News-Record.com

I tell them that some people also believe the world is flat and others believe that the sun revolves around the earth.
Further, there's plenty of other mythology that people also believe - talking snakes,dangerous apples, men supposedly having one less rib than women, wheat-wafers becoming flesh with the right words pronounced , zombies, werewolves, demons, " original sin", astrology - but just because that's what people believe doesn't make it so.

I also tell them that they wouldn't want to go to a doctor who insists that the stork brings babies or that disease is God's punishment for sin and so refuses to wash his or her hands.

I think that parents should instruct a child in the belief structure they hold (a shuddering thing I know considering the variance of beliefs). Yet, the children should be told that once they reach adulthood, they are free to find a belief structure that suits them.

The last time that I checked, each human was given a mind to make his/her own choices. The Christian God that knows me is one of love. Love will counter anything that some feel may be error.

Shalom

It is important for us to remember that the Jewish-Christian scriptures (the Bible) is a faith story, not a science report. The Genesis creation narrative presents the Hebrew story of a loving and gracious Yahweh (God) who creates the universe and humankind. The Bible's domain and concern is not with how the world was created, but instead why it was created. The Bible does not present a scientific, literal description of the earth's origin, but, rather, a theological and relational account of a compassionate God who creates human beings in God's own image - the image of relational love and renewing creativity.
The biblical creation story espouses and affirms that God did create the world but in no way does it speak as a scientific textbook. While theories and evidences of the scientific method may lead to proof that the world was created by a huge explosion, by a evolutionay process, or by some other method, these remain the domain of science and not religion. Indeed, God "invented" science itself and all the principles that give us tremendous insights into God's magnificent and mysterious creation.

I've done a lot of research and study over past 10 years (Thank God!!!). As such, I find that the bible is truly a faith proposition (Hebrews 11:1 - Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.). At the same time, I believe in evolution at a certain level. The earth is filled with evolution where the inhabitants evolve constantly. I don’t believe we evolved from apes or the “big bang theory”. There are too many extraordinary, specific, repeating, etc. things for some “big bang” to happen by chance.

Concerning the bible account I recognize that God only gave us what we need in order to make it to Heaven. One interesting scripture lets us know that there was much more that was not written and is indicative of the whole bible (John 21:25 - And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.).

Another thing (I expect there are many others) that we must consider is 2 Peter 3:8 (But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.) which could be saying the 6 days are much longer or much shorter than our understanding of 6 days.

"Concerning the bible account I recognize that God only gave us what we need in order to make it to Heaven".................
i wonder if he has read the same bible that i have. in my bible (kjv - scoffield study version) God provides many tenets on daily living, personal relationships, loving, enduring, forgiving, etc. etc. etc.
yes the bible provides us the path to salvation which ultimately leads us into heaven, but if that is all one gleans from it then they are missing out on a lot of what God is saying ! and as far as all the stuff that wasn't written, well i have my hands full with what was written !!

"Even if you don't believe in creationism, what do you tell your children about the millions of people who do?"

When I was a Christian, I never thought of the Genesis story as factual. My son never brought up a question of the difference between that story and the findings of science, so I never addressed it during that time.

Today... if I was a parent of a child just getting into the subject in school, I would say that the theory of evolution is supported by all sorts of evidence from all around the world. There's no reason at all to doubt that humans evolved from earlier forms of primates, as have all the other primates of today.

In regards to those who follow the literal statements of their Bible and consider it a more reliable record of the past: I would tell my child that such beliefs don't necessarily harm a person or keep them from acting nicely, generally. But trying to convince them that they are wrong would be seen as a personal attack, so it wold be best not to talk about it with such folks.

Religious beLIEfs can not be seen as facts in any sense of the word. People are free to beLIEve any sort of nonsense that want to, as long as it doesn't impinge on the rights of other people. People are notoriously gullible and prone to fall for the craziest ideas, ranging from astrology to zen whatever. Yet when it comes to something as provable and factual as evolution, too many people deny the fact of it. A good friend recently said something that has stuck with me.

"If you beLIEve things that are contradicted by the evidence, then you are on a path built upon falsehoods."
SouthernFriedInfidel

Think about that the next time you question something as easily proven as evolution.

“And it was here too that nature indulged in what was perhaps her greatest evolutionary experiment.”

Alice: “each human was given a mind”

The last time I checked, it was intelligent entities that conduct experiments; not blind, impersonal chance. I guess this writer believed in intelligent design! And Alice’s statement certainly testifies to a belief in God, or again, some intelligent, conscious Entity who can “give” us a mind. And what gift it is: the very mechanism that is sorting all the incredibly complex data of the universe!! I guess, according to the first statement above, the same highly intelligent Entity who conducted that evolutionary “experiment” also “gave” us our minds. Thank you, most omnipotent Entity.

Dr. Kutz’s many statements of the same opinion are typical liberal, PC cave-ins to the evolutionary mythos. His statement that “the Jewish-Christian scriptures (the Bible) is a faith story, not a science report” and that "the scientific method may lead to proof that the world was created by a huge explosion, by a evolutionay process, or by some other method, these remain the domain of science and not religion." in the end pull the rug out from under Scriptural authority. I suspect he relegates other important elements of biblical truth to such a category as well.

