We will all learn the “truth” once we pass on (or wake from this dream) or just plain die.
I believe in the “Christian Ethic”. But I cannot beleive in the BIBLE (WORD) literaly. It has good teachings and philosphies and some bad.
The theories of the creation as presented in the BIBLE by the clergy scholars of the day was as good as it gets some 6000 years ago and the theory held up until the human race began to obtain the tools (telescope, etc) to start observing some of the Universal facts. Man began to realize there was no way the “Earth - Universe - Man” was all created in “7-days”. Plus the other fabels are impossible for most to accept as fact (Noah collecting 2 of every species for his arc; Moses splitting the sea; etc).
I do believe Jesus was the Greatest Human to walk this Planet.
The other “HOLY” books are also out-dated and need to be updated (EVOLVE) also. The Quran still teaches that the Earth is flat and that Moh was the man whose example we should follow. The Hindus; Buddhist; etc..All the basic religions will experience Evolution just as ALL the current living creatures of this planet have and will continue to do so.
Perhaps I will meet you in the afterlife.(if there is one)
If you are right, then I will be looking up having one of those V-8 eternal moments.
Hi 56newblog! You appear to be a thoughtful skeptic, and that's good to see — not so much the skeptic part, but the thoughtful part. It's clear that you are applying some standard to discriminate between "good teachings and philosophies" and "some bad" ones in the Holy Scriptures. May I ask: What is that standard?
Some Christians read the Bible "literally." Others do not. I put myself in the latter category. My reasoning goes like this: In the Holy Scriptures God is speaking directly to man; but not just to the men of a particular historical period, but to men of all ages. The most effective way to do this is to employ a symbolic language which speaks to the ages. This language is not strictly literal, nor dependent on any particular human language for its sense.
The English texts we have are all translations from ancient languages that have fallen into disuse. The very act of translation is a once-remove from the pristine sense of the original, as directly experienced by the inspired authors and recorded by them. The reliance on the literal word cannot fully capture the spiritual essence of the Holy Scriptures, nor convey its character as God's Word spoken to universal humanity for all time. Plus as any student of symbolic language learns, symbols are an "open" language: They invite the participation (cognitive and spiritual) of the person who entertains them. Literal language, on the other hand, is "closed" by being essentially one-sided, declarative, and "factual" in character.
Another notable thing about symbols is they can compress many different levels of meaning with respect to the truth they convey. A literal word, on the other hand, denotes one specific meaning. Long-time Bible readers report that they constantly find something "new" in the scriptures on successive readings. This source of "newness" is what one would expect to find in the very nature of symbolic language.
Now we Christians believe that God seeks direct, intimate relationship with men. So I ask myself: Which style of language would a God Who seeks to engage His creatures, of all times, now and forever, use? The declarative language common to an instruction manual or a textbook? Or the sublime, divine language (i.e., symbolic language) — and even possibly the language of myth? (C. S. Lewis thought so.)
But then post-moderns tend to believe that myths are, by definition, "false." Which is not to understand what a myth is. I won't belabor this point further here, though I'd love to.
You wrote, "The theories of the creation as presented in the BIBLE by the clergy scholars of the day was as good as it gets some 6000 years ago and the theory held up until the human race began to obtain the tools (telescope, etc) to start observing some of the Universal facts."
Jeepers, 56newblog, I guess I'm going to have to disagree with your premise here — at least as I understand it. First of all, it is a complete mischaracterization of the Bible to call it "a theory." God's Truth is not, nor can it ever be, a "theory." Second, human beings since the dawn of man have been observing "the Universal facts" and trying to understand them. They made great advances, on which further advances were based in their turn. And so on.
But does this in any way involve man as an "evolving species," or is this just a case of man developing the potentialities which he already possess by reason of his created nature?
