Theistic Evolution

[Shadylookin]

IMO the bible should either be considered as the literal all knowing truth of god or a complete waste of time. I don't know how you can say "well this part here is the literal honest to god's truth", but then say another part is kinda made up because no one understood.

If you dismiss the very begining of the bible as a complete lie how can you claim other parts are not? If you cannot accept that the earth was made in 6days 6000 years ago, how can you accept a global flood? a spirit of death killing every first born? a talking bush? food falling from heaven? a woman turning into salt? a talking snake? the garden of eden? a hand appearing from nowhere and writing on a wall? feeding thousands with a couple fish? a virgin birth? a resurection? I could go on if needed be

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I cannot accept a 6 day creation or a worldwide flood because they would have left behind evidence that we simply do not have. Things like a virgin conception (possible today under certain circumstances) and all of that are possible if one is willing to believe in a God powerful enough to do them. But it is a question worth asking - how do I draw the line? As a Mormon, of course, I have other sources that help, and I try to rely on the Holy Spirit to help me, but ultimately there is going to be a lot of uncertainty. And I can live with that, no problem. After all, the important parts of most of these stories are in the morals and the meaning, not the specific events described.

 

[GenMarshall]

how can you accept a global flood?

I do accept that there was some sourt of flood that has been exagurated to an extent. The Abrahamic Religions has the great flood which may be influenced by the exaguration of the flooding when the Black Sea Basin flooded back during the ancient times and there are evidence that there were ancient settlements underwater before the Mediterainian flooded the basin. Also, many other cultures such as the Epic of Gilgamesh as well as Mesoamerican myths also has their own flood stories which are probhibly just exadurations of localized flooding.

I redirect you to the Black Sea Deluge theory for more info.

 

[Shadylookin]

I cannot accept a 6 day creation or a worldwide flood because they would have left behind evidence that we simply do not have. Things like a virgin conception (possible today under certain circumstances) and all of that are possible if one is willing to believe in a God powerful enough to do them. But it is a question worth asking - how do I draw the line? As a Mormon, of course, I have other sources that help, and I try to rely on the Holy Spirit to help me, but ultimately there is going to be a lot of uncertainty. And I can live with that, no problem. After all, the important parts of most of these stories are in the morals and the meaning, not the specific events described.

but what if your salvation is a lie? if the bible can't tell you correctly where we came from how can you say it is correct in telling us where we are going?

I do accept that there was some sourt of flood that has been exagurated to an extent. The Abrahamic Religions has the great flood which may be influenced by the exaguration of the flooding when the Black Sea Basin flooded back during the ancient times and there are evidence that there were ancient settlements underwater before the Mediterainian flooded the basin. Also, many other cultures such as the Epic of Gilgamesh as well as Mesoamerican myths also has their own flood stories which are probhibly just exadurations of localized flooding.

I redirect you to the Black Sea Deluge theory for more info.

jehova lies about where you came from, and now he exagerates greatly?

 

[mdwh]

IMO the bible should either be considered as the literal all knowing truth of god or a complete waste of time. I don't know how you can say "well this part here is the literal honest to god's truth", but then say another part is kinda made up because no one understood.

If you dismiss the very begining of the bible as a complete lie how can you claim other parts are not? If you cannot accept that the earth was made in 6days 6000 years ago, how can you accept a global flood? a spirit of death killing every first born? a talking bush? food falling from heaven? a woman turning into salt? a talking snake? the garden of eden? a hand appearing from nowhere and writing on a wall? feeding thousands with a couple fish? a virgin birth? a resurection? I could go on if needed be

But the Bible isn't one single entity - for example, there are Christians who reject the old testament (in the sense they do not believe it to be literally true), but accept the new testament. Also, I can see how someone might accept evidence of what Jesus did (supposedly there being people around to view it at the time), but there's no conceivable way to know how the earth was created, so these are seen as clear myths.

The American posters here may not realise, but outside of the US, Creationism is far less common. In the UK there are plenty of Christians, but most believe in evolution, and hardly anyone is a Creationist - indeed, I was quite astonished when I first started to realise just how common this viewpoint is in the US.