While I concede that the 6-day Sabbatical week template may be a way of couching the divine act of special creation in theological truth, it is thereby a statement of absolute scientific Trutt, though without mocern sceintific terminology. I differ from Kutz in this regard: he allows evolution as an explanation of how life and human beings came into being. I assume he also sees the Adm and Eve narative to be non-scientific as well. This is going way too far.

And while I am an “old earth creationist”(the multiple acts of CREATION could have taken thousands/ millions of years to accomplish), I believe the Genesis account tells us VERY important truth-FACTS. One being that nothing was done by chance; but by the sovereign will and omnipotence of a personal Divinity; another, that all was done by special acts of creation, NOT by gradual evolutionary means (macro-evolution). Adaptation, or micro-evolution, (if it took millions of years) within created “kinds/species” would certainly be reflected in the fossil strata – as it is.

The VERY gradual transitions required by evolutionary theory (macro-evolution) are NOT found in the fossil record. Prof. Jay Gould, an avowed evolutionist, said as much, and was thereby forced to posit the “theory” of punctuated equilibrium. And no scientist has come up with ANYTHING NEAR a plausible explanation of how a single cell could have suddenly popped into being with enough sophistication to replicate itself (the complexity to accomplish this is staggering beyond comprehension). This stage of evolution is ABSOLUTELY imperative if it is to stand at all!

So, the Genesis statements about God’s creating life out of raw natural elements ("dust") is a scientific statement of FACT – both theological and objective. The language mode is such, and on a level, that it would have been understandable to the ancient hearer as well as the modern one. Evolution is woefully presumptuous in asserting the utterly unprovable theory that cells appeared out of raw elements with no external designing or engineering – let alone how matter and the laws of physics could have done so!

So, I tell and told my children that GOD CREATED all that is, in all its overwhelming wonder and complexity; and that the Genesis account is utterly TRUE, informing us that it was God that created all creatures and all things, and that it did not just appear by accident; that evolution, as an explanation of origins and highly graduated transitions, is totally unproven and is, in fact, a humanistic attempt to undermine God’s Word and exalt chance and human sovereignty over God’s.

And so the creationist view makes all the difference in how we see ourselves as human beings and how we deal with reality. If we are indeed just another twist of evolutionary fate, then values, life, law and destiny are pointless and devoid of transcendent meaning. And killing babies in the womb is not destroying precious human lives, created in God’s very image, but mere trashing of inconvenient evolving tissue. If humans have no more intrinsic value than amoebas, then why not?

Why settle for a “Leaky” bucket when we can have the fullness of God’s Truth.

" If we are indeed just another twist of evolutionary fate, then values, life, law and destiny are pointless and devoid of transcendent meaning. And killing babies in the womb is not destroying precious human lives, created in God’s very image, but mere trashing of inconvenient evolving tissue."

If that really is how you view things Nikos, then I really do pity you. You truly are a sad little man.

"If that really is how you view things Nikos, then I really do pity you. You truly are a sad little man."

Please. I don;t need your pity or condescension. Your words are just a transparent way of avoiding the issue. And your statement is so brief and vague I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying that you think I believe the paragraph you quoted; or, are you saying that it is an unreasonalbe statement in and of itself?

Can you not see that if there is no transcendent Law-giver, and therefore no imperative to love as He loves, to be righteous and just as He requires, we are then left to a vacant universe that requires NOTHING of us, but to do what feels good to us. And the sad thing is that we, as an unbelieving humanist culture, are doing just that - to our total ruin and degradation. I don't have to do anything to prove my point except to turn on any local or national news cast. And the rot they DO report is only the tip of the iceberg.

Almost all of the curses that are mentioned in Deuteronomy c. chap 28 are coming upon our nation, with more woe to come, unless we cease our unbelief and rebellion. There WILL come a time, I assure you, when the handwriting will be so clearly writ across the wall of America that only the most apostate and reprobate will miss it. The truly sad people, Rebel, are those who are missing it already.

Nancy, the article and all worthy science does not, actually, claim we are descended from apes:

"Although apelike (Note: not 'apes'), the lower canines and upper premolars, in particular, display certain traits found only in the teeth of later hominids—the term scientists use to describe ourselves and our non-ape ancestors. They also differ in shape from the teeth of all known fossil and modern apes. Even the way in which the teeth had been worn down was telling. ....'Apes all sharpen their upper canines as they chew. Hominids don't.' The new creature's back teeth are larger than a chimp's too, while the front teeth are narrower, suggesting that its diet included a variety of fibrous foods, rather than the fruits and soft leaves that chimps prefer."

Hence, the premise of your question is flawed. Would more people be more open to accepting our evolutionary development as a species if they understood these ancestral creatures were not apes, but rather hominids? It is true that the great apes, European (Old World) monkeys and humans share an even more ancient, pre-primate ancestor, as well. That may be the true underlying discomfort: that we evolved from simple mammalian stock, and back further, from protozoa. The poor, highly intelligent ape has merely borne the brunt of our ridicule. The ape is the fall guy, as it were, for more distressing thoughts that throw our own vaunted intelligence back into primordial non-sentience.

