So many Christians are taught the fallacy (both in church, and in private schools) of linear evolution. That is to say:

Invertebtrates > Fish > Amphibians > Reptiles > Birds > Mammals > People

.

this may not be what you believe, but it is what is taught non-the-less. We have only to open most school text books, or watch a program explaining evolution. Even the entertainment media promotes the linear model. A classic example would be the original Fantasia from Disney, which showed, (in cartoon form), the progression from a single cell to dinosaurs.

Actually that's not what's taught (at least not what DiGoRyKiRkE posted) It's more like a giant family tree, and it does not show mammals coming from birds (or people coming from chimps)

Angelswings,
Peter 2 uses similes to convey it's message and Genesis 1 and 2 are vague but they're written as Hebrewaic historical accounts. It's not logical to use Peter 2 to back up an old-earth creation. That's not how things work.

I would have to disagree, I think Peter was being very literal, in that he meant very literally that God exists outside of time, and therefore time has no meaning to Him. And, also recall that while all scripture is inspired of God, no man was there to record these events during the creation. Therefore, we can assume that it was a man interpreting what God had inspired him to write, and thus having to relate to beings who live in linear time. There is no where in 2 Peter that says this passage was a parable, whereas others are clearly marked as such. Of course, keep in mind that whether you believe in young earth or old earth, neither belief has anything to do with the central message of the Bible, nor will it determine the eternal fate of one's soul, so, I suppose we are all entitled to our opinions on the matter.

What happens if your tree gets chopped down?

Then our spirit goes out into the world and we are eventually born again as another human. (Kind of like reincarnation.)

Then our spirit goes out into the world and we are eventually born again as another human. (Kind of like reincarnation.)

Do you have any Biblical basis for this, or is it your own personal philosophy?

~Riella

MoonlightDancer, I don't know where you got such a belief but there's absolutely no biblical credence to it. People shouldn't mix Christian beliefs with other beliefs, they're just not compatible.

The Bible mentions trees quite a bit. It says we are from the dust and will return to the dust, and it also says trees come from the ground. So there is just a natural progression. The Bible also says the trees will awake and clap their hands, well trees don't have hands so I'm guessing that we will eventually be restored to humans again after we are trees. Anyway, I'm still working out exactly what I believe but I think it just makes sense.

So, following along with your belief, dust does grow into other things: poison ivy, tomatoes, lettuce... so people eat reincarnated people when they eat vegetables? (Because dust aids the growth of a variety of things.)
Perhaps "trees will awake and clap their hands" is poetry. EDIT: It's from Isaiah, which does contribute to the idea that it's poetry.
"the mountains and hills
will burst into song before you,
and all the trees of the field
will clap their hands." (Isaiah 55:12)
Mountains and hills are included in this reference, as well.

Trying to relate that belief to the Bible is a bit like pulling bits out of beliefs: it's like trying to add a part of Hinduism.
The Bible does "from dust we return to dust", and it's undoubtedly true: our bodies do disintergrate when buried and turn into organic matter, but who we are, (to quote C.S. Lewis, "You do not have a soul; you are a soul."), our soul/spirit goes to God's judgement throne, as far as the Bible says.

^^ Agreed.

Belief in reincarnation, or the belief in turning into trees, does not go hand in hand with Christianity. If we all became trees, or were born as other people, there would be no need to become a Christian. There would be no need for Christ to die for us. There would be no Heaven and Hell. It wouldn't really matter what we did, because no matter what we did, we would all share the same fate. We would all become trees.

I also don't believe God would send his children into a piece of wood. It's a very disturbing idea for one thing (I'd hate to think that the wood my desk is made of used to hold my grandmother's soul), and a pointless one as well -- after all, what would be His purpose for it? God isn't trying to bind us closer to nature or closer to the earth. He is trying to bring us closer to Himself.

~Riella

Angelswings,
Prince Shasta,
Either God is outside time or within time. He's not part of creaton (the Created), he's outside time (the Creator), watching over and taking part in every aspect of creation. But he can't be both the Creator and the Created.

I am not convinced by this, I belive it is limiting of God. I belive God is part of creation, he created it so surley it shows some reflection of his nature.
Is God not part of you ?
When you "feel" God’s presence is it not so much him coming down to meet you, but him rising within you ?
And in terms of time, God created time, so he is not either or in time, but rather time is in God. God is therefore able to be both in and out of time. Take the classic train illustration, time is the train, we are the passengers, the rail track is the path that God has laid out. Now the train can progress along without God intervining as the path has already been laid out, (God is somewhat a spector), however as God laid down the path/railtrack, he know exactly where the train will be at any given time, he therefore able to board the train at any time, and get of at any time. Yet this beign God, he is also able to be out the train and in the train at the same time, i.e the Holy Spirit, Jesus.
It also noteworthy that the rail track will one day come to an end.