Yeah, I'd rather that people give up on the notion of God altogether rather than believing in an ever shrinking "God of the gaps". But the idea of people believing in both God and evolution isn't anything new; in fact it's been that way for over a century in many countries.

 

[Shadylookin]

But the Bible isn't one single entity - for example, there are Christians who reject the old testament (in the sense they do not believe it to be literally true), but accept the new testament. Also, I can see how someone might accept evidence of what Jesus did (supposedly there being people around to view it at the time), but there's no conceivable way to know how the earth was created, so these are seen as clear myths.

the bible is supposed to be the literal truth of (the christian) god. If it isn't the literal truth then it's just a bunch of fables. Fables aren't something to worship, build a religion upon, or put any trust in other than it's an entertaining story(i would argue however that the bible is neither a true story nor an entertaining one but I'll save that for another time). If there is no old testimate there can be no new testimate as the story of jesus depends solely upon original sin, a lineage from Adam, and that there was an old testimate god.

 

[Methos]

Who wrote the book of Genesis? And how did they receive the information? Oral tradition, angels, a dream, etc.?

For some reason I'm thinking it was Moses, but am not entirely sure.

 

[Elrohir]

Who wrote the book of Genesis? And how did they receive the information? Oral tradition, angels, a dream, etc.?

For some reason I'm thinking it was Moses, but am not entirely sure.

It's generally accepted to be Moses, and I believe the consensus is Moses compiled it from various sources, including oral tradition. (Keep in mind, though, that the Jewish oral tradition was very developed and strict; it wasn't a game of telephone)

The Bible could be entirely false, and at the same time Christ could still be the savior. After all, the Gospels are no more than records written decades after the fact. They could have all the details wrong. There were other Gospels which said very different things; can we say which are right?

That doesn't make sense - the Bible says that Jesus is the Savior, and Messiah, if everything in it is false, then that is not true. Saying that Christ could still be the Savior if the statement that He is is false is nonesensical.

Also, Mormons believe in the Bible and we do consider it important; we just don't consider it all God has to say. But I think that although many of the figures of the Old Testament, including Abraham (Kolob, for the record, is irrelevant to Mormon doctrine; it is always non-Mormons who discuss it) and Joseph and Moses et al., may have existed, that doesn't mean that the Bible preserves a perfect record of them.

Saying it's not the complete word of God is one thing; saying that it's incorrect is quite another.

How is it that you can believe one thing that is in the Bible, and not another? Sadly, the Bible doesn't have markings to signify "Take this literally" and "Don't take this literally". Where do you draw the line? If Adam was a myth, why not Abraham? Why not Moses? Or David? Or Isaiah? Or Christ for that matter? Once again, I'm not so much worried about the actual idea of theistic evolution as I am the seemingly disregard what they are simply no longer comfortable with.

If you have examined the evidence carefully for Creationism and Evolution, and find evolution to be the more valid theory, then fine. I won't argue with you, because I don't think it particularly matters. What I will argue about, though, is your rather careless philosophy where what you have trouble believing or don't feel comfortable agreeing with is simply tossed out the window. If the Bible is the Word of God, shouldn't you heed it rather than using it as little more than a glorified paperweight? If you don't believe it's God's Word, then fine - but let's not then have any patronizing nonsense about how you believe one part but not another, it doesn't work like that.

Although the really important thing for the purposes of this thread isn't the validity of evolution. Perf has a thread for that. What matters here is that I am completely and sincerely convinced that it is true, and am unwilling to sacrifice my intellectual integrity to say that it isn't, just so that I don't worry that reality is conflicting with the Bible. Because if it is, I have to go with reality.

I admire your sense of intellectual integrity, I really do. And if you honestly find that in examining the world as it is leads you to an alternate interpetation of the Scriptures, then that's fine - but let's not pretend that the Scriptures are true, and God's Word in one case, and in another it's rubbish, and that is quite simply ridiculous.

Once again, I'm not so much arguing against theistic evolution itself as a religious stance (I don't hold to it, myself, but if you do then that's your call) I'm rather arguing with the underlying philosophy that what you're comfortable with is the truth - that if you don't find what God says in one particular instance popular or OK, then you just get to throw it out the window. If "what I'm comfortable with" is now the standard by which all moral and theological questions are decided, then absolutely anything is acceptable, as anyone can be personally comfortable with anything. And that is a very dangerous proposition.

