAQ, please: http://www.creationism.org/topbar/faq.htm
Regarding science – there is no real science that stands against literal 6-day, 6K, creation theory, only “science, falsely so-called” and the wishful thinking of skeptics. It is tragic that so many in the modern church know so little about this pivotal subject.
There is some information in regard to creation science on this site http://www.drdino.com/. If you can see through some of the evangelical sections, the information – evidence, etc seems reasonable – although they are theories. He does sit on the side of an actual 6 day creation. Many of the so called findings he speaks of are eye opening (i.e. dragons and flood evidence) http://www.drdino.com/media-categories.php?c=seminars&v=14 .
I think the rabbinic view of creation “days” being a focus on God’s rule over the pagan gods (historical context) makes more sense as Skip points out in his Genesis series.
T. S. Kuhn aside, IMO we do considerable damage to the whole debate by not recognizing the sitz im leben of the culture of the text. The Genesis account is not intended to compete with Bacon or any of the empirical sciences that arise from a closed universe restructuring of the epistemological model. Genesis competes with other cosmogonies. It is about ultimate explanations, not about astrological events. Now, it IMPLIES certain positions about the creation, order and purpose of the universe, but it is NOT a “scientific” account as we know the term. Sarna makes this abundantly clear. So does Hamilton. In order to see the logic, purpose and content of Genesis, you need to look at the myths of Babylon, etc. – not at the conclusions of Copernicus, Newton or the Positivists.
The Genesis account may or may not lead us to gather “evidence” (as Kuhn points out, evidence is a function of the theory, not the other way around), but until Christians became enamored with “normal science” (see Kuhn), Genesis functioned as a platform for metaphysics, not physics. It is CONFESSIONAL literature, not evidential theory. The confusion of these two language games has led to endless debate because the text itself is forced to fit the theory.
Why not begin by asking yourself the first (and fundamental) question in exegesis? What would this text mean to the audience that first heard it? Do you suppose that Moses was writing a theory of special relativity for an open universe? Or was he telling the people of Israel something important about the CHARACTER of the God who just delivered them from captivity?
“Why not begin by asking yourself the first (and fundamental) question in exegesis? What would this text mean to the audience that first heard it?
I agree completely.
Although we need to understand some historical context, it is the text itself that generates the meaning; the language, characters, and narrative that creates the emotional, intellectual, esthetic/spiritual experience.
Dear Michael, et al,
“…But what evidence do we have for creationism that I can give to my old friend from grad school? …”
Well, again, this is not an “-ism” vs. “science”. Ahem, the science shows that we must have been created. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
The “Big Bang” is an inherently unscientific belief. They try to make it sound more complex, adding quarks, 3-card monte, and an abracadabra or two – but it still boils down to a belief in “something from nothing for no reason”.
I am a creationist, i.e. I am a scientifically thinking person.
If your friend is open to SCIENCE 🙂 (and not hiding from God, no matter what) let him/her take a look at some of my/our free articles, books & videos.
Real science supports creation theory just fine.
====
As Dr. Moen holds certain theological positions on Biblical issues (as do many of the participants here) I answered mostly theologically last time.
Start – with the “Big Bang”.
…Here – I add a little detail. Just think logically.
We take an empty box, close it up, and put it in an attic for 50 years. We wait. Then … 50 years later we go up, bring it back down and prepare to open it. Scientifically, what will be inside? (And for purposes of this experiment let’s say there were no insects, spiders, or rodents in that attic. Okay?) So … we open it. In a scientific universe we should find only air molecules and traces of humidity, right?
That is science.
But if one resorts to magic then he or she may make a leap of faith and believe: “poof!” – maybe a “Little Bang” happened inside during the 50 years. -That is an unscientific expectation.
The FIRST thing I usually get rid of in a creation talk is atheism.
