That's why it's naive of you to say, <non literalists should stop trying to make fundamentalists conform to their way of thinking when it's outside of the core aspect of Christianity - the atonement.>>

Linked? The whole bible is linked but what Jesus did is what saves us.

You'll notice that Jesus didn't bother trying to change the unanimously held belief that Genesis should be read literally. This is either because it wasn't central to salvation or because He agreed.

Use Him as an example and I think we will all do better.

I don't think chasing around the literalists with the backing of trending academia is going to strengthen their faith. It only causes harm, spiritual wounds, creates division among the brothers and is born out of pride.

Trying to find a reason to *have* to badger them to save them is big stretch. It's pride itching to come out, which is probably never good, but among Christians it's absolutely hurtful.

I'm not naive.

<Science can point to conclusive verification that dead people do not rise to life after 36 hours, BUT they cannot disprove that one particular person did just that 2,000 years ago.>

See what I mean?

<Big Pawn: ... You'll notice that Jesus didn't bother trying to change the unanimously held belief that Genesis should be read literally. This is either because it wasn't central to salvation or because He agreed.>

First of all, people living 2,000 years ago had no concept of the big bang or evolution, so it's a moot point.

Secondly, it is clear that Jesus and the apostles simply used Genesis as an a priori assumption in their proclamation of salvation.

Look, I agree that it would be pointless discussing these matters with someone like <SugarDom> who, judging by his posts, is clearly incapable of an intelligent debate on these matters.

However, I find many fundamentalists are quite intelligent and reasonable people, such as <playground player>, <OhioChessFan>, <Jambow> and others whose opinions I respect and can therefore engage in a thoughtful discussion with about these things.

Anyway, the program on Ken Ham was quite revealing.

http://www.news.com.au/entertainmen...

Okay, I will address some points.

<optimal play: <Big Pawn: ... You'll notice that Jesus didn't bother trying to change the unanimously held belief that Genesis should be read literally. This is either because it wasn't central to salvation or because He agreed.>

First of all, people living 2,000 years ago had no concept of the big bang or evolution, so it's a moot point>

Jesus was alive 2000 years ago, but surely you aren't saying that Jesus was ignorant of the real age of the universe, are you?

Follow this now.

Jesus knows *all the truth*. I will assume you agree.

Jesus knows two things:

1. The true age of the universe
2. The importance of telling the apostles the truth they needed to know (which was subsequently given to us in the NT).

If you agree then follow along.

If 1 and 2 are true, then Jesus either:

1. Knows that the Genesis account as understood by the apostles was correct

or

2. Knows that it didn't matter because it wasn't central to salvation.

(are we to assume that omniscient Jesus knew that the apostles were reading Genesis all wrong, that it was *important* for them to correct this, and then neglected to correct them?)

If you disagree with one of the first two points, let me know. If you disagree with either of the last two points, let me know.

<Look, I agree that it would be pointless discussing these matters with someone like <SugarDom> who, judging by his posts, is clearly incapable of an intelligent debate on these matters.>

Not so, <sugardom> and <ohio> are my brothers in Christ and I respect them and their ideas to the fullest, as are you <optimal> and I respect you and your ideas too. All very intelligent people, including others you mentioned like <playground player> and <jambow>.

I'm not known for being easy, overly nice, kid-gloves oriented or anything like that, so take me at my word.

I think biblical literalists and non-literalists need to leave all this stuff alone. None of this has to do with believing in Christ and his death for our sins on the cross.

Some may say it's linked and so on - but so what? Everything everywhere is linked. We are all probably related and linked like that too.

Point - John 3:16 and that's all there is to it.

Friends, we need to work from *common ground* toward the edges rather than from the edges toward common ground. You all need to get over these differences and focus on spreading the gospel, encouraging each others faith from positions of common ground and avoid being ugly with one another.

I don't think you understand my perspective at all, but you are quick to judge. Instead of explaining myself to you, I will save all of that in favor of choosing to focus on areas of agreement surrounding the central issue of Christianity, God saving grace as Jesus died for our sins, and that all who believe and confess it with their mouths will be saved.

