[just tagging on here]

I think if we are going to have this discussion it would be good to spell out the ramifications. What exactly are the ramifications of us being products of evolution vs. that of special creation? How does that impact our understanding of God (or even whether there is a God) and of ourselves and the meaning of our lives?

Frankly I hate to say it but I think if all end up in the grave, each the same as any other, with no hope of anything else beyond that, I really think it makes no difference how we live individually. YES the argument can be made as to an overall quality of life we would experience, being improved overall for everyone the more selfless and/or moral we live our lives, but in the end it is just as compelling an argument to say that given we all end up the same there is no compelling reason not to cast our lot with our own cherished delusions which make us happy in what will be an otherwise unhappy and rather nihilistic world. But maybe that's just me. The point is not "oh if there's no reward there's no point in doing good" but rather that given a world in which some majority of people would reason things out that way -- that no afterlife = no reason to change how we do things in this life -- there's bound to be sufficient misery afoot (as we see around us today) to make the case compelling that if a man (or woman) can escape the hurtful madness around themselves by the more desirable & joy-making madness manufactured within & for themselves, they ought to do so. In other words, "let us eat, drink & make merry, for tomorrow we die."

And then there is the matter of Bible & religion. OK, so we are going to make a case that Genesis 1-2 is not to be taken literally. Fair enough, but that opens the door for futzing around with a lot of things that derive their power from those first few chapters. Marriage (specifically monogamous hetero marriage, that is) as a divine template for the foundation of human society, for one. The Sabbath, for another. What are the Israelites being told to "remember" then, if not a Creation week? And if in our sophisticated era we can dispense with the "silly superstition" of taking Creation week literally, what is the point then of embedding Shabbat in the center of the 10Cs? And what meaning then does Revelation 14:7 have? Worship God as Maker of all things? Why bother?

Now once we have opened the door on inspiration, there is some liberation. We no longer have to take as absolutely literal and applicable universally (all times, all cultures) certain things that were very obviously written only for specific times and specific cultures -- and that is a TREMENDOUS relief. But where are we going to draw the line? What about a word of scripture that cuts me the wrong way and I just don't want to listen? Can I now easily write that off too as a "product of the flawed thinking of that person" who transmitted it, or a "product of the limited understanding of the culture of that time"? And what about all these extra=Biblical writings, these things that didn't make it into the "CANON" of scripture. Gnostic gospels and the like, apocryphal writings. Are they possibly just as inspired? Should we now be considering the views they contribute to an overall theology, soteriology and eschatology? How about the Gospel of Judas?

But it's obviously a fake written in 400 AD, eh? Well how about this -- no one can prove Mark wrote Mark's gospel, or that half the epistles of Paul really came from Paul, or which John wrote 1-3 John whether the John who wrote the gospel of John or J. the Revelator. And get this, scholars have evidence Moses didn't pen the first 5 books and there are at least 4 different authors in the book of Isaiah alone. Shall I go on or have I made my point? Just where does it end? Where is the line to be drawn? At some point if we don't draw one there is nothing to stop us admitting all sorts of things previously seen as spurious into serious consideration here. Pretty soon the entire fabric of established Christian teaching is being torn to shreds and there's nothing left to cling to except Jesus Himself -- which might have been a GOOD thing, only it doesn't stop there, now they want to take HIM away from us too. We have all these investigations proving there was no resurrection, there were no miracles, and there are even things out there "proving" that NO HISTORICAL JESUS CHRIST OF NAZARETH EVER EVEN EXISTED.