“The Bible and Science Agree”
http://www.creationism.org/articles/BibleSci.htm
[From Article] “…While the Greek scientist Claudius Ptolemy (c. 150 A.D.) was smart he also mistakenly taught that the rest of the universe revolves around the Earth. … The scientists taught that the universe revolves around the Earth; and they convinced other educated men too, like their contemporary European church-state leaders. (The Bible does not teach that at all.) It was actually the consensus of scientists who were wrong and the scientists later convinced others to also stand against Copernicus and Galileo, around 1600 A.D. …”
We need to give the scientists some leeway. They’re only human, after all.
As the late Rev. Walter Lang used to say, “Whenever the scientists and the Bible disagree, just give the scientists more time.”
[Also from Article] “…Galileo is not an example of religion vs. science, but rather the ‘Galileo episode’ is an example of the consensus of scientists being wrong, and they had convinced others as well – who then believed wrongly. …”
The church has been taking a “bad rap” for “Galileo” for far too long. It was the scientists who were actually wrong all along; and they had subsequently convinced others.
=====
“Is there any evidence for creationism” (sic) – come on! Did you eat lunch today? Compare your digestive system to the most advanced sprawling pipe-filled petro-chemical plant in the world. Honestly!
One of the two is made of 100% bio-degradable parts; self-assembled itself; and is partially self-repairing. A miracle?, YES! That is how much more advanced God’s science and technology is compared to ours. Just throw in the pizza slice, jelly beans, iced tea, and a pickle. …So much more complex! And portable to boot!
But I understand how persuasive this spiritual deception is. Just as they used to believe (even smart people!) that the rest of the universe revolved around the Earth (the scientists, for over 1000 years), so many smart people today have fallen for evolutionary beliefs today. Once again the scientists have led many religious persons astray. -Even getting them to compromise their Bibles, instead of taking a look at scientific creation evidences.
SHAWN wrote (7-30, 2:03PM) about http://www.drdino.com. Yes, and in fact I actively help their ministry. We have some of their seminars in up to 25 languages now, thanks to volunteers from many lands.
Hi Paul,
I read your comments one by one and don’t think they are logically connected.
I marked each one as [NOT EVIDENCE] because they seem like OPINION to me, not fact.
It might be helpful if you could write a little essay for us.
Start with a “thesis statement” based on your main point, for example:
“Although I cannot prove that God created Adam, I have three compelling examples of evidence that make me believe it is a historical/supernatural fact.” Then introduce your thesis.
I would suggest that you chose your three best examples of evidence, that God created Adam, and write three separate paragraphs.
Start each paragraph with a topic sentence, then develop your case for example of the evidence.
After the third paragraph, you might want to write a simple conclusion to your argument.
If you would like to discuss why I designated your comments [NOT EVIDENCE], please feel free.
Hope this helps!
Mike
[NOT EVIDENCE] Well, again, this is not an “-ism” vs. “science”. Ahem, the science shows that we must have been created. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
[NOT EVIDENCE] The “Big Bang” is an inherently unscientific belief. They try to make it sound more complex, adding quarks, 3-card monte, and an abracadabra or two – but it still boils down to a belief in “something from nothing for no reason”.
[NOT EVIDENCE] I am a creationist, i.e. I am a scientifically thinking person.
[NOT EVIDENCE] If your friend is open to SCIENCE (and not hiding from God, no matter what) let him/her take a look at some of my/our free articles, books & videos.
[NOT EVIDENCE] Real science supports creation theory just fine.
[NOT EVIDENCE] As Dr. Moen holds certain theological positions on Biblical issues (as do many of the participants here) I answered mostly theologically last time.
[NOT EVIDENCE] Start – with the “Big Bang”. …Here – I add a little detail. Just think logically.
[NOT EVIDENCE] We take an empty box, close it up, and put it in an attic for 50 years. We wait. Then … 50 years later we go up, bring it back down and prepare to open it. Scientifically, what will be inside? (And for purposes of this experiment let’s say there were no insects, spiders, or rodents in that attic. Okay?) So … we open it. In a scientific universe we should find only air molecules and traces of humidity, right?
