The simple answer is that there are some (IMO!) nutters out there who insist that every single thing in the bible is literal truth... - on the basis that if you accept that any of it may not be absolutely true, then how do you decide what it and what is not true, and also that this means that any specific part may not be true so the veracity of the entire 'book' is brought into question.
Do you not think though, that the creationists have a point? I mean aren't whole swathes of the Bible in need of reinterpretation because of the fact of evolution. What about Paul's ideas about Jesus being a second Adam, that because sin came into the world through one man, so sin could be iradicated by one man, and that goes on to underpin Paul's ideas about original sin. If we are an evolved species, there never was a utopia in which once humankind was not sinful. Is it reasonable to see children as inherently sinful when we can see that they need their evolved behaviour which tests and pushes boundaries, for normal development as human beings? In what way should that sort of understanding about so-called 'wrong-doing' change our view of what Jesus' own childhood must have been like - can you be a human and not inherit the natural human condition?
Home
Search
Calendar
Login
Register