The Lord Jesus was the Son of God and He was also truly human; His life wasn't a pretense or charade.

As Paul said of Him, "His state was divine, yet He did not cling to equality with God, but emptied Himself to assume the condition of a slave, and became as men are" Philippians 2:6-7

But for the sake of argument, lets just say that Jesus "knew" about the big bang, evolution etc. Do you really think He would try explaining any of that to 1st century illiterate fisherman?

His mission was to preach the Kingdom of God. That's what I mean when I say Genesis was simply 'assumed'. Of course the Genesis creation story represents a theological truth, and that's what was important! Jesus wasn't going to try explaining Einstein's theory of relativity for goodness sake!

Please ... let's be sensible!

Without speculating as to the mind of Christ, we can certainly say that the scientific facts pertaining to the age of the universe did not matter to His earthly ministry because it wasn't central to salvation.

In response to one of his posts, I asked him...

"What is the objective truth?"

No answer.

Instead he informed us that we're "100% wrong", completely misrepresented our position in just two dismissive sentences, and then derided my opinion with the smart alec comment, "This would be comical sophistry if it weren't so tragic".

When I asked him what he meant by that...

No answer.

Well, <Big Pawn> and myself can have an interesting, intelligent, respectful conversation about these big issues.

If he thought it was necessary for salvation don't you?

<His mission was to preach the Kingdom of God. That's what I mean when I say Genesis was simply 'assumed'. Of course the Genesis creation story represents a theological truth, and that's what was important! Jesus wasn't going to try explaining Einstein's theory of relativity for goodness sake!>

Exactly my point. Neither should we.

<Without speculating as to the mind of Christ, we can certainly say that the scientific facts pertaining to the age of the universe did not matter to His earthly ministry because it wasn't central to salvation.>

Amen.

<Anyway, I would be quite happy to leave this alone if the fundamentalists didn't keep coming up with idiotic statements like "Adam and Eve are real people, otherwise don't believe in the bible".>

Well, you can see that I echo your sentiment in my response to our good friend <ohio>.

<optimal play: <OhioChessFan> is not interested in trying to understand anybody else's perspective and is always quick to judge!>

This may be true, but that's okay with me because these points are not central to salvation and to argue with him will only divide the church, if you will. Hence my response to him.

<"What is the objective truth?"

No answer.

Instead he informed us that we're "100% wrong", completely misrepresented our position in just two dismissive sentences, and then derided my opinion with the smart alec comment, "This would be comical sophistry if it weren't so tragic".>

This is true, and I empathize with your frustration, hence my response to him. Please read my response to him if you didn't read it closely. I believe in my response very much.

<Well, <Big Pawn> and myself can have an interesting, intelligent, respectful conversation about these big issues.

By contrast, it's just a shame that <OhioChessFan> and <SugarDom> choose to snipe from the sidelines instead of contributing to the discussion.>

Indeed, we can have interesting, intelligent conversations about these issues, but that's because in doing so we have an understanding that we aren't accidentally undermining each others faith by way of undermining the authority of scripture.

So what is my point in all this?

My point is to encourage us Christian brothers to find ways to unify rather than divide. Satan divides. I want to encourage a spirit of Godly love for each other as Christians and use wisdom to prevent needless quarreling (even when I'm told I'm flat out 100% wrong as you yourself can see).

My point is to share my perspective and hope to contribute to encouraging fellowship among us rather than dividing us with pride and frustration, which isn't always easy! (Believe me - I know!).

My point is to find common ground and work from there and slowly, if necessary, move the discussion to less central issues, rather than doing it the other way around; staring at the edges and moving toward the center.

It's my hope that this exchange merely encourages patience, brotherly Christian love, unity and understanding without the vitriol that characterizes Christian dialogue on other pages - and elsewhere in real life.

I hope that we can all humble ourselves for the greater cause and rein in our temptations to give full vent to our frustrations - on all sides, not just the non-literalist side; all sides.

This reminds me of the answer a preacher in our church gave to a question.

Speaking of the church, he was asked if he "...would rather be on the inside looking out, or on the outside looking in?"

Neither a literal nor non-literal interpretation of Genesis is necessary for salvation.

