What seems to be disjointed here is when you say, "that literalism was not a part of early Christianity" just because Origen had a different view. Actually, there were many literalists in that time.
While that may be true, just as today you have those who believe all sorts of ways about God and what scripture is and means. But it's clear that Origin was speaking from an entirely different framework than them. And it is Origin who was largely responsible for Christianity being taken
seriously, as he moved it from a place of ridicule, to a well articulated philosophical/metaphysical system that had its place, that rivaled or surpassed the Greeks, whom he studied and taught.
This is a well-written article intended for both Atheists and Fundamentalists who misunderstand the reality of the early Christian church, and why is it wrong to assume the early church read the Bible literally.
The Great Myths 11: Biblical Literalism - History for Atheists
Theory may have "highly supported models based upon strong evidence" as long as we remember that there are probably at least 5 scientific theories on creation and they all can't be right and therefore a "theory" still remains simply a theory.
To be honest, I am confused as to why they are calling those scientific theories, other than using the words hypothesis may confuse the average reader? The Theory of Evolution however is different than what you referenced here, which are hypothesis regarding the origins of life itself. That's not what the ToE encompasses.
Just assuming that the withered hand that Jesus spoke to actually happened. It grew bone, nerves and muscle tissue until it was as normal as the first hand. Scientific explanation? none other that "It is a myth, an analogy or a metaphorical story. In other words, science will not address it.
That arm would have the appearance of having grown over 18+ years yet it grew within an instant.
Those who believe in a normal 24 hour period would simply hold to the possibility that it appears to have taken longer but it was simply fast-tracked. (Note - I am just reporting to what those who hold the belief fo 6 day creation.
Then again there are other Christian "possibilities" of how it happened just as science has multiple positions.
There are certainly different Christian perspectives on that story. For myself, I see the entire gospels themselves as parables. So the story has significance from a spiritual perspective. To try to dissect it with science, is to completely be missing the intended point of it. This is my major problem with Creationism as a supposed "science" (which it is not). They miss the point of the story and why it was written. It wasn't to teach the earth sciences!
Yes, I understand. I am sure that there are some metaphorical applications but I don't believe that it is completely metaphorical.
My reasoning is simple: Luke 1:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,24 Which was the son of Matthat,...
...which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
These aren't metaphorical people.
Mythologies use the names of real people all the time. Homer's Odyssey certainly named real historical places and people, but I'm pretty sure the cyclops and Poseidon, were mythic figures. But this did not address my question to you, which was,
"Do you understand how that can be so, that something can be true in its meaning, while the actual story that carries that message, may be a creative invention designed in order to effectively tell a story that conveys that truth?"
Can the story of Adam and Eve been true, while the actual events of the story were purely allegorical and mythic? Can it convey the same, if not more depth of meaning to you, even if you understood they were not historical in the sense we think of historical facts today? If not, then can you explain how it can have meaning to those like me, who do not accept that they were two actual people identical as the story presents them?
Yes, people can and do derive meaning and truth from these stories. There is much meaning in each story. I simply believe they are true and still derive the same meanings and truths from these events.
If it isn't necessary for some for them to be true to find the meaning, then why do some feel it necessary to deny science when it appears to them to be encroaching on sacred ground, that being their beliefs about God and the Bible? You won't see me trying to "disprove science" in order to protect my views of scripture. You'll see it the other way around actually welcoming the insights, in order to better understand the nature of symbolic truths.
Please hold on to the horses.
I never said "I believe in the 24 hour creation' but simply am stating the positions of some. Personally, I have a different approach where science is present and yet the spiritual truths are still applied using the theory of relativity. But still hold onto mankind being "created".
I wasn't intending that analogy to be challenging that. I brought that up because you had repeated that argument I've heard out the Ken Ham camp, telling the young ones when they hear a scientist in school teaching about of evolution, to challenge them as say,
"Were you there???" Which is an absolutely ridiculous argument. Yes, science was there, in effect, because they are studying real things that came from back then. That rock was there however many million years ago. It's not made up make believe. Why should he cast it that way to the minds of these impressionable youth? Fear of truth? I have to ask.
Not at all. Since it simply says "God created the fowl of the air" - He could have done it through evolution as it doesn't mention "how" He made it happen other than He spoke a command and nature responded to the direction of the command.
It amazes me how everything we see actually has purpose. One set of people say it was chance, I wouldn't agree and I am not even sure that would follow the 2nd law of thermodynamics (If I understand it correctly). I think a God factor makes it all have sense.
I accept evolution, because the science is solid. I believe in God, because I have both faith, and experience of the Divine. That said, I believe God is the Ground of all Being, to use Paul Tillich's term. All that is, arises from the Divine as Source. That is, God is the Creator of everything. Evolution, is God creating, in the present continuous tense. While we can think of 'the creation' as a single event of the past, the reality is, as the science shows as well, that was the beginning. Not the end.
While the story of the Garden of Eden is set at some "time" in the past, that is an origin story, meant to relate each and everyone of us to that time, which exists within ourselves. That core union with the Divine, and falling from that deep inner origins of who we are, as creations of the Divine itself, is the story of the 'creation'.
But it's a story in a
timeless past, not a fixed, historical date. Bishop Usher, had a very modernistic idea in his head, when he picked up sacred myth, and tried to approach it scientifically!
Sadly, that type of thinking has impacted many generations to follow him towards that same conflation of disparate narratives. It unnecessarily confuses faith, IMO.
Man came to the conclusion that we are animals. Correct. That is man's interpretation of what we see. Basically speaking, science does not deal with the spiritual side. They derive this position from what they can see.
Someone decided that a Platypus is a mammal even though it lays eggs. They came to this conclusion because of other factors... yet it lays eggs. A man decided that. Man decided he evolved from the line of some common ancestral ape (though we don't know which one).
I'll agree that humans created classification systems as part of doing good science. But I want to call out something you let slip here.
Man did not decide that humans evolved from a common primate ancestor shared by other primate species today. They
discovered that to be the truth of our origins and ancestry through the tools of science, such as DNA mapping, for one. They "decided" that the data was pointing to that, and they confirmed that data and conclusions from multiple other sets of examinations. All pointing to the same conclusion.
That, is not just arbitrarily imagining it and 'just deciding' that was the case. That is a bad-faith argument, if that is what you were intending to imply?
My position is that all animals have souls but only man has a spirit. Science won't deal with that as stated by one person"
Of course science does not examine these things. It's not the right set of eyes to use to examine it. We use other sets of eyes to examine the things of the Spirit. That's an interesting perspective on animals. How do you define spirit, and how do you define soul in this context?
"Modern science is essentially faith materialistic. It suffices to read scientific journals and one sees that explanations and theories are based exclusively on physical processes; for instance, no one formulates the hypothesis that thinking may have a non-physical origin, and neuronal activity may be a consequence and not the cause of thoughts. I am sure that if a paper would explicitly state this hypothesis, it would not be accepted for publication at a recognized scientific journal. On the other hand, journals with popular science in general ridicule any type of spirituality."
I find this to be basically true.
I share that view myself. As I said, to examine the things of the spirit, that becomes a subjective interior exploration. Welcome here, deep mediators, prophets, seers, or otherwise known as the
mystics. That's a whole subject in itself I'll skip over here, but suffice to say, Reality is a lot more than just the whole exterior side of reality, or the materialist perspective.
While the scientific and naturalist perspective is valid, and why I accept evolution as factual, to conclude that there is not spiritual truth or reality beyond brain and chemicals, is a limp claim. The greatest minds in science, recognize the spiritual, and holistic nature of reality, to the point of what you could call the Divine. I certainly see it that way myself.