My daughter is too young to ask such questions yet, but I fully intend to raise her aware of our natural connection to the rest of the animal world, as we live on a farm with acres of woods. Both her grandfathers are farmers with hundreds of acres teeming with life. We will introduce her to the various creation myths and accounts. The serve a variety of purposes for those who tell them, depending on their cast of mind and social milieu. I would hope she becomes conversant enough with them to engage others in serious discussion, as well as to enjoy references to them in world drama and literature, art and music.

I don't see that conversant knowledge of religious stories and beliefs need to be disavowed. Should one be quarantined from this blog, for instance, if one is a non-theist? Does this forum, being a "religion" blog, require at all times that one must take a stand always as to what is the "right" religion?

Religion is a topic of human culture, as well as a belief system. It can be studied and held up for contemplation, just as a symphony or painting, a poem or novel might. I plan to impart to my daughter a respect for the beauty of the stories and the images wrought by the best practitioners of all religions. I also will do my best to present her with the best and latest discoveries and work done in the realms of biology and paleontology. I would encourage her to pursue accuracy in her thinking about thge natural world; but, as indicated by earlier bloggers, it will be her choice how and what to hold dearest and as "true" for her one day. One cannot mandate faith, if that be her choice; and one can only ask students in science classes or majors have as complete an understanding of evolution as is available to them. We clearly don't expect the vast majority of Americans to retain any of this after their formal studies.

Buz - those tenets on daily living you mentioned are still things that will help us get into Heaven when done properly. Gods primary purpose is for each of us to be with Him in Heaven.

I agree that we have our hands full with what is written!!!

Nikos, what comments of mine are you pretending to quote and then making up responses to when you mention me above ?

Oh, and one other comment to kids about those who believe in creationism:
" Kids, many classes are graded on a curve.
For an easy " A", get yourself into a science class filled with creationists. "

"Gods primary purpose is for each of us to be with Him in Heaven."....this i can agree with. yet the journey we take through this life is not to be taken lightly, i suspect that we (Christians) should use our limited years here on earth to begin to perfect our Godly walk, to begin to learn how to honor God (and our fellow human beings) in preparartion for an eternity in Heaven with our Father. yes the greatest gift we can receive through scripture is the saving knowledge of grace which hopefully leads us to salvation. the question is " have we turned our one talent into ten or did we squirrel it away and repay with no interest"

rsNakE,
unlike eric (and other unbelievers on this blog) you resort to name calling (calling nikos a little man)and you are not in any way open minded in discussion. your seething vehemence and loathing are only matched by alices hatred and scorn of believers. you want to believe that your ancestors were created from goo, apes, single celled organism, whales or whatever that is your right. you choose the facts you want to work from and believers use their facts to work from....neither choice makes either 'a little man'. grow up !

I see Buz, that like a lot of people, you read into something what you want to, regardless of what is actually written. And where do you get "seething vehemence and loathing" from?? As far as where our ancestors came from, what you choose to beLIEve is irrelevant. It doesn't change the facts. And since when do beLIEvers use facts anyway when it comes to matters such as science?? They're too busy denying the facts in favor of myths and fairy tales.

I was raised Roman Catholic, and the nuns and brothers taught no contradictions between evolution and the Bible. It was understood that the days described in the creation story were not meant as literal 24-hour days. The spriritual souls of Adam and Eve were what were in the image of the deity, not their bodies.

And do we really get to "choose" whatever "facts" we want?

rSnAkE,
uh...ummmmm....eerrr...i'll get back with you - i'm really busy right now developing some myths and fairy tales....but trust me...i shall return !

fn,
should any of us be surprised that the rcc teachings are contrary to the word of God ?! you say "It was understood that the days described in the creation story were not meant as literal 24-hour days." understood by whom, the teacher or the taught?
"The spriritual souls of Adam and Eve were what were in the image of the deity, not their bodies."
well that should be apparent, God does claim to be a Spirit.
here is my problem fn.....a person (in this case one who claims to be Christian) either buys into, lock, stock and barrel what someone ELSE teaches them and has interpreted FOR them and tells them they MUST believe (in this case most cathloics)- this is what i call 'borrowed faith'- someone has spent no time or effort on their OWN to read, study scriptures, comtemplate the scriptures and pray over the most important information they will ever need....or....
a person begins their faith walk by accepting Jesus Christ as Savior, (asks for and) receives the infilling of the Holy Spirit, seeks out a mature Christian(s) who is daily walking with God and partners with them and begins to be discipled and in conjunction they begin searching the scriptures (like the Bereans) and asks the H.S. for guidance and revelation...this is a lifelong process not a 3-5 yrs. course in theology. becoming an informed Christians requires a committment for life to faithfully studying (daily) Gods word, spending quiet time in your prayer closet with the Father, applying to your best ability that which God has revealed and then to spread the gospel to a world in much need of it.....and so the pattern should continue....this is what i call 'owning your own faith' - it based more upon a personal relationship with God and listening to the instruction of the H.S. - not blindly trusting what someone else told me to believe !
"And do we really get to "choose" whatever "facts" we want?"................
choice is the greatest tool in our toolbox....... what i consider facts and what you consider facts are most assuredly different....yet to each of us they are indeed facts - so my answer is YES we do get to choose the facts we want to apply.

