In Eastern teaching, onion and garlic are considered to be "hot" foods; they are supposed to increase bodily activity, aggression, and agitation, particularly in the area of you-know-what.

If you eat at a Hare Krishna food kitchen or a Buddhist vegetarian restaurant both will be absent from the menu.

In Eastern teaching, onion and garlic are considered to be "hot" foods; they are supposed to increase bodily activity, aggression, and agitation, particularly in the area of you-know-what.

*whispers* Halitosis?

This topic has been sitting around for a while.

Something I've been dealing with lately in discussions and just in my thinking lately goes back to the evolution/creation debate. I have a good friend and mentor that tends to side with the Old Earth perspective and follows Dr. Hugh Ross with Reasons To Believe. Dr. Ross teaches that God used evolution to bring about life on this planet. As many of you know, I personally highly disagree with this notion. But something my mentor asked me and several here have asked (I believe) is this: Is is possible to believe in Old Earth and still be a Christian?

This question has often been asked of Young Earth Creationists such as Ken Ham and one I personally know, Dr. Charles Jackson. I know my mentor is a real Christian and his faith is genuine. So I have to answer yes, you can be a Christian and believe God used evolution to create the world. And you can lead someone to Christ via the Gospel message with this view as well.

But there is still a problem. Jesus said 'make disciples of all nations'. He did not say 'make converts'. It will be virtually impossible for a disciple to not come across Genesis 1-11, which are the chapters that are always brought into question in this debate. So this has to be address at some point. The question I have to bring up here is not, 'can you become a believer with this world view?', but 'Can you lose your faith with this world view?'. Just to clarify, I do believe salvation in Christ is permanent and once you are born again in the Spirit, you are permanently sealed in the Book of Life. But I have seen several people start out in the Christian faith, believing in a Young Earth, then hear a presentation on Old Earth, and in a short time become an athiest. I've been debating two of them this past week.

I also am in the process of reading an excellent book titled "Should Christians Embrace Evolution?" It is compilation of 14 different theologians and scientists that address these issues. They not only explore the possible interpretations of Genesis including the Creation itself, the Flood, writing style of Genesis 1-11, Adam and Eve, Sin and Death and more. They also explore the theological implications of these interpretations. I found this really amazing and tought provoking quote in the book's forward by Wayne Grudem.

"To put it in a math equation, when evolutionists assure us that matter+evolution+0=all living things, and thiestic evolutionists then answer, no, matter+evolution+God=all living things, it will not take long for an unbeliever to conclude that, therefore, God=0."

This book has also revealed there there are over 200 NT references to Genesis 1-11, all of which including Jesus, Paul, Peter, and others, understood the events in these chapters to be literal, historical figures and events. Just one example is Paul in Romans 5. If Adam was not literally the very first human of any kind and a actual historical figure, then according to Paul's analogy, then the work of Christ's death does not accomplish what it set out to do. I don't want to go into extreme details about this in this post, but it really does make you think.

If you believe God used evolution to create the universe, how would you convince a non-believer that God is actually a non-factor? And how would you disciple someone who brings up these questions about Adam, death and sin, without running the risk of them going astray? Is this a 'core part' of the salvation message? Probably not. Does this become vital when is comes to discipling? Much faster than people realize.

Thoughts? (And I'm only about 1/3 of the way through the book so far).

The same discussion is going on among some of the New Atheists, in response to some postings from Biologos, a theistic evolution group devoted to opposing the idea of conflict between science and religion - this is called "accommodationism" among New Atheists (aka 'gnu atheists'), and is generally considered a Bad Thing.

Starting from the opposite viewpoint, they end up with the same conclusion: evolution and Christianity are irreconciliable.

1) Adam and Eve- since we know from genetics that the human race was not descended from just two people, Genesis can't be literal. Any attempt to treat it as simply a metaphor/parable for general human sinfulness, pride, etc. runs up against the problem that it seems strange to have the sacrifice of an actual living man in response to a metaphor- no historical Fall, no historical Resurrection.

2) The billions of years of brute struggle, suffering, dying, and extinction among animals called for by any form of evolution seems inconsistent with a good God. From the traditional standpoint it makes sense- suffering and death among animals were introduced with the Fall- but otherwise it seems like pointless waste.