It seems you are identifying "evolution" with "progress" (which would be a very unscientific thing to do). You seem to imply that post-modern man is in some way "better" than the "clergy scholars" describing the world of 6,000 years ago. However my own view, FWIW, is that man is pretty much as he always has been; human nature is remarkably persistent and durable; the only thing that seems to "evolve" is the tools man has at his disposal in the particular age in which he lives. In other words, a Plato and an Einstein are true peers, notwithstanding the time separation between them.
Plus you seem to think that Christians are some species of incorrigible ignoramuses. Which is to overlook the amazing contributions of Christians to the very foundations of modern science in virtually all fields: Kepler, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Mendel, LeMaître, a horde of Jesuit astronomers (did you know there are 12 craters on the Moon named after Jesuit astronomers, true pioneers in this field?), etc., etc.
You wrote, "Man began to realize there was no way the 'Earth - Universe - Man' was all created in '7-days.'" If you mean seven 24-hour days, perhaps you are right about this. But — God is not in time. He is utterly beyond spatiotemporal reality as humans experience it. Further, Genesis does not specify the temporal length of a "day." There is thus no basis for us to presume that the Creation was completed in six consecutive 24-hour (by our human reckoning) time periods. (God tells us he rested on the seventh Day.) This insight is further supported by the fact that the "lights in the firmament" — the Sun and the Moon — were not created until the Fourth Day. It's hardly necessary to mention our human reckoning of day length is derived from the apparent motions of these "lights." And yet there were three "days" — i.e., Genesis 1–3 — before these "lights" appear.
When you speak of "evolution," 56newblog, I get a very strong sense of a desire to "evolve away from the past." As if humans in the past were in some way inferior to those now living, on the presumption that man is "fitter," or "better" now than he was in past eras.
And yet — please consider that all the foundations of modern science were laid in ancient Greece, commencing around 800 B.C., in an astonishing irruption of sheer genius, the likes of which has yet to be repeated in human history. These ancients gave humanity: the very idea of a "universal law"; foundational insights into the structure of mathematics and geometry; systematic logic; natural causation; they anticipated modern atomic theory and thermodynamics. Greek natural philosophy ("love of wisdom") — a term in use until it was displaced by the word "science" (scienzia, "knowledge") around the 18th century — is the very foundation of modern science. Modern science's great achievements rest on the shoulders of giants who lived some 2,500 years ago. Rather than think that modern discoveries render the Greeks obsolete and safely forgettable, we should appreciate that without the Greeks, science as we know it probably would not exist.
I take strong objection to your suggestion that religions (e.g., Christianity) "evolve." People can "evolve away" from Christian orthodoxy; and it's distressing that so many do nowadays — accommodations to the "spirit of the age" I gather. This is striking, in light of the fact that the one thing above all others that has allowed the Church to survive and flourish for over two millennia is its unflagging, uncompromising faith in, and devotion to changeless universal truth, to the divine Logos. Truth does not "evolve." If it did, the world would fall into chaos, and there would be no reason in the world.
So what if the Quran still teaches that the world is flat? IMHO, the children of Ishmael have got things all wrong anyway, so they might as well be wrong about this, too. In any case, Christians don't subscribe to the Quran: Christians are in the "liberty business," not the "submission business."
In closing, I just want to add that the currently favored physical theory (favored because substantiating evidence keeps piling up) regarding the origin of the universe — the Big Bang/inflationary model — is consonant with the Genesis account. Perhaps you'd find it ironic that the "father of the Big Bang" was himself a Roman Catholic Father — the Jesuit priest and physicist George LeMaître.
Oh, by the by, I haven't the slightest doubt that human life exists beyond the constraints of physical incarnation — i.e., is more than just our physical existence. Man is more than his body. So God willing, you and I may well meet up some day, in the world beyond this one.
Sorry I've run on so long. Thank you so much for sharing your insights, 56newblog!
Jesus came to make ALL religion obsolete.. AND DID..
He cannonized evolution.. by the statement...
"You MUST be born again"- Jesus..
Some are evolving, some are not..