Gravedancer - While I appreciate your well-composed reply (and there are a couple of points you make that I want to address), I really would rather debate the existence of God on a separate thread, since it's a separate question (sort of). Of course, I don't own this thread, so it will go where it pleases. I was rather hoping though that no one would change the subject.
Having said that, however, you make the point that "creationist [believe] then somehow their faith will be weakened and their relationship with God will be tarnished." Creationists may very well believe that. But I am not a creationist, and I don't believe that. I am not in the business of attempting to comport the Bible with evolution.
You also said that "Admitting to something like evolution is something they cannot do and reconcile God's love." Well, you're right. They might not be able to, but I can. That isn't my issue.
You ask rhetorically: "If mankind evolved why would there have been a need for Jesus to save man?" Why indeed? (I can see this is going to get complicated.) You see, I don't believe for a second in the atonement doctrine. This barbarous idea of appeasing an angry God, of propitiating an offended Lord, of winning the favor of Deity through sacrifices and penance and even by the shedding of blood. It represents a religion wholly puerile and primitive, a philosophy unworthy of the enlightened age of science and truth in which we live.
I believe this atonement teaching is an affront to God - to believe, hold, or teach that innocent blood must be shed in order to win his favor or to divert the fictitious divine wrath . What a travesty upon His infinite character, this teaching that his fatherly heart in all its austere coldness and hardness was so untouched by the misfortunes and sorrows of his creatures that his tender mercies were not forthcoming until he saw his blameless Son bleeding and dying upon the cross of Calvary! Thats the Witness god, the barbarous Jehovah of the desert who wants and expects and even demands these things.
You further ask: "If mankind had evolved how could they reconcile the concept of sin?" Um, I don't understand the question. What do you mean "reconcile the concept of sin"? I'll just answer for the moment that I don't believe in the concept of original sin.
Closing you state: "....and on and on till pretty soon the whole Bible is rendered mythical and their faith is destroyed." Right on brother. You've hit the nail on the head. The Bible, that secular history of Jews (all tricked out as "divine" history) on the one hand, and of the developmental years of Christianity on the other, may not not be exactly mythical as you define that term, but it's certainly unserviceable in an enlightened age. It's functionally mythical to be sure, but that doesn't even begin to touch my faith.
Perhaps you'll post more on the original question.
Old Hippie, you're a man after my own heart. However, to your many opening questions for now I will simply respond that nothing is impossible with God. I have some ideas about how just what you question could have happened and I'll get to them in a later post if this thread survives.
You note "the Bible account is described to us as not giving the directed evolution story." Um, yes, that's right. However, I'm an intelligent man complete with my own powers of reason, and I reject what "they" say about what is presented in the bible. The bible should in my opinion be regarded as a spiritual guide, not a science text. There are certainly errors in the bible, but I don't want to debate that here (I hope, I hope, I hope).
There are a lot of things that are not in the bible but which are totally true, most notably E=mc2. And neither is fiber optics, nor quantuum theory, nor dissipative structure theory, NOR evolutionary theory. Why would such things be presented for consideration by people with no alphabet, nor number system, nor ability of abstract thought - the kind needed to conceive of a loving - but existential - father; these were semetic tribesmen busy herding sheep! They weren't presented. And except for the oil under their sands, they'd STILL be nomads, like the bedouin still are these five thousand years later.
You ask "If there was no single Adam, then Christ's death could not have paid for the sins of those not being Adam's descendants, could it? No, it couldn't. And it DIDN'T, and it WAS NOT MEANT TO. As you may have noted above, I hold no truck for the atonement doctrine, nor for the concept of God that makes it necessary, nor for original sin. I'm much more interested in the religion OF Jesus as opposed to the one ABOUT him.
The atonement doctrine resupposes an absence of unity in the nature of Diety, in that the mercy of God is incompatible with the justice of God, thus resulting in the elaboration of that loathesome doctrine. It's our very conception of God that needs reworking so we CAN understand the nature of evolution and the absence of need for the atonement doctrine - which is a sham resulting from ignorance and always has been.
And you're right. The answers are there, and they will fit together in the twinkling of an eye. And I'm offering that kind of realization to you now.
Lessee what else pops up on this thread that has so far attracted a couple of really good responses.
Thank you gentlemen.
Francois
