Mike,
You a very astute in realizing and seeing the problem of an allergorical "Adam and Eve". Many Christians fail to see the inconsistency and falacies that an allegorical view of the creation story yields. This also gets back to Biblical inerrancy.
Now I am a "literal seven day creationist" that also realizes that this view is in conflict with some of our current undestandings of the mechanics of the universe but also realize that out understanding and knowledge of the universe is very very limited. Just think, if Dark matter and energy actually do exist, then we currently have zero knowledge, except for it's possible existance, of 96% of the total universe.
I would challenge you on "the fact that we evolved from lower mammals." At best this is only conjecture. That conclusion can only be reached by assumption of certain key issues in interpeting the fossil record and our limted understanding of the workings of the universe. If we had absolute and full knowledge of the universe's workings, which we don't, then I would be very accepting of the evolutionary model as it is. In the short time I have lived, some 50 yrs., I have seen science overturn it's views of certain "facts" more times than I can count and especially "evolution" and cosmosology. Now I realize that this is part of the scientific process but we need to be very careful in claiming what is absolute truth and percieved understanding.
I believe that it is critical for us to realize what we really do know, which is quite limted, and the difference between what we think we know which covers most things.
Even though I would stongly disagree with Gary P's aetheism, his conclusion and theology or should I say aethology is very consistant if you are to accept an evolutionary worldview. If a person is to "accept" an allegorical view of the creation story, then ultimately everything in the Bible should be treated as allegorical and then ,yes, you are correct, there is no need for a blood scarifice or any other sacrifice since this is all just allegory.
If the Bible is not true in all of it's parts then it can not be correct in any of it's parts. We can not accept any of it's writings and views as being good, since foundationaly it is deceiptful. However if the Bible is true, than we need to construct our theology and philosophy on it's truths. Ultimately Jesus is who he claims to be, the Son of God and God is God.
Some might call me and others here narrow minded but actually we have much in common with Gary P and our reasoning, we have just come to some very different conclusions.
You a very astute in realizing and seeing the problem of an allergorical "Adam and Eve". Many Christians fail to see the inconsistency and falacies that an allegorical view of the creation story yields. This also gets back to Biblical inerrancy.
Now I am a "literal seven day creationist" that also realizes that this view is in conflict with some of our current undestandings of the mechanics of the universe but also realize that out understanding and knowledge of the universe is very very limited. Just think, if Dark matter and energy actually do exist, then we currently have zero knowledge, except for it's possible existance, of 96% of the total universe.
I would challenge you on "the fact that we evolved from lower mammals." At best this is only conjecture. That conclusion can only be reached by assumption of certain key issues in interpeting the fossil record and our limted understanding of the workings of the universe. If we had absolute and full knowledge of the universe's workings, which we don't, then I would be very accepting of the evolutionary model as it is. In the short time I have lived, some 50 yrs., I have seen science overturn it's views of certain "facts" more times than I can count and especially "evolution" and cosmosology. Now I realize that this is part of the scientific process but we need to be very careful in claiming what is absolute truth and percieved understanding.
I believe that it is critical for us to realize what we really do know, which is quite limted, and the difference between what we think we know which covers most things.
Even though I would stongly disagree with Gary P's aetheism, his conclusion and theology or should I say aethology is very consistant if you are to accept an evolutionary worldview. If a person is to "accept" an allegorical view of the creation story, then ultimately everything in the Bible should be treated as allegorical and then ,yes, you are correct, there is no need for a blood scarifice or any other sacrifice since this is all just allegory.
If the Bible is not true in all of it's parts then it can not be correct in any of it's parts. We can not accept any of it's writings and views as being good, since foundationaly it is deceiptful. However if the Bible is true, than we need to construct our theology and philosophy on it's truths. Ultimately Jesus is who he claims to be, the Son of God and God is God.
Some might call me and others here narrow minded but actually we have much in common with Gary P and our reasoning, we have just come to some very different conclusions.