 

[JoeM]

the really important thing for the purposes of this thread isn't the validity of evolution. Perf has a thread for that.

@Shadylookin', C_H et al.

The question is why does it have to be literally true?


To desensitize the issue I'll use a hypothetical example;

If you believe A to be true, and as a consequence you believe B to be true. If later evidence contradicts B, it does not necceesarily contradict the core belief in A.


My personal point of view is this;

I know that God exists. I also know that evolution best describes the origins of species.

These are respectively subjective and objective truths. To deny the former would be to deny my faith, to deny the latter would be to deny the reality that He has created.

 

[batteryacid]

These are respectively subjective and objective truths. To deny the former would be to deny my faith, to deny the latter would be to deny the reality that He has created.

I second that - I believe that the Bible is not necessary to believe in God and afterlife. The problem with faith and ethics build on books like the Bible or the Koran is, that people first believe what they believe and then in a second step decide which passages and psalms are to take literally, which to see as parable, which to interpret out of the time they were written and thus ignore, and so on.
This is the main reason why discussions about the Bible (at least in my private experience) always tend to go nowhere and costs a lot of nerves on all sides.

I also find it a really obvious strategy by the church not to losse too much credability to reinterpret passages of the bible the moment a certain (scientific) fact cannot longer be ignored or danmed, up to a point where they scratch the line to reading from tea leaves.

 

[El_Machinae]

How is it that you can believe one thing that is in the Bible, and not another?

By realising that it was compiled by many different sources, over a long time, and then edited by men. Oh, and translated by men.

One cannot believe that the Bible is inerrant (as written in English, at least), there are gaping holes in it that require study (and maybe handwaving, depending on your faith) to explain away. So, if there are 'easy to spot' flaws, there is also the possibility that there are flaws that are not easy to spot, and even harder to explain.

I mean, we know that bats are not bugs, though the Bible says they are. A little study shows why this is mistranslated in English, and is easily explained. But it's easy to imagine that there are other translation errors too.

Anyway, as the peanut gallery in this thread ... I'm really enjoying it.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

The Bible is supposed to be the literal truth of (the Christian) God.

No, the Bible itself doesn't say anything about "take me literally or else!" - in fact, "the Bible" didn't exist until long after the constituent parts were written, they were then combined. But one part could easily be true, and another false (or true on a different level). I have noticed that only a few Christians, and a lot of atheists, insist the Bible has to be taken completely literally, or not at all.

If it isn't the literal truth then it's just a bunch of fables. Fables aren't something to worship, build a religion upon, or put any trust in other than it's an entertaining story

Why not? Stories can have religious value even if they aren't literally true.

If there is no Old Testamant there can be no New Testamant as the story of Jesus depends solely upon original sin, a lineage from Adam, and that there was an Old Testamant God.

Actually, original sin is not a Biblical concept, and all that is required for Jesus to have done what he did is the existence of evil among humanity (undisputed) and a perfect God.

 

[Masquerouge]

Once again, I'm not so much arguing against theistic evolution itself as a religious stance (I don't hold to it, myself, but if you do then that's your call) I'm rather arguing with the underlying philosophy that what you're comfortable with is the truth - that if you don't find what God says in one particular instance popular or OK, then you just get to throw it out the window. If "what I'm comfortable with" is now the standard by which all moral and theological questions are decided, then absolutely anything is acceptable, as anyone can be personally comfortable with anything. And that is a very dangerous proposition.

The issue I have with the inerrancy of the Bible is that I have yet to meet two persons believing the Bible is true from A to Z, and AGREEING on that truth.
There will always be some discrepancies.
Because the Bible is not logically consistent, it needs interpretation
Because people rarely refers to the Bible in Hebrew, but to a translation, it needs interpretation.
Hey, people even disagree on what translation should be the reference!

The consequence is that people believing the Bible to be inerrant will interpret some parts differently than their fellow 'Inerrancer".