I know my mentor is a real Christian and his faith is genuine

As was C.S. Lewis, also a believer in evolution.

As was C.S. Lewis, also a believer in evolution.

This facet of Lewis always surprises me. He writes this beautiful chapter on Creation in The Magician's Nephew and then turns around and (very briefly) mentions that he feels evolution is the better option. On the flipside I don't know if he ever changed his mind...there were several years between Mere Christianity where he stated it and his passing. Guess we'll find out when we get there.

And your other two major points are absolutely valid. I have a very difficult time reconciling these two completely disparate ideologies. It requires a lot of mental gymnastics and a constant balancing act while juggling bowling pins on a giant rubber ball to try and run with theistic evolution. If God used evolution (which is certainly in His power) He would have indicated it someplace in the Bible. Christ was there personally and witnessed Creation, taking part in it even. One would think that He would have mentioned something about it as well, yet He (and other Holy Spirit-inspired individuals) always point back to the beginning of Genesis as a literal event. Getting called an idiot by folks on the other side of the spectrum is acceptable to me because I have absolutely no problems lining up my facts according to Scripture. But I have to admit I feel for folks who have to become spiritual/factual contortionists (human pretzels) in order to interweave two totally different ideas. They just don't mesh.

But I have to admit I feel for folks who have to become spiritual/factual contortionists (human pretzels) in order to interweave two totally different ideas. They just don't mesh.

As one who understands both "theories" fairly well, I must state I have given up on figuring out the whole evolution vs creation thing.... There are some things we are never gonna know for sure on earth, so as far as I'm concerned God made the universe, and he made it so species can adapt and survive.... anything further than that I'm not figuring out 'til I reach the other side

(Though I do tend to side more with creationism )

Since we're on the topic of things that are hard to wrap one's brain around... what do you all think of the Trinity?

I believe in it, though it is rather confusing.... I tend to think of it like a sponge or spider plant, they can reproduce by breaking off a piece of themselves so it's kinda like being one creature and two at the same time. Though that's probably NOT how it works... (in fact almost certainly not how it works) It's just something I think of to wrap my head around the possibility...

After all what really is impossible?

As one who understands both "theories" fairly well, I must state I have given up on figuring out the whole evolution vs creation thing.... There are some things we are never gonna know for sure on earth, so as far as I'm concerned God made the universe, and he made it so species can adapt and survive.... anything further than that I'm not figuring out 'til I reach the other side

(Though I do tend to side more with creationism )

This is basically my stance as well. I trust God and His Word enough to know that the world was created good and then fell. The specifics I leave up to Him.

That said, when I read Genesis I read it literally, instead of trying to fit it into evolutionary theory. If this is the easiest way to understand Creation and the Fall, I'm okay with it.

It if was a mere issue of sematics I wouldn't make a big deal about it either. But as Graymouser, and Shadowlander, indicated, this issue takes a very short time to running into problems.

It takes very little effort to provide sufficient evidence for a court of law to prove that Jesus literally and historically died and rose from the dead. Doctrinally, we know that Jesus' death and resurrection is what breaks the curse of sin and death. If that did not happen, than it was all for nothing, we believe in a false Gospel, and we are to be pittied above all men. So if Jesus' death and resurrection which was literal and historical accomplished this, then that must mean that sin and death must have had a beginning at one point. It doesn't make sense for Jesus to pay the price for sin or defeat death if it was part of nature when it began. So if the Fall was literal, which it had to be for Christ to have a purpose, then Adam had to be literal and historical. Any other explination for this is summed up by having a literal death cover up the price of a myth.

What's more is that some people claim that the 'Fall' was just refering to spiritual death. This is only partly true. The Fall did cause spiritual death. But if sin's death was just spiritual, then why on earth did Jesus have to die a physical death? This is exactly what Shadowlander, was pointing out. Those that try to compromise the account of creation with evolution and 'modern scientific thought' must turn themselves into such ugly pretzles in attempt to justify their line of thinking. And all it takes is a little thinking to realize this does not work.

