The answers to the questions posed in your discussions are, in my opinion, not to be easily had from science. They become matters of faith. I understand very well your thinking Henry, that the creation of intelligent human life may not have been so directly directed as we typically understand the word “directed”. It may be as you describe. The multiverse theory suggests something similar — that there are even multiple universes, and that within some of these, life can develop and evolve to reach similar point perhaps as we. But alas, the stretches of time and space preclude us from ever knowing such things for sure. So here we are, trapped in a sense, in our teeny tiny corner of one of hundreds of billions of solar systems existing within hundreds of billions of galaxies and knowing that we can never learn the answer for certain. All we can do it seems is consider what we do know from science (the physical world) and make the best resonance with our faith.
I recognize that some of the extrapolations tread on what some consider to be “sacred ground’. but my thinking is that perhaps we have some things wrong in our classic Christian/religious foundations.

One of you suggest that physical death/suffering does not enter the world before a human being’s sin. But adopting such a rigid explanation of the Bibilical text creates all kinds of problems. Not for science, but the the credibility of the Biblical text. For thousands of years, theologians did something similar when they suggested that the world was flat and that the earth was the center of all existence. But when science demonstrated that that was simply untrue, religion changed their interpretation of scripture. (But not without some weeping and gnashing of teeth.) Perhaps we are at a similar point now. The conflicts between religion and physical sciences has been fairly well resolved post galileo, but the showdown battle between religion and biological sciences appears to be only now coming to a head, at least here in the US. It is not a significant problem in most other areas of the world.
So back to the fall (first sin.) If we look at the data, mankind has been around roughly between 60,000 years to 150,000 years. But the earths record is quite clear that death, suffering, and massive destructive forces have been ongoing hundreds of millions of years prior to that time.
How is this information reconciled with the classic interpretation of the fall as being the source of death and suffering. Clearly, these things do not arise for the first time when Adam and Eve ate an apple.

Also, if the classic interpretation is accepted that physical death and suffering enter at this time, and that Christ’s death reverses this physical phenomenon, then why did death and suffering not immediately cease when his sacrifice was completed?

It seems to me that we must be consistent, and careful in our interpretation of scripture. I think it was Charles Hodge who said that to continue to interpret scripture in ways clearly inconsistent with nature is a sure killer for the credibility of the faith.
Especially if there is a different (and in this case, I believe a better) interpretation. Just as Jesus taught, mankind has a tendency to experience and describe our existence in terms of physical, but he suggests over and over to focus on the spiritual. So, when the first man sins, this is spiritual death. When Christ dies, that sacrifice models God’s way, exposing physical death in a puny perspective when stood next to spiritual death. In other words, Christ’s death was not about the physical dying at all as much as it was perhaps about the willingness to give up oneself for another, or in his case for all! Wasn’t it his words? “No greater love has a man than that he give up his life for a another.”?\

So this humble scientist wonders if we are missing the bigger message of Christianity when we build the foundations of the Christian faith around physical interpretations that cannot possible be true.

On another note, Henry. Yes, I am an unapologetic Christian, but these days, that descriptor often seems to connote something that I do not like, so I am more recently calling myself a Christ follower. A follower is not wed to preexisting interpretations or creeds, but is a traveler attempting as best as he/she can to listen, learn, love and explore the best and the deepest that life has to offer. When Jesus was asked what one must do to inherit eternal life, he responded, ” Love the lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength,… (and then that troubling little addendum) and your neighbor as yourself.” He said, do this and you will be saved.

So I am trying to do the best I can to model and follow the example he has given, and try to offer hope to others that literal or classic interpretations are not necessarily directly from the hand of God. they are but teachings and sometimes poorly understood understandings of man.

Thanks for your interest. I tried hard in Random Designer to make it clear that I am a believer, but also that non-believers need not check their intellect at the door of the church to consider the possibilities for faith and belief.
As always,
Rick

You are both getting a feeling from my comments on him that I did not intend to convey, but I’m not sure how to correct it at this point.

I would make two points. 1) There is a risk in blogging as I read. I may have only grasped part of Dr. Colling’s attempt at this point. I confess to not feeling as fulfilled with the second half as with the first so far, but I am blogging as soon as I read, so there is no reflection of future chapters. That’s how I conceive of blogging my way through a book. I will correct those impressions as I go forward.

Second, and probably more important, is that Dr. Colling is attempting to communicate a great deal in a small amount of space, and then I come along and try to cruch that even further into a couple of paragraphs. I could very easily do his work an injustice in that fashion.

I’m very glad he has been participating in this thread, and I hope he will comment here in particular. If he will provide me with a subsantive correction or expansion, I’ll promote it to a full post to make sure people read it.

The boundary, or I would prefer gray area between science and religion is very difficult to define.