You can believe all you want that the Bible is the exact Truth, but as long as you are selecting a specific translation and finding a way around logical inconsistencies, then you're interpreting. And the end result is not very different from someone who accepts the Bible is not to be taken literally.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Indeed. Jehovah's Witnesses hold the Bible to be inerrantly and literally true (I think), but their interpretation is vastly different from that of conservative Protestants who believe the same thing.

 

[Shadylookin]

No, the Bible itself doesn't say anything about "take me literally or else!" - in fact, "the Bible" didn't exist until long after the constituent parts were written, they were then combined. But one part could easily be true, and another false (or true on a different level). I have noticed that only a few Christians, and a lot of atheists, insist the Bible has to be taken completely literally, or not at all.

if the bible isn't the word of god then it is just a bunch of boring losely tied together stories. The 3 little pigs is a good story with good advice for living, but i don't see anyone worshiping the third little pig.

Why not? Stories can have religious value even if they aren't literally true.

so you're basing your life on tales of fancy?

Actually, original sin is not a Biblical concept, and all that is required for Jesus to have done what he did is the existence of evil among humanity (undisputed) and a perfect God.

Well if everything else in the bible is just a made up religious story why not the story of jesus.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

You have it completely backwards. I don't base my faith in God on my belief in the Bible; rather, I believe the Bible to be true (in part) as a result of believing in God.

 

[Masquerouge]

if the bible isn't the word of god then it is just a bunch of boring losely tied together stories. The 3 little pigs is a good story with good advice for living, but i don't see anyone worshiping the third little pig.

One problem with that is that there is no "ONE" bible. So if you believe the bible is the word of god, then which bible are you referring to? And as I have posted earlier, which translation do you suggest?

Plus if the bible is the word of god, why isn't it clear? Why do we have Jews, Catholics, Methodists, Baptists, Mormons, Jehova's witnesses, Orthodox, Coptes, and so on?

 

[aussieboy]

The Bible is a divinely inspred series of works - inspired is the key word here.

God may have been the inspiration, but its actual pen-and-parchment authors were human, just like the rest of us. Mortals have preconcieved notions, have prejudices and what not. Therefore, God's message, through several ancient Middle Easterners, and later, Greeks, would give it to them in terms they would understand. That is why Genesis says the Earth was created in six days, or Metheleusah lived for one less than a millenium (both derived from typical Middle Eastern ancient mythology).

In those cases, God meant to give us that he is the creator of all living things, and that good deeds gain you brownie points with the man upstairs, respectively.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

And a false dichotomy is being made (by both believers and unbelievers) - that the Bible is either a single, inerrant, literally true, book straight from God, or just a collection of fables with no truth in them. This is not the case. Especially given that "the Bible" is, as I have said before, not a book but a library of 66 separate books written over the course of a thousand years and then gathered into one collection hundreds of years after the fact. It is quite possible that one book is completely true and another completely false, or one true in a literal sense and another in a metaphorical sense.

The question is, how does one determine which is which? Is there any way besides wishful thinking? Well, how I believe what I believe about the Bible is complex, depending on my faith, other aspects of my religion, science, history, and ultimately, an element of uncertainty. But some parts are clearly (to me, at least) more true than others. Thus I am able to accept Genesis (at least the first few chapters, which are the only ones that make claims science can contradict) on a metaphorical level, while at the same time I can accept the Gospels on a more literal level.

 

[aussieboy]

And a false dichotomy is being made (by both believers and unbelievers) - that the Bible is either a single, inerrant, literally true, book straight from God, or just a collection of fables with no truth in them. This is not the case. Especially given that "the Bible" is, as I have said before, not a book but a library of 66 separate books written over the course of a thousand years and then gathered into one collection hundreds of years after the fact. It is quite possible that one book is completely true and another completely false, or one true in a literal sense and another in a metaphorical sense.

The question is, how does one determine which is which? Is there any way besides wishful thinking? Well, how I believe what I believe about the Bible is complex, depending on my faith, other aspects of my religion, science, history, and ultimately, an element of uncertainty. But some parts are clearly (to me, at least) more true than others. Thus I am able to accept Genesis (at least the first few chapters, which are the only ones that make claims science can contradict) on a metaphorical level, while at the same time I can accept the Gospels on a more literal level.

Thank you for agreeing with me, oh Warrior of Sanity!