Buz:

So 3.1428571.... is " ... contrary to the word of God" since what's in the Bible doesn't agree?

HP must stand for " Heathenistic Pagan"

"I was raised Roman Catholic, and the nuns and brothers taught no contradictions between evolution and the Bible. It was understood that the days described in the creation story were not meant as literal 24-hour days."

Freddy, you could have just as easliy been raised a typical liberal mainline - whatever. There are, in fact, lots of contradictions between the biblical account in Genesis one and (macro) evolution - or evolution as origin. While I too see the Sabbatical week (6 literal days) framework as a theological statement more than a scientific one, I believe the theological truth it proclaims is key to understanding our world, ourselves, and God.

The first glaring contradiction is that living cells, entities did NOT just pop out of the primal soup ready to replicate, as evolution facifully guesses (but cannot prove). Genesis one declares that it was a sovereign act of God. The first cells were a miracle of divine formation.

As the various levels and types of geological formations and plant/animal types are concerned, Genesis one states that God sovereignly created them when they were ready to populate the earth, which was created in an orderly and purposeful manner - NOT by chance. In this sense, Genesis one was never meant to be a detailed and "scientific" treatise; but it was indeed a truthful revelation of the broad-stroked process of Creation, development (micro-evolution) and the eventual Creation of homo sapiens - created in the "image and likeness" of God.

Man's body may not be a phsyiological divine likeness, but man's body does have a clear analogical realtionship to God, who is spoken of as having eyes, ears, a strong right arm, feet, etc. These are obvious anthropomorphisms, but it does beg the question of whether man's body is, in some way, part of the image and likeness idea.

While I am considered by more literalistic interpreters as in error for my old-earth creation position, I believe it comports with the goeplogical and fossil evidence, which neither evolution nor the 6-day model do. Nevertheless, I remain open to further unveiling of the exact manner in which the earth was formed and came into its present form; which also means being open to the idea that God indeed did it in 6 days. But, if the Genesis one account can be considered divine imagery it need not a mere 6 day process.

I do accpet the revelation of man's creation - Adam and Eve as totally factual, and the Flood as well - although not necessarily world-wide.

And I do maintain ALL the spiritual and theological teaching sof the Scriptures, OT and NT as fully dinve and fully authoritative. The Genesis one issue is an interpretive issue, which MUST be seen as counter to materialistic evolution, and as divinely revealed, fact-communicating imagery.

Of course, I was hardly sticking up for the RCC. I do wonder, though, how old one expects a young Christian-raised child to be when able to do the seemingly complex and serious thinking buz demands?

The "choosing" of "facts", or at least of declaring our chosen biases as facts, is a rampant and dangerous path.

I doubt any serious researcher would say living cells simply "popped" out of the chemical soup. Some others posit the idea that life on Earth migrated from other parts of the universe (which only puts the question of "genesis" farther away...although it would raise questions about why this one place is where a "creator-god" would then construct its domain).

Other scientists are working off hypotheses where the "seeds" of what could be combined to make life were always present in some degree throughout the universe, and it was, as you ridicule, a matter of sheer happenstance they coagulated when and where they did for Earth's initial particular form of existence & organic life. Given the immensities of time and the vast numbers of "attempts" that could have occurred, there is reasonable odds conditions could have clicked.

If the first human beings (or hominids) were agreed to be in God's image as spirit, rather than body, why could not their bodies (including their brains) have been evolved? It's actually a moot question for me...doesn't make any sense in my undertanding, but I am trying to understand it as fully consistent with other statements of the theist point of view.

"If the first human beings (or hominids) were agreed to be in God's image as spirit, rather than body, why could not their bodies (including their brains) have been evolved?"

If one posits "theistic evolution" (i.e. God directly guided the evolutionary process) this scenario COULD have occurred. If one takes this panentheist position God becomes virtually indistinguishable from the mater-energy continuum of the universe. This is Far far away from the biblical revelation of God AND man.

I may not be a hard literalist in terms of the six-day time frame, but I do believe that Genesis and the entire Bible reveal to us true truth regarding God and His relationship with man and matter. These hominids and other ape-like beings are merely adaptive versions of the ape-hominid life-category CREATED by God.

If it turns out that there are sufficient numbers of graduated transitional forms then theistic �evolution� may have been the mechanism. However, such is FAR from the case, even with recent finds that they SAY show these miniscule transitions � its all conjecture from implication.

There are still VERY few examples that even remotely confirm any kind of graduated change. But gradual changes are posited with the micro-evolution of old-earth theology; but not inter-species ones: trilobites to horse shoe crabs, eohippus to modern horses, pre-ape/hominid forms to monkeys, apes, and chimps.