So many Christians are taught the fallacy (both in church and in private schools) of linear evolution. That is to say:

Invertebtrates > Fish > Amphibians > Reptiles > Birds > Mammals > People

This may not be what you believe, but it is what is taught non-the-less. We have only to open most school text books, or watch a program explaining evolution. Even the entertainment media promotes the linear model. A classic example would be the original Fantasia from Disney, which showed, (in cartoon form), the progression from a single cell to dinosaurs.

Well I’m not sure what American schools teach, but here in England, I have studied Biology all the way through to A2 (I’m not to sure what this is in terms of American education but I believe it is about the same as majoring in something, however I may well be wrong) and what DK said was exactly what I was taught and what we were told evolutionists belied, so I don’t believe it just "his" beliefs.
Linear evolution is just a common public misconception.
I never knew Disney did biological educational programs?

What happens to us when we die? Well, yes, our bodies probably will get "recycled." Trees? Why not? I wouldn't mind if my atoms got used by some of those lovely trees in the cemetery. Meanwhile, I don't see our souls going into trees; that's more a Druid concept. We're Christian, so we say that our souls go to God. The believer goes to the intermediate Heaven and waits to be reunited with the body. At the end of the age, God will raise the bodies of all humans in an eternal form, reunite bodies with souls, and we go to our eternal destination, preferably Heaven!

Someone once asked the Church fathers an exercise such as, "what if a man was eaten by a cannibal, then the cannibal was eaten by a tiger, etc.; in the afterlife, who gets the atoms? who gets their body back?" Or, in this forum, "I die, a tree root gets into my coffin, the songbirds eat the tree's berries, a hawk eats the songbird; who gets the atoms?" To which the Church fathers said, "don't worry, God will be able to work it out, God having created everything ex nihilo in the first place." And all shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well. (Although that was a female Dr. of the Church; the cannibal-and-tiger question was addressed to one of the men, Augustine I think.)

...

Trivia question from back on page 12 ... someone asked how old was Adam when he got kicked out of Eden, or some such.

Every answer I've heard is stranger than the last.

Probably the best known is a belief that Adam was 33 years old when he ate of the forbidden fruit. Its adherents say that the new Adam, Jesus, died at 33, so that "must" have been when the first Adam fell.

Its spinoff is a claim I once heard that in Heaven everyone will be 33, like Jesus.

(Augustine once said that God is a master artisan and will take care that "nothing unseemly results," so if you're hoping that you can be 50 in Heaven because that was a better time for you, God will take care of it in a way that will satisfy you.)

Alternately you can also find some like Henry Morris, who wrote "The Biblical Basis for Modern Science." He argued that the world population could reach as high as 3.2 million people in as little as 800 years. Therefore he argued that, if, say, Adam and Eve had lived in Eden for a period of 800 years before The Fall, the world's population could have been near or exceeding 3 million people BEFORE Cain was born: that Cain is the first of the babies born AFTER Adam and Eve fell. Fans of Morris base their belief on the curse that God would "increase" Eve's suffering in childbirth, and how could something increase if it had never happened? (This, by the way, is where some groups claim Cain got his wife. Um, even if they existed, they would still be his relatives!)

Who knows how many different ages people ascribe to Adam at the time of the Fall. I doubt it's relevant, and it's even possible that it's none of our business. I'm just curious about what they're teaching. 33 years or 800 years, eh? And then there are the "Adam was created an adult but was only a few days old in his mind" crowd. This is a rival interpretation of the "33" crowd: this group says not that Adam was created age 33 but that he lived in Eden for 33 years before he sinned.

Out of curiousity, what numbers has everyone else heard?

I am not convinced by this, I belive it is limiting of God. I belive God is part of creation, he created it so surley it shows some reflection of his nature.
Is God not part of you ?

I think Warrior was saying (and I could be wrong here) that God is not part of creation in that He was never created. He just was, is and always will be. In other words, to be called a "creation" you must have a "creator". I think the point was, God has no creator, and therefore, cannot technically be called a creation. Make sense?

Thank you, yes, that's what I was saying in my earlier post.

What happens to us when we die? Well, yes, our bodies probably will get "recycled." Trees? Why not? I wouldn't mind if my atoms got used by some of those lovely trees in the cemetery. Meanwhile, I don't see our souls going into trees; that's more a Druid concept. We're Christian, so we say that our souls go to God. The believer goes to the intermediate Heaven and waits to be reunited with the body. At the end of the age, God will raise the bodies of all humans in an eternal form, reunite bodies with souls, and we go to our eternal destination, preferably Heaven!

I can agree with part of this. Our physical bodies are indeed organic material and nothing more, and when we die, it will become decomposed matter, which will most likely act as fertilizer for grasses and plants, etc. Our soul are a completely different story. Now, the belief that we will have our original human bodies after we die is something that can be debated. The Bible says in heaven we will be perfect. So, what about all of the people born with physical faults, malformations, disease, and those that never made it to adulthood? Are they eternally condemned to a life in an imperfect body made of flesh? No, I think not. I think we recieve a perfect spiritual form in heaven which will become our new "body". I believe our physical forms here on earth cannot compare to our spiritual forms in any way, and since they are imperfect, cannot exist in any spiritual realms.