There is more. As Graymouser, mentioned, evolution can be summarized in a big premise here: death brings about good change. This is what they actually teach. Over the lives and deaths of millions of generations over millions of years, change for the better has always occured. This is NOT Biblical teaching. Death is an enemy according to 1 Corinthians 15:26. Yes, God can use evil for the purpose of good (Romans 8:28). But nowhere in the Bible will you find God using death for any purpose other than judgement for sin (Romans 6:23). The very notion of God using evolution as his tool brings death before sin, which makes Christ's resurrection not cover death. This is contrary to Biblical teachings about Christ and contrary to Biblical teachings about God's character.

So if the Fall was literal, which it had to be for Christ to have a purpose, then Adam had to be literal and historical. Any other explination for this is summed up by having a literal death cover up the price of a myth.

Fencer, might it be possible that the Fall is one of those things "beyond us"? Like God's allowance of injustice (seemingly) and the Trinity? Maybe the account in Genesis isn't 100% literal but it's just the best way for us mere humans to understand the Fall. I'm not saying I believe this per se, but it is an option I leave open.

There is more. As Graymouser, mentioned, evolution can be summarized in a big premise here: death brings about good change. This is what they actually teach. Over the lives and deaths of millions of generations over millions of years, change for the better has always occured. This is NOT Biblical teaching. Death is an enemy according to 1 Corinthians 15:26. Yes, God can use evil for the purpose of good (Romans 8:28). But nowhere in the Bible will you find God using death for any purpose other than judgement for sin (Romans 6:23). The very notion of God using evolution as his tool brings death before sin, which makes Christ's resurrection not cover death. This is contrary to Biblical teachings about Christ and contrary to Biblical teachings about God's character.

Well stated.

Since we're on the topic of things that are hard to wrap one's brain around... what do you all think of the Trinity?

In order to help myself understand it, I've always thought of the example of the three-leaf clover: three petals attached to one stem.

Death is an enemy according to 1 Corinthians 15:26. Yes, God can use evil for the purpose of good (Romans 8:28). But nowhere in the Bible will you find God using death for any purpose other than judgement for sin (Romans 6:23).

What about all the people in the world who die, not because they've sinned, but just because it's their time?

~Riella

FencerforJesus wrote:
So if the Fall was literal, which it had to be for Christ to have a purpose, then Adam had to be literal and historical. Any other explination for this is summed up by having a literal death cover up the price of a myth.
Fencer, might it be possible that the Fall is one of those things "beyond us"? Like God's allowance of injustice (seemingly) and the Trinity? Maybe the account in Genesis isn't 100% literal but it's just the best way for us mere humans to understand the Fall. I'm not saying I believe this per se, but it is an option I leave open.

Is it really beyond us? We've got 200+ references in the New Testament alone that treat Creation, the Fall, and the Flood as 100% literal and historical. We can't necessarily know the exact details of how God created the universe, but we can be certain of the way he did not do it. Evolution was NOT the way he did it as I've explained. A literal Fall which affects the spirit, the body, and the rest of creation is the only way the rest of the New Testiment lines up. Paul teaches us that Christ's death redeems us spiritual, physically, and it redeems the creation itself. If one aspect of Genesis 1-11 here is mythical, then's Paul's teaching goes out the window.

FencerforJesus wrote:
Death is an enemy according to 1 Corinthians 15:26. Yes, God can use evil for the purpose of good (Romans 8:28). But nowhere in the Bible will you find God using death for any purpose other than judgement for sin (Romans 6:23).
What about all the people in the world who die, not because they've sinned, but just because it's their time?

This death is still a natural consequence of the sin nature we recieved from Adam. When people die outside of natural causes and God is involved, it is in judgement. I'm not talking about disasters such as when the tower collapsed and people asked Jesus what their sin was. Jesus said that it didn't matter but unless 'you repent, you too will perish'. Truth is, people die because all people sin. There are only two people who never died: Enoch and Elijah. Because the Bible says all men will perish, there is pretty strong conjecture that they will be the two witnessess in Revelation 11. My point here is that when God kills someone, it is due to judgement. In all other cases, he let's man do his thing or let's them live their natural lives, which is corrupted due to the sin nature. Does that clarify what I am saying?