[NOT EVIDENCE] That is science.
[NOT EVIDENCE] But if one resorts to magic then he or she may make a leap of faith and believe: “poof!” – maybe a “Little Bang” happened inside during the 50 years. -That is an unscientific expectation.
[NOT EVIDENCE] The FIRST thing I usually get rid of in a creation talk is atheism.
[NOT EVIDENCE] [From Article] “…While the Greek scientist Claudius Ptolemy (c. 150 A.D.) was smart he also mistakenly taught that the rest of the universe revolves around the Earth. … The scientists taught that the universe revolves around the Earth; and they convinced other educated men too, like their contemporary European church-state leaders. (The Bible does not teach that at all.) It was actually the consensus of scientists who were wrong and the scientists later convinced others to also stand against Copernicus and Galileo, around 1600 A.D. …”
[NOT EVIDENCE] We need to give the scientists some leeway. They’re only human, after all.
[NOT EVIDENCE] As the late Rev. Walter Lang used to say, “Whenever the scientists and the Bible disagree, just give the scientists more time.”
[NOT EVIDENCE] [Also from Article] “…Galileo is not an example of religion vs. science, but rather the ‘Galileo episode’ is an example of the consensus of scientists being wrong, and they had convinced others as well – who then believed wrongly. …”
[NOT EVIDENCE] The church has been taking a “bad rap” for “Galileo” for far too long. It was the scientists who were actually wrong all along; and they had subsequently convinced others.
[NOT EVIDENCE] “Is there any evidence for creationism” (sic) – come on! Did you eat lunch today? Compare your digestive system to the most advanced sprawling pipe-filled petro-chemical plant in the world. Honestly!
[NOT EVIDENCE] One of the two is made of 100% bio-degradable parts; self-assembled itself; and is partially self-repairing. A miracle?, YES! That is how much more advanced God’s science and technology is compared to ours. Just throw in the pizza slice, jelly beans, iced tea, and a pickle. …So much more complex! And portable to boot!
[NOT EVIDENCE] But I understand how persuasive this spiritual deception is. Just as they used to believe (even smart people!) that the rest of the universe revolved around the Earth (the scientists, for over 1000 years), so many smart people today have fallen for evolutionary beliefs today. Once again the scientists have led many religious persons astray. -Even getting them to compromise their Bibles, instead of taking a look at scientific creation evidences.
I know I am coming into this discussion late in the game (I got behind in my emails), but it seems to me that this whole discussion went down a rabbit hole
Skip’s point was that we have a choice to be good or evil, that there is no “original sin” that is passed down from Adam. That would seem to make sense, otherwise, how could Enoch have walked with God and been righteous enough to avoid death?
At the same time, it brings to mind the argument that Catholic Church makes about Mary, that she never sinned, therefore, she was assumed into Heaven. If Skip is correct, then the argument that the Catholic Church makes about Mary, has some validity.
How then do we explain the scripture from Hebrews 9:27: “And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment?” NKJV
I would like to see more discussion about Skip’s original point, than Evolution vs. Creation.
Let’s clarify the argument about Mary. SInce the Catholic Church (following Aquinas) actually holds that sin is GENETICALLY passed from Adam to all humans, the only way they could avoid the logical conclusion that Jesus must have an original sin (via Mary’s side of the equation) is to postulate the Immaculate Conception. That is NOT the virgin birth. It is the doctrine that Mary was born without sin thus making it possible for Jesus to not inherit a sinful nature. Of course, this created even more difficulties. So, with this retroactive doctrine in mind, the Church could then argue that Mary never sinned (and, by the way, never had sex with Joseph either) and therefore passed into heaven without dying. The argument starts because of the prior commitment to original sin. Of course, there is absolutely nothing in Scripture to support any of this.