So where does it all end? Where is the line drawn? TELL ME. I want to know. I'm not adverse to exploring scientific theories of evolution per se, and I'm not adverse to exploring new ideas in general and "less superstitious" ways of relating to religious/spiritual truth in particular -- but before you take me down the yellow brick road to Oz, down the rabbit hole to Wonderland, and I wake up on the wrong side of the Lake of Fire as a result, I'd just like to know where the lines are going to be drawn. Maybe this is "fun" for you but you've never worshipped Satan for 20 years and you don't know what it's like to already find it difficult and challenging to try to determine the difference between a talking snake and a burning bush. It's NOT FUN AT ALL I can assure you. Especially not when you get it wrong and find yourself deep in a labyrinth lined with distortion mirrors and NO EXIT IN SIGHT. Ever been to a "place" (mentally, psychologically) where NO REFERENCE POINTS EXIST? Well *I* HAVE. Trust me, you don't want to go there and you sure as heck don't want to pitch tent there. SEE if you could stay there, in fact, without inadvertently creating reference points of your own. It can't be done; I've tried. I had to pretty much "invent" a universe from scratch, so to speak, from sheer compulsion of nature's abhorrence for a vaccuum -- and I'm not even God.

Quote:

---

OK, so we are going to make a case that Genesis 1-2 is not to be taken literally.

---

Right...and if Genesis is not literal, what about other verses?

Matt 13:34 Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable. 35 So was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet: “I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter things hidden since the creation of the world.”


Matt 25:34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.

Mark 10:5 Jesus replied. 6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ 7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Thank you for your thoughts, Nico.

God's authority comes from Him being Creator. He is the Potter and we are the clay.

"Worthy art thou, our Lord and our God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power: for thou didst create all things, and because of thy will they were, and were created." Rev. 4:11

The Seventh-day Adventist church is not just a denomination. It is a movement. Just as Noah was called for a specific purpose and later John the Baptist, Adventists are to call the world to worship its Creator.

When secular scientists place more faith in the "evidence" than the Bible, they are placing more faith in what they believe the creation says than what the Creator says. Viewed in that way, they actually are no different than acient idol worshippers that worshipped the creation instead of the Creator.

Nico--thanks for your post. I started down that path in university, after taking a Literature of the OT class, taught by a "former" something minister (don't remember the denomination--doesn't matter). It was EXACTLY as you stated with the multiple authors of the first five books, etc. I won't go into detail, because you've very eloquently stated the point, but I wholeheartedly agree with you. I think many people do not understand the dangers involved with removing "pillars" of support. Granted, I have never been quite in the labryinth you were in, but I've seen the beginings of it.

M

Just tagging along.

If evolution is correct, then there is no right and wrong. No fall. No sin. No redemption. No Savior. No future. No eternity. No hope. We're all just accidents. Just miserable deluded people. Sooooooo, let's just all drink, party, and be merry, and tomorrow we'll do the same thing over again.

Gerry

Michelle, that was part of the massive cognitive dissonance that messed me up so bad so many years ago. There I was, 16-17, in my first year of college, having JUST joined the SDA church, and I was going to an SDA school, and everything they were telling me in class seemed tailor-made to just tear down the faith.

I'm a bit more comfortable now with the "higher criticism" and all of that -- literary/textual analysis and its conclusions about authorship, whatever -- but it's still true: nobody draws the line anywhere clearly and theoretically you could just keep going until everything/anything is "inspired" (or conversely, NOTHING is "inspired", or any more "inspired" than anything else) and faith itself ceases to be a reasonable proposition and becomes, instead, a childish superstition. Now, if that's the truth in the end, hadn't we all best just get to it, nail it down, and be on our way? If there really is no Christ and no reason to believe, fine, but OUT WITH IT already, no more of this priestcraft dressing up in "robes of righteousness" leading the masses through the nose with glorious tales of "God raised up Jesus" and then "God raised up this movement" all the way down to "God can raise you up too".

I'm just fed up of the cognitive dissonance. Either there is or there isn't. Quit the dancing around. Quit the double talk -- one thing to teach new converts in Daniel & Revelation seminars then another thing entirely to throw at them in college. They want their cake and eat it too, maybe? Want to be the ones who are wise AND lord it over the others by keeping them in ignorance, superstition and darkness? Or is all this scholarship just bunk in the end and we are better off being "simple" (meaning uncomplicated, not "stupid") people taking God at His word? Well which is it already??? Get on with it, draw the line where the line goes and best be ready with an absolutely air-tight and impeccable explanation WHY you are drawing it anywhere short of absolute gnosticism.

