dwight92070 wrote:I agree that the majority is not always right, nor is the majority always wrong. But the fact that most Christian fathers,(i.e. those who lived during the last years of the apostles,and shortly after) believed in a literal interpetation of Genesis, carries a lot of weight. Then to add to that the fact that most Christian leaders throughout most of church history also believed in a literal Genesis, also carries much weight. Nevertheless we still have to look at each doctrine or subject on it's own merit and how well it aligns with scripture. Infant baptism doesn't align at all with scripture. Nor does evolution, obviously, in my opinion. Interpreting Genesis literally, on the other hand, does not contradict scripture at all. Interpreting it symbolically, again in my opinion, does. Paul clearly tells us that death entered into the world through the sin of Adam and Eve. Evolution tells us that death occurred long before man even evolved. That is a contradiction.
First of all, the Church fathers lived in a time before modern science existed, so obviously they could not have believed in evolution. The number of Church fathers who believed in a literal understanding carries no more weight than those who baptized infants. You have not addressed my Luther quotes. Luther took Genesis much more literally than modern young earth creationists, and look at how wrong he was. I explained earlier how I interpret these early stories. It is only a contradiction if you demand a literal reading. The story was true as Paul understood it, but has a much broader theological application that is equally true and powerful whether taken literally or not.
dwight92070 wrote:If that were true, there would be much less controversy in the church than there is. Obviously, what constitutes evidence for you does not work for thousands of Christians, past and present.
All I ask you to do is recognize that the same is true in reverse. What constitutes evidence for young earth creationists and/or Genesis literalists ALSO does not work for many Christians, past and present. Which is why I suggest liberty and charity on the issue.
dwight92070 wrote:It's because I see so many examples of arrogant and haughty people who scorn anyone who accepts the Bible, most of which claim that they rely on modern science. Take, for example, Bill Nye. Does he strike you as a humble man, who respects Christians? Unfortunately, many Christians who take Genesis symbolically have picked up on that same attitude for their fellow Christians who take Genesis literally. No, I'm not accusing you of that. But too often, it's almost as if the attitude comes with the belief.
I'm not sure why a non-Christian like Bill Nye has been brought into the discussion. If you have been disrespected by theistic evolutionists and OEC's, I am sorry that that happened to you. I think that on this, like on other areas of unending debate, we need to just agree that we won't find common ground until the Lord returns.
dwight92070 wrote:beyond argument? I'm sorry but that is not a good attitude on your part. So I guess I should just shut up and agree with you, even though I don't?
that 1) Christians have held to non-literal views of Genesis since the earliest days of the Church,
Dwight: but not the majority of them. (and the majority matters, especially the closer they were to the apostles)
and 2) The popular view is not always the best.
Dwight: unless it agrees with scripture and the less popular view does not.
Dwight, the "demonstrated beyond argument" part was in reference to the two points that followed. The point was a call for charity. If you're going to pick a half a sentence of mine out of context and use it to say I have a bad attitude, when the point of the entire sentence and the one that followed was to suggest that we should have charity in non essentials, that's missing the point entirely. Did you read the entire post before you started replying? I don't think you should "shut up and agree" because I said in the next sentence, which was a continuation of the thought, that we should accept a diversity of opinions on creation with charity! Go ahead and disagree with my application of those two points all you want, but they have been demonstrated to be true, which is in fact what you seem to have done, so I am not sure what the problem is.
dwight92070 wrote:I do not hate you or anyone who agrees with you. I acknowledge there are different opinions and even though I disagree with someone, I will not hate them.
There's a big difference between not hating someone and Christian charity.