Man, even by contemporary assessments, is very very special: self-awareness, high mental capacity for theory, invention, art, spiritual aspiration etc, etc. While Genesis one uses the Sabbatical week format to reveal the creative act of God over a very long time (prehistoric), Genesis 2 and 3 reveal God�s special creation of a VERY special creature, created in His own image in a very short span of time, for the primary purpose of revealing the spiritual dilemma of man � the Fall; which is the dynamic of all human history - the process of redemption (Heilsgeschichte).

All this talk about �seeds� and extra-terrestrial migration of delicate cellular material through hostile space, and �coagulation� of primordial protoplasmic stuff is the true mythology, the most brazen fantasy.

The Genesis creation narrative is far more plausible. It must be remembered, however, that it has a somewhat narrow purpose and focus. It tells us what we NEED to know about our origin and purpose (we were divinely created, not evolved by CHANCE), but is NOT concerned about rolling out detailed scientific data � which will eventually confirm the Genesis accounts, as they are meant to be understood.

In the meantime, we have the day by day testimony of the truth of God�s Law/Word right before our eyes. The Genesis account (and evolutionary theories as well) of the origins of matter and life may prove somewhat enigmatic to a modern Western mindset, but the very concrete moral and spiritual issues that affect our lives are not � they are very real, tangible and dynamic � testable and provable.

fn,
i cannot answer at what age this may happens. but from personal experience i remember finding out that santa wasn't real, tooth fairies didn't exist and that there never was a sandman.....my parents didn't tell me this but somehow it became clear these were not a reality. just as some in religious faiths have been told they need to confess their sins to a man hidden in a box, or that eating meat on certain days is a no no, or that a mere (yet blessed) woman directs/demands Gods decisions - these people have the right/responsibility to determine for THEMSELVES if these are truths or just what someone else wants them to believe (this is accomplished thru study of scripture under the tutelage of the Holy Spirit). the fact remains that we as children may be lead down many wrong paths and it is not insurmountable (but not always easy either) on our part to overcome/unteach ourselves through study, devotion and through revelation (i.e.God's intervention).
fn you come across as an intelligent individual who has studied on your OWN and have formulated your ideologies based upon YOUR study and research - but you would be a very different person today if you simply stuck to what everyone else told you to believe - that is my point in a nutshell - invested YOUR time and be your OWN person.

But buz, the sorts of theological niceties you ask of children, who are not generally developmentally able to perform higher-level abstract reasoning, are far beyond the routine disillusionment regarding Santa, et al. (which I propose is usually accomplished via analogous societal mechanisms as spread belief in divinities).

Nikos, at this stage of scientific exploration and consideration, there are several apparently convincing transitional fossils between species. The odds favor completing at least some sigificant portion of the record in regards to natural selection, rather than divine creation of species, including homo sapiens, ex nihilo.

I am sure the boilerplate answer is "God works in mysterious ways", but why would such a being devise such tantalizingly human-like hominids, allowing such species as Neandethals, who also had art and some forms of culture, only to extinguish them entirely? Were they failed attempts at homo sapiens? Sort of sketches for the final draft?

fn,
sorry for the delayed reply ( seems the front pew wasn't working properly! ).............

"you ask of children, who are not generally developmentally able to perform higher-level abstract reasoning,"......................

"we as children may be lead down many wrong paths and it is not insurmountable (but not always easy either) on our part to overcome/unteach ourselve".... i was trying to convey that as we grow older (beyond childhood) we should be able to develope higher level reasoning skills. my statement makes it clear that children are 'lead' and thus not making their own choice. as a growing child i simply began to grow 'out of' my pants, shoes, shirts and some of my beliefs. at the end of the day fn, we are responsible for our own actions imo.
you see even eric 'grew out' of his home environment of atheistic belief into what he calls a christian experience for 20 years or so and then once again he 'grew out' of that experience and back into an atheistic environment. it's about choices (our greatest tool).

There is increasing evidence pointing to genetic predispositions for certain beliefs to take hold or not. Choices we often feel are from deep within our personal "self", may actually arise from preset responses to given stimuli. Children tend to remain in (or return to) the traditions of faith they grow up with. It seems their "choice" may be little more than what's bred in thhe bone, coupled with genetic proclivities. The years of rebellion do show more attempts to try on different systems of belief, but the majority then "grow up" to be whatever it was they were before.

Complete choice, complete freedom may be just an illusion.

"Complete choice, complete freedom may be just an illusion.".................

to adhere to that statement sets the stage for a life lived in "if it feels good do it" mentality - for if we are choiceless and predestined/predisposed to become the outcome of our genes and what is bred in our bones - then you end up with a culture/society (similar to what we see today in America) that takes no responsibility for their actions or even seem to feel guilty about doing the wrong thing(s). imo the the illusion is that mankind is responsible for it's own origins and that the Creator does not exist but maybe i'm just having illusions :-)
btw fn has 'science' defined 'what beliefs' may be preset/predosposed ?
"may actually arise from preset responses to given stimuli."....does this exclude God from being the stimuli ??