Quote:

---

I'm just fed up of the cognitive dissonance. Either there is or there isn't. Quit the dancing around. Quit the double talk -- one thing to teach new converts in Daniel & Revelation seminars then another thing entirely to throw at them in college. They want their cake and eat it too, maybe? Want to be the ones who are wise AND lord it over the others by keeping them in ignorance, superstition and darkness? Or is all this scholarship just bunk in the end and we are better off being "simple" (meaning uncomplicated, not "stupid") people taking God at His word? Well which is it already??? Get on with it, draw the line where the line goes and best be ready with an absolutely air-tight and impeccable explanation WHY you are drawing it anywhere short of absolute gnosticism.

---

I am going to describe my experience, in the hope it will help you discover your path.

Yes, there is HUGE dissonance in the SDA church. There is a superficial "we have special knowledge" face over a hidden "but our scholars know it it bunkum" layer. As a very intelligent but gullible teenager, I bought into the special knowledge. As an adult from 1977-1999 I learnt more and more about the bunkum.

What I discovered was the SDA teachings are a mixture of several things

• solid scriptural exegesis of sensible results that matched up with the world around me and with a workable model of the universe and the plan of salvation
  
• modern repeats of ancient misunderstandings that conflicted with modern science
  
• weird interpretations of obscure pieces of scripture that did not actually say what the SDA claimed they did, but which created "special knowledge" that makes SDA adherents have a "I know something you don't" bond to the group
  

Let us start with what is RIGHT about SDA'ism, several aspects of which I think are superior to those held by other denominations

• salvation is a gift
  
• how we live is important because it affects ourselves and our neighbors
  
• the dead are asleep, and Jesus is coming back to clean the mess and to resurrect them
  
• coerced religion is wrong
  
• there are some that won't get everylasting life because of the choices they made about how they should live
  

FORMING A WORKABLE RELIGIOUS APPROACH
I spent a long time working through this, especially once I realized that I was uncomfortable with the unscientific and weird. Here is what I came up with


One aspect of 'how we should live' is sacrificing our own good for the good of our neighbors. This includes being an honest witness about what we have seen.

The NT christians did this. They captured into letters and books what happened in the ME around 1-70AD.

The OT israelites did this. They captured into oral history, then later into books, what happened to them.

Just like today, such records are fallable - but the more instances of the message and the more the message matches the world around us, the more trust we can place on it.

So, for instance, the main-stream aspects of the SDA teachings on health, sexuality, clothing, money, are all positive.


so I see the Bible as a product of God's involvement with people, capturing some very valuable lessons through the ages.

WHY IS THE SDA CHURCH THE WAY IT IS?
It is a huge organisation. It does not want to admit is has made mistakes because that would shake its members - some to the core. Here is how it plays out

• Evangelists - the "special knowledge" (Creationism, 1844, EGW) is what gets people motivated to join us, so that is what we push - also note that evangelists tend to be great used-car-salemen, in that they don't think to deep about the stuff that they hype. also note that they are either converts or parents-were-SDA and are almost never scientists nor theologians because those types are too honest to be good salesmen
  
  
• Converts - I gave up my friends, my job, and my family to join because I wanted to have this special knowledge. Of course it is right - otherwise I have been made a fool of.
  
  
• Parents-were-SDA - I would give up my friends and my family and my salvation if I left the church. I have bee told this special knowledge since a child. Of course it is right - otherwise I have been made a fool of.
  
  
• Theologians and College Educators - we know the (Creationism, 1844, EGW) is not solid, but that's what people heard when they joined the church, so let's not upset them but instead quietly try to fix it
  
  
• Administrators - lets not offend the members, and we can't possibly admit that we make mistakes, because that would bring discredit to God
  
  
• White Estate - we certainly don't want to threaten the goose that is laying golden eggs.
  
  

So, all in all, the SDA church is emotionally committed to several things that don't stand up to scrutiny and the emotionally charged irrational members (such as some you see posting here) make it an very difficult position to get out of

But Christianity - a belief in the life-style-choices and Lordship of Jesus Christ - does not require these weird add-ons.

/Bevin