As St Paul explained in his letter to the Romans, 'If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.' (Romans 10:9)

Whilst I think it is good for Christians to share and study the Bible with each other, it is certainly counter-productive if the discussion deteriorates into acrimonious argument over what is perceived as the "correct" interpretation.

Therefore, in good Christian spirit, the next time I see one of the fundamentalists posting a link to "Answers in Genesis" and excitedly proclaiming that it's a "really interesting article" when in fact it's simply another diatribe about dinosaurs on Noah's Ark or some such thing, instead of ridiculing them, I will quietly say a prayer asking God for patience and forbearance.

As St Paul explained in his letter to the Romans, 'If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.' (Romans 10:9)>

I am glad we can agree on this, and I sensed we agreed all along. It's just really hard sometimes to overcome the urge to quarrel with my Christian brothers about these issues, so I figured it's probably true for others too. This is why I was revisiting CS Lewis a few weeks back. It turns out having this discussion with you helped me sort my own thoughts out on this. Thanks.

<Therefore, in good Christian spirit, the next time I see one of the fundamentalists posting a link to "Answers in Genesis" and excitedly proclaiming that it's a "really interesting article" when in fact it's simply another diatribe about dinosaurs on Noah's Ark or some such thing, instead of ridiculing them, I will quietly say a prayer asking God for patience and forbearance.>

I will do the same whenever I feel the same way.

<Perhaps The Lord will see fit to enlighten them in His own way?>

And perhaps He will enlighten me too!

Shifting gears here, I think one interesting topic is the historicity of the resurrection. I saw a discussion the other day when someone asked, "Yeah, but what historical account is there outside of the bible for the resurrection?" - and it showed me that people absolutely don't get how the New Testament was put together.

They think the apostles decided to write the New Testament and that's that. As if they all got together and said, "How shall we perpetuate this myth? Let's get our stories straight and write the rest of the bible".

Profound ignorance!

However, this is how it is and it's worth tackling intellectually. Non Christians need to know about the historical veracity of the texts and how they came to be collected into the NT.

They need to understand that the gospel accounts are separate accounts, taken in large part from very early traditions dating to within 5 years of the resurrection. The story of the resurrection, historically speaking, is one of the best and most attested accounts of any ancient event in history!

It surprises me that many Christians are unaware of the historical perspective of the gospel accounts too. Very surprising. Surely, any Christian that shores up his lack of knowledge in this area will enjoy a great strengthening of faith, and that is very exciting.

I wonder what your thoughts are on this?

As St Paul recounts in his letter to the Corinthians, "For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born."

What do you think about the fact that many people don't realize that the NT is historical? These were documents handed down to us from the first century detailing the life of Jesus, yet people think, "Oh, it's just the bible. Do you have any real references?"

Beloved:
Concerning the salvation of your souls
the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and investigated it
investigating the time and circumstances
that the Spirit of Christ within them indicated
when it testified in advance
to the sufferings destined for Christ
and the glories to follow them.
It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you with regard to the things that have now been announced to you by those who preached the Good News to you
through the Holy Spirit sent from heaven,
things into which angels longed to look.

<What do you think about the fact that many people don't realize that the NT is historical? These were documents handed down to us from the first century detailing the life of Jesus, yet people think, "Oh, it's just the bible. Do you have any real references?" How important is it that we, as Christians, educate people about the historical veracity of the NT documents?> Probably more important that the Christians get educated first, then we can educate the non-Christians!

If one first presupposes the truth of atheism, then such a person will reject out of hand the possibility of miracles.

But if the atheist is going to dismiss the resurrection based on the Hume style argument that miracles just don't happen, then the atheist needs to give good reasons for the truth of atheism first.

Theists have good naturalistic reasons and arguments for the truth of theism, but atheists do not.

The four central facts concerning the crucifixion, the burial, the discovery of the empty tomb by women followers and the many people who attested to experiencing Jesus postmortem are all widely accepted by historians. Thus, the evidence is not controversial.

What is controversial is the best explanation of those four established historical facts.

Hang on just a second,

<mort: the "Resurrection" however is eminently deniable both historically and scientifically.>

Don't be so disingenuous!