Regarding the Trinity: it can be a hard thing to wrap one's brain around. I think, though, that there is something important to keep in mind about the Trinity.

It is written that "God is love"; however, love must have an object. For God to actually be love, He must have a target of His love, beyond His creation that He considers Himself separate from. That would be the Trinity, where God is always in relationship.

Because of this, God approaches His relationship with us from a loved position. While God certainly desires relationship with us, he does not need us to love Him.

This is also important in that, as I mentioned earlier, an important part of being made in the image of God is the sense in which we are meant to be in relationship with other humans. Any claim that "God is the only relationship we need" is completely unbiblical.

What does everyone think about the teachings of Rod Smith?

Particularly this article about the different variations of "Hell": Gehenna, Hades, and Tartaros?

~Riella

It will be virtually impossible for a disciple to not come across Genesis 1-11, which are the chapters that are always brought into question in this debate. So this has to be address at some point.

It isn't really Genesis 1-11 that is the problem. It is the next chapter and that pesky rib that strikes a nerve. Of course it matters which version of the Bible you read. Dividing day and night is the first day and creating animals is the third day.

Rio Tinto explains the evolution of the Earth in a light and sound display in the Melbourne Museum. Apparently when the Earth was first formed it was nothing more than a giant snowball with a rocky base. At some point the Sun woke up and gravity set the volcanoes aflame to break up the snowball, and divide land from sea. The Volcanic activity also released a lot of oxygen into the atmosphere that hadn't been there beforehand. And so at some point the mechanisms were put into place for life to begin. Now how could that happen just by chance?

Once Earth had its beautiful atmosphere all life had a window on the heavens, the stars, and the universe. Recently, I read an article in the news that astronomers have found that star formation does not proceed at anything like the rate it did at the begining of the Universe. They have found a mysterious dark matter has been driving the stars apart, the galaxies apart and gobbling up the universe. So it seems even the Universe is finite. And What or Who started off the Universe, and Why?

The Young Earth/ Old Earth debate is tricky. Emotions and assumptions are quickly triggered from words like "Atheist" and "Evolution" or "Bible-thumper". A lot of it is the same evidence getting interpreted differently. For example, I think one reason that rocks appear so old is that they were either there before creation "week" or else God created rocks in their adult form (like it seems Adam and Eve were), possibly complete with shells and fossils and other things that are found in fully formed rocks. I have a very open mind about this and would not be devastated to find out my hypothesis is not correct.

I've been reading a lot of Christian literature recently about how anyone not believing in a literal creation in essence can't logically believe in Jesus or that His death had any meaning. I think this is nonsense and seems designed to create conflict between Christians.

I think there is solid evidence for micro-evolution within a species. For example, the moths that were mostly white in England but then after the Industrial Revolution when the trees and buildings turned black from soot the moths in that area mostly became darker too as the white ones were more easily picked off by predators. It seems like the evidence gets shakier when it comes to cross-species evolution such as a bird species mutating and evolving into rats or at least the birds and rats having a common ancestor. Since with what is observable we seem to be moving from more diversity to less and less diversity (and to me that fits with an intelligent design/Fallen Earth paradigm)

I would say that any origins claim is shaky. I am generally wary of anyone or any work claiming to have solid evidence about origins. I will now go on to explain how someone could not believe in a literal creation week and still love Jesus and logically see a reason for His death.

In terms of the Creation story, I believe that God created the world, whether He did it in 7 days or 7 Million years etc is not important to me. It sounds like He was constructing our whole universe at the same time as the Earth which may also include the laws of physics. That might explain why all the plants didn't die off in the 24 hours before the sun was created. This is all if we are taking what it says literally.

I also do believe there was a Fall of some sort. Whether it went down exactly how it says in the Bible or not, humans were given some kind of choice on whether to follow God or not and we chose not to. This narrative is found in pagan cultures as well in such stories as Pandora's box.

My own church is getting torn up over this issue and I think its because neither side is really listening to the other. I try to tell people not to assume they know what the other side thinks.

So, does anyone else find the story of Pandora's box as evidence for the Fall?