Someone once asked the Church fathers an exercise such as, "what if a man was eaten by a cannibal, then the cannibal was eaten by a tiger, etc.; in the afterlife, who gets the atoms?...

Atoms, while microscopic, are nonetheless physical matter, which will have no place in heaven, so the question is moot. It doesn't matter who eats who, because you can't eat a soul, and therefore, there is no mixup. In addition, I personally believe that animals do not have souls, and will not be in heaven. On the new earth though, who knows?

Probably the best known is a belief that Adam was 33 years old when he ate of the forbidden fruit. Its adherents say that the new Adam, Jesus, died at 33, so that "must" have been when the first Adam fell.

I understand this is not your belief, but just something you heard, right? I personally believe this is an instance of taking the scriptures out of context. Just because Jesus was 33 when He was crucified does not in any way correlate with when Adam and Eve took the fruit, not scripturally anyway.

Its spinoff is a claim I once heard that in Heaven everyone will be 33, like Jesus.

An interesting theory. However, since the spiritual realm exists outside of time, than it would be safe to assume that birthdays and years of age sort of fly out the window.

Alternately you can also find some like Henry Morris, who wrote "The Biblical Basis for Modern Science." He argued that the world population could reach as high as 3.2 million people in as little as 800 years. Therefore he argued that, if, say, Adam and Eve had lived in Eden for a period of 800 years before The Fall, the world's population could have been near or exceeding 3 million people BEFORE Cain was born:

I've heard this. There is some scriptures that seem to correlate with this if people were to twist it the right way, however, there is more to correlate with the idea that Cain was the first, mostly the meticulous recording of ancestry.

Who knows how many different ages people ascribe to Adam at the time of the Fall. I doubt it's relevant, and it's even possible that it's none of our business. I'm just curious about what they're teaching. 33 years or 800 years, eh? And then there are the "Adam was created an adult but was only a few days old in his mind" crowd. This is a rival interpretation of the "33" crowd: this group says not that Adam was created age 33 but that he lived in Eden for 33 years before he sinned.
Out of curiousity, what numbers has everyone else heard?

Well, going back to the old earth vs. new earth theories, it has been suggested that since before the fall of man there was very likely no death or decay on the earth, then it would follow that they did not necessarily age normally. Therefore, we could assume that Adam and Eve were thousands of years old before the fall. The main thing is that the scripture is unclear about the exact time, and where the scripture is unclear (and very rarely is it unclear), than the information is irrelevant.

In addition, I personally believe that animals do not have souls, and will not be in heaven.

Why do you not believe animals have souls?

I believe animals will be in heaven because they have a spirit. Ecclesiastes says animals have spirits. It says that both beasts and men have "the same breath", and in a footnote in my Bible it says that the word "breath" in this particular scripture translates to "spirit". And all things with spirits have an afterlife, or so I've always been told by all the pastors and leading Christian authorities I've ever known.
Plus, why wouldn't they have an afterlife? I see no reason why they wouldn't... unless I'm missing something...

~Riella

Why do you not believe animals have souls?
I believe animals will be in heaven because they have a spirit. Ecclesiastes says animals have spirits. It says that both beasts and men have "the same breath", and in a footnote in my Bible it says that the word "breath" in this particular scripture translates to "spirit". And all things with spirits have an afterlife, or so I've always been told by all the pastors and leading Christian authorities I've ever known.

Spirits and souls are two different things. If you study Ecclesiastes 3, you'll see that this was written by Solomon during his "everything is meaningless" stage. This was a point in Solomons life where he was trying to make sense of everything after having recieved wisdom from God. If you notice, the rest of the verse goes on to explain exactly what he's talking about:
Verse 17-20:" I said to myself,
“God will bring into judgment
both the righteous and the wicked,
for there will be a time for every activity,
a time to judge every deed.”

I also said to myself, “As for humans, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. Surely the fate of human beings is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; humans have no advantage over animals. Everything is meaningless. All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return."
Okay, we can see that Solomon is talking about the fact that men and animals were both created from the dust of the earth, and that we all have a time to die physically. This isn't speaking at all about the afterlife. Animals were created as companions for men, for the pleasure and diversity of life, as well as for food after the fall (it is theorized that since there was no death before sin, then animals very likely did not eat each other before the fall).
I believe that what sets us apart from animals is the fact that God breathed into Adam and also into Eve, giving them souls (which I also believe is what was meant by "Let us make them in our image"). Jesus died on the cross for people to have a way to get to heaven, not animals. Animals are nice, and the Bible does say a lot about how people should treat their animals, but nowhere in the Bible does it indicate that animals go to heaven when they die.
Unfortunately, people have a problem separating the fact that animals are not fuzzy people. They have affection, but they do not know the true meaning of love. They protect their owners, but they would not know how to betray each other. They are instinct driven only, and it is sad to see people who treat them like people. I guarantee you, animals that are treated like animals are much happier than animals that are treated like people.