You misconstrue my words: I said "complete choice", buz. I do not mean to deny responsibility; only to highlight the considerable extent to which the parameters withing which we travel are limited by where and how we are raised (that's the bred part) and the clearly much larger role DNA and genetic inheritance plays than we ever used to imagine.

I also never said mankind was responsible to its own origins, a truly absurd notion. And on your humorous (thank you for the levity) surmisal you may be having illusions: I am equally sure I have a fair number myself. We seem to need a good deal just to navigate these days.

There is tantalizing evidence for a "god gene", which would mean many, many of us (the vast majority of the human race) are pre-wired to believe in the supernatural and deities or a deity. We seem to have innate desires for universal comfort and a hard-to-release wish for immortality.

Finally, Science, by definition, must strive to explain responses and stimuli, both, in non-supernatural terms, since only these can be empirically verified or tested using scientific methods. But a relative few scientists will allow for the unresolved questtions to be filled by divine agency. Others will simply say that there are particular, say, ethical dimensions of our world, for instance, into which science offers little or no insight. Culture has to take up the slack there. There are a few thinkers, whether all are scientists with active experiments in process or not, who posit the idea that culture itself evolves and follows broadly studied patterns which may one day be as predictable as gravity. I personally dount that, since I believe the systems of culture have become so gigantic and convoluted they will permutate and leap in ways beyond scientific measure. Social scienctists have their work cut out for them.

. When all is said and done, we ALL have an insatiable desire for bliss. Some take ecstasy, some dance themselves into delirium, others believe that greater and greater sexual stimulation will provide the needed satisfaction to quell the pressing urge to transcendence; still other watch back to back episodes of Star Trek for 8 hours.

But there is a huge chasm in our innermost being that longs exclusively for God. I don’t believe this is in the form of a gene, but rather in our having been created in the image and likeness of God. We long for a deep and lasting inner joy. But it is so very elusive. But, as the psalmist says, “In thy presence is fullness of joy, and at thy right hand are pleasures forevermore.”

As I have said so many times before, science will NEVER fill the soul’s thirst for the divine nor provide the inner bliss the Spirit alone can impart. It will never “explain” the origin of matter, energy and the laws of physics; nor how the first living cell could have come to be and reproduce.

The Word of God not only explains origins clearly and truly (although not in contemporary terminology), it also gives us the wisdom that enables us to live as close to a joyous and fulfilling life as man is capable in a fallen world. Jesus said, “I have come that they might have life, and that more abundantly” and “ . . . love one another that you joy might be FULL.” It’s all about the restoration of joy and meaning.

But all efforts to keep the law, to paste together a man-made version of fulfillment will always fall flat; only a reconnection with the God of love, joy and peace through the Son will deeply satisfy man’s unquenchable thirst for the divine. None of man’s inner immensity can be explained or understood by science. Understanding God and eternal life through science alone is like trying to do make babies in a space suit. It ain’t gonna happen.

A detailed and comprehensive explanation of origins may lie forever hidden in the mists of antiquity for both scientist and theologian, but the dynamic truths of God’s Word are testable here and now. The results of transgressing the moral Law can be seen, handled and examined, up close and personal. The clear results of honest, long-term examination of these alternatives incontrovertibly sustains the fact that one can live in joy, peace and success by keeping God’s commandments in the Spirit. Whatever failures exist in Christian experience are the result of not maintaining the filling of the Spirit through the means of grace, bad or no teaching, and debilitating psycho-emotion disorders (drug addiction, mental impairments, etc.)

God has created us with a clarity of the senses that enables us to accurately perceive Truth and its dynamics in life. When the eyes of faith are opened through the new birth all becomes immediately clear – “I once was blind, but now I see!” a kind of divinely-endowed empiricism that gives us true and accurate perception of the way things actually are, informed and illuminated by the objective truth of the Word of God.

We do not achieve perfection in this regard while in the ”body of this death” (Rom. 7), but enough so that we live in joy and peace - and success in God’s eyes. Evolution cannot account for the almost unfathomable depths of the human mind and spirit. It only tends to reduce man to a deterministic automaton – just another rarified animal scratching his way across the wasteland of eternity with no transcendent purpose or destiny.

All the glorious art, music and architecture we have left in our decaying Western realms are standing monuments to the beauty and grandeur God plants within the human heart and mind through His Messiah. To cut ourselves off from the God who loves us and seeks to bless us with saving grace and truth will only lead us down the path to degradation, misery and death. But modern man would rather indulge his rebel urge than receive the gift of genuine life from His gracious Creator.

Why would a loving god allow someone to be born with, say, a genetic mental impairment which might hinder significantly or entirely debilitate their potential joy at knowing the ecstasies you propose? Sounds cruel and convoluted.

If continued DNA evidence comes in for genes which can be effectively turned on or off to elicit feelings of divine bliss and visions or auditory experiences of divinity, you may dismiss them out of hand if it threatens your system of belief, of course. But it may only suffice to further convince those on the fence that the supernatural is entirely a figment of the natural...a built-in high.

Art-making itself provides such a bliss for many, which does not have the socially unredeeming characteristics of drugs or pointlessness of TV, but may be akin to the dervish-like dancing. In more recent centuries, several completely abstract artists have glimpsed in their art an understanding of a formless benign power, a Deist or Universalist dream, derived from Pythagorean notions of eternity. And many of those artworks you extol, even those depicting the stories of the Bible, were created by agnostics and atheists.

As for degradation, misery and death: Of those three, I know of only the latter to certainly be my fate. Misery, of course, will rear its head upon the death of my parents and any untoward deaths which might occur before my own. And my own will likely be painful, but hopefully brief.

Degradation I am no party to. Not on any level that would cause disgrace, at least. We all degrade our intellects a little when engaged at times in less-savory pursuits, such as buying a house and dealing with lawyers. I chose recently to bite my tongue as I signed papers while being charged outlandishly for "email fees"(???). So, I degraded my sense of reason and logic in deference to the needs to finish the work.

I do find that most of time engaging in dialogue here on this block is an uplifting exeprience where men and women of (mostly) goodwill can discuss and debate in civil terms. Thank you all for that.

FN, You are correct that genes or no genes, right is right and wrong is wrong. I do not think anything more than general psychoemotional predispositions wil ever be cited as causative factors in moral/ethical behavior. Certain people may be more PRONE to respond to evonmental influences in certain ways; but that's it. Considering the horrendous homelife that many children are having today with absentee parents, day care, and divorce, etc., we can llok forward to more and more perversion and mental disorders.

The joy of knowing the Creator through His Only-begotten Son is unique and incomparable; especcially to art, sunsets, human beings, romantic love.

The objective evidence for the decisive nature of comforming one's life to God's Word is overwhelmingly positive and beneficial - assumign it is done in love and wisdom. All that cliams to be Christian in this regard is not. Even those who deny God and His revealed truth are always beneficiaries of the cultural residue of divine revelation in the genneral miliue of culture and the direct transmision of values, norms, and character traits through good parents, whether they are atheist, Buddhist or Jewish, et al. All truth 9Law) is God's truth and benefits all who obey it. Degenerate, godless, and evil situations will produce after thier kind. Knowing God personally is another things altogether. That is what the cross and saving grace accomplishes in the human soul, which procudes St. Peter's "joy unspeakable and full of glory" result.

I can't see how anything would be more joyous than seeing my daughter grow and laugh. Not for me, at least. Others can have all the religious joy they want. If you offered me Jesus and God and the Holy Spirit morning, noon and night, it wouldn't come close to what I already enjoy. How many of us would trade the one for the other??

“I can't see how anything would be more joyous than seeing my daughter grow and laugh.” F N

Yes, I totally agree: children, spouses, family good friends all have their particular rewards and blessings. I am glad for anyone who enjoys their family relationships. My goal is not to diminish the happiness loved ones bring, but rather to point out the surpassing bliss and reward of a concurrent relationship with God; which stands alone in its depth and meaningfulness.

It is also true, from the testimony of Scripture and of millions of Christians over the centuries, that coming to know God through faith in Messiah’s atoning work is the source of an increased capacity for love, not only toward God, but other human beings as well. I have found that when I am filled with the Holy Spirit, my love for my wife and children, and grandchildren is greatly augmented. Being born anew and filled with God the Spirit renews the mind and emotions, long constricted by sin and its affects, by a direct miracle of grace in the inner being, enabling the individual to love fully for the first time – hence the joy and reality declared by Christians universally who have truly been regenerated. This is NO mere mental “decision” to become a Christian; but a very real, divinely effected, organic change within. This is key to understanding the Christian message.

It is divine love that holds Christian families together and enables them to do great things for God. Conversely, when sin and error contaminate the family, things go awry and little fruit is produced for the Kingdom. It is also this special and unique love that has impelled Christians to sacrifice their time, substance and blood in the service of others; whether starting orphanages, taking the Good News around the world, ministering to the unloved and ill, and many other acts of love and kindness. This is not to say that non-Christians do not desire to help others because of natural affection and concern as well; but it has been a particular earmark of committed Christians that they are motivated by the special love of God (Agapé) to serve others sacrificially. This is, of course, imperfect and limited by sin and carnality; but it is real.

“As for degradation, misery and death: Of those three, I know of only the latter to certainly be my fate. Misery, of course, will rear its head upon the death of my parents and any untoward deaths which might occur before my own. And my own will likely be painful, but hopefully brief.” F N

All people have their common perils and miseries. But when the Scripture says that “the wages of sin is death,” it is not just talking about final, physical death; but an inner spiritual condition of being alienated from the Creator and His divine life; the result of which is the constant inclination to reject God and His moral Law. Depending on the degree of common grace imparted to the unbelieving sinner from environment and parents, he reaps the inevitable fruits of disobedience and sin: ever increasing spiritual death.

As for the after-death state, you probably don’t believe in it; but God’s Word declares that the Imago Dei in each human being is eternal by nature and creation, and so will endure, either in the Presence of God in joy and bliss, or in galling pain of separation from Him. The notion of hell-fire is that this state is LIKE a deep inner burning or pain in being so removed from the divine presence, with no remedy. There is, fortunately, a remedy for this fate: to believe the Gospel of grace and be saved from both present and everlasting suffering. This I highly recommend.

I find it incredulous to hold that a non-Christian somehow loves his or her family less fully ythen can a Christian. It flies against all evidence to the contrary from immemorial testimonies (to use a familiar term).

Similarly, recent revelations of the torment and abandonment felt by Motrher Teresa, who did her good things for orphans and the sick while feeling absolutely no love from God for the last 50 years of her life, show that the human will to selfliessness can flourish in the absence of supposed divine inspiration. Almost depsite its very absence.

“I find it incredulous to hold that a non-Christian somehow loves his or her family less fully than can a Christian.” F N

I thought I fully acknowledged that all people can love: their children, one another, others, etc. It just depends on the personal and social matrix out of which they emerged. A good, wholesome family environment produces children capable of loving and being loved. Examples of the opposite are the many examples all over the news today of dysfunctional kids, abandonment and abuse. OBVIOUSLY, there are greater and lesser capacities to love and care for kids, et al. I’m sure we agree on that.

This applies to true Christians (re-born, regenerate) as well. Their capacity to know and exhibit the love God imbues them with at the new birth/baptism can be affected by many variables; but it exists as potential in all Christians, dependent on the choice of believers to learn biblical truths and practice them consistently. And Christians who do not embrace what they know to be God’s will in the moral Law and teachings of Jesus may fall into grievous sin – as Paul points out in Ephes. 4:17 ff.

As I also noted, understanding divine love is only possible by experiencing it; just as it is impossible to convey the incredible reality of falling in love to one who has never had such an experience. Actually falling in love elevates “love” to a new intensity and depth. So it is with coming to know God’s love: all other experiences of love are heightened and intensified. It is the vast ocean in which all other pools and eddies of love are subsumed. Is this concept so hard to comprehend? But if you’ve never “fallen in love” spiritually I guess its just so many words.

As far as Mother Theresa is concerned; I cannot answer for her, or anyone else regarding their personal mental state and feelings while involved in intensive ministry. I must say that I can think of few extended conditions that would wear on one’s mind and emotions like that in which she gave herself. Biblical love is NOT a matter of feelings, per se.; although they may be very intense and wonderful at times. Spiritual love, in essence, is the divinely-motivated WILL to serve. Jesus said, “I have not come to be served, but to serve.” And the great love passage of I Cor. 13 is a matter of outlining the spiritual qualities of soul that produce genuine divine love. Good works, as nice as they are, are “nothing” it says if the heart is not rightly motivated by God’s love – agapé.

I have read stories of other servant types, Christian and non-, who experienced similar dark nights of the soul, or psycho-emotional struggle – the pressures can be overwhelming. They had a short on TV the other day regarding the negative affects that care-givers experience in long-term scenarios: burn-out, depression, resentment, financial stresses, et al. Surely Mother Theresa’s ministry can be seen as a mega-caregiver situation. So, I find it rather hard to imagine anyone who hasn’t given themselves as extensively as she did to the needs of the unwanted and despised to critique her with any degree of moral credibility.

So, godly love is not coterminous with emotional reward, but is a deep-seated inner joy, even though the outward emotions be sparse or non-existent. Jesus’ Gethsemane experience is powerful example of the weighty struggle of the soul in the face of self-sacrifice; but overcome by “the joy that was set before him” and His willingness to do what was necessary. Even on the cross he said, “Father, Father, why has Thou forsaken me?” I have personally known disappointment, failure, rejection, fatigue and criticism during my years in the ministry; but God’s loving and gracious Presence has always sustained me and lifted me up, even when the emotional sense of that Presence was virtually absent.

St. Paul’s words concerning his own struggles and sufferings for Christ’s sake in II Cor. 11 are most illustrative here:

“Are they ministers of Christ?—I speak as a fool—I am more: in labors more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequently, in deaths often. 24 From the Jews five times I received forty stripes minus one. 25 Three times I was beaten with rods; once I was stoned; three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I have been in the deep; 26 in journeys often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils of my own countrymen, in perils of the Gentiles, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; 27 in weariness and toil, in sleeplessness often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness— 28 besides the other things, what comes upon me daily: my deep concern for all the churches. 29 Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is made to stumble, and I do not burn with indignation? 30 If I must boast, I will boast in the things which concern my infirmity. 31 The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is blessed forever, knows that I am not lying.”

He also addresses the volitional nature of love, as opposed to the feeling-based view. It is a compelling inner concern for others, not a me-centered emotional state. II Cor 5

“For if we are beside ourselves, it is for God; or if we are of sound mind, it is for you. 14 For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died; 15 and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again.”

What is the evidence of such a Presence to you, if it isn't felt emotionally? What other "sense" provides recognition of the "pre-sence"?