Theistic Evolution

[Perfection]

Oh yeah, that's right, I remembered evolutionary biologists but I forgot the geologists, geneticists, and paleontologists. Oops, now you will have to kill me.

That's okay, just don't do it again, or the gallows await you!

Once again, that's fair enough. I will admit that my main issue is not so much with thinking that God created life through evolution - I'm willing to admit that He could have, if He'd felt like it - but issue is that you seem so casual in simply tossing out God's Word. It's less this actual issue in particular, and more the general idea that you can ignore what God says for personal convenience, that bothers me, as it seems to prevalent these days.

The acceptance of scientific knowledge is not casually tossing out God's word, in m view. It seems like Eran has thought long and hard about this.

 

[Shadylookin]

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.

If the bible is irrelevant to your belief in god why do you use the bible for anything? what parts of the bible do you believe to be true exactly?

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?

I'm an atheist they can decide which bible they want to use. Obviously the different sects exist because the bible isn't the inerant word of god, rather a book of stories from oral traditions and it has plenty of contradictions. I'm just saying if you don't think the bible is without error then you shouldn't be a christian and you should stop using the bible to back up your beliefs.

 

[Che Guava]

I'm an atheist they can decide which bible they want to use. Obviously the different sects exist because the bible isn't the inerant word of god, rather a book of stories from oral traditions and it has plenty of contradictions. I'm just saying if you don't think the bible is without error then you shouldn't be a christian and you should stop using the bible to back up your beliefs.

IMHO, only fundementalists and fanatics believe that thier particular holy text is the whole truth to be taken completely literallywithout a second thought. There is lots of room for interpretation, and (again, in my opinion) christianity as a whole isn't contained in the bible. Faith is an experience, a guiding light, not the recitation of a technical manual.

 

[Shadylookin]

IMHO, only fundementalists and fanatics believe that thier particular holy text is the whole truth to be taken completely literallywithout a second thought. There is lots of room for interpretation, and (again, in my opinion) christianity as a whole isn't contained in the bible. Faith is an experience, a guiding light, not the recitation of a technical manual.

Anyone can believe in a god or many gods. but to be a christian means you have to believe the stuff that's in the bible. Jesus's virgin birth, divinity, resurection, and being the only true path to salvation aren't exactly passing whims in the christian religion. Jesus is only in the bible. If the very begining of the bible is thought as nothing but mere rubish to tell a story then that means the bible is not innerant. if the bible can be wrong about something then isn't everything the bible says under scrutiny? If an omnipotent being can't create the world in 6 days then why would christians believe he can impregnant a virgin, kill himself, and rise again in 3 days?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I don't believe God can't creat a world in 6 days, just that He didn't. (And creating a world is much more involved and complicated than merely causing a virgin to conceive.) I also don't conisder the beginning of Genesis to be "rubbish" - to me it is clearly influenced by neighboring creation myths, so it would be familiar to the Israelites, but retold in a way that would impart several important facts to them (such that God created the earth intentionally and systematically, and that He was pleased with the results). It is not like they would have understood punctuated equilibrium and radiometric dating, so why give all the exact details? Why not tell it in a way they would understand? Besides which, you still think of "the Bible" as a single book, every part of which must be viewed the same way, despite the fact that history and the Bible itself don't allow such a view.

 

[Shadylookin]

I don't believe God can't creat a world in 6 days, just that He didn't. (And creating a world is much more involved and complicated than merely causing a virgin to conceive.)

if you're omnipotent the degree of dificulty is irrelevant wouldn't you think?

I also don't conisder the beginning of Genesis to be "rubbish" - to me it is clearly influenced by neighboring creation myths, so it would be familiar to the Israelites, but retold in a way that would impart several important facts to them (such that God created the earth intentionally and systematically, and that He was pleased with the results).

so the bible is just tales past down from irrelevant sheepherds as opposed to divine?

It is not like they would have understood punctuated equilibrium and radiometric dating, so why give all the exact details? Why not tell it in a way they would understand?

The earth is 6 billion years old and you evolved from other spieces isn't that hard to wrap your mind around.

Besides which, you still think of "the Bible" as a single book, every part of which must be viewed the same way, despite the fact that history and the Bible itself don't allow such a view.

Every part should be viewed as the innerant word of god. If it isn't you should stop being a christian.

 

[GenMarshall]

@Shadylookin - Have you ever considered that Eran might be an Old Earth creationist?

@Eran - Sorry if I am making assumptions, but it seems that you do hold an Old Earth & Day-Age creationist .

 

[PrincepsAmerica]

Shady you are completely mischaracterizing the purpose of allegory. The Bible isn't "lying" if the divinely inspired author is transmitting truths God gave him using the best language and storytelling abilities available to him at the time. Orthodox Christianity, that is the common beliefs of Christians prior to the reformation were based around the dynamic understanding of the creation of the Bible. Man and God cooperated to write the book. Some parts are allegory's, some are myths of the Jewish people, some are histiography, and some like the Gospels contain the direct Word of God in the form of Jesus. So no, not in the most common, oldest, most basic beliefs of Christianity is the Bible to be taken as the complete literal word of God.

 

[El_Machinae]

Actually, the 'theme' of the Creation myth certainly does not describe mankind coming from a lesser creature. It seems (to me) that the descendants of mankind were described as being superior. Longer-lived, able to successfully breed through incest, etc.

If you were to twist my arm, I'd have to say that the feel of the creation myth is different from what's posited through evolutionary theory.

 

[Shadylookin]

Shadylookin - Have you ever considered that Eran might be an Old Earth creationist?

a day to the jews 5,000 years ago is the same length as a day to us now.

Shady you are completely mischaracterizing the purpose of allegory. The Bible isn't "lying" if the divinely inspired author is transmitting truths God gave him using the best language and storytelling abilities available to him at the time.

I'm no fancy theologian, but if a story isn't true then it isn't true. If a story is fabricated fancy storytelling then why should we take other parts of it at face value?

Orthodox Christianity, that is the common beliefs of Christians prior to the reformation were based around the dynamic understanding of the creation of the Bible. Man and God cooperated to write the book. Some parts are allegory's, some are myths of the Jewish people, some are histiography, and some like the Gospels contain the direct Word of God in the form of Jesus. So no, not in the most common, oldest, most basic beliefs of Christianity is the Bible to be taken as the complete literal word of God.

umm no christians used to take the old testimate as the literal truth.

if you don't believe that the earth was created in 6 days because scientific facts are against it why do you believe in things like a virgin birth, and self resurection when the scientific facts are against it?

 

[El_Machinae]

There are scientific facts against the resurrection or virgin birth?

 

[Shadylookin]

There are scientific facts against the resurrection or virgin birth?

you ever seen or read in a scientific magazine about a virgin giving birth after being talked to by angels? its also impossible to resurect dead people after 3 days even with modern medical technology

 

[El_Machinae]

You're talking about a lack of scientific evidence.
I thought you meant there was scientific evidence against those events.

 

[PrincepsAmerica]

Try and simplify the vast range of Christian theology all you want Shady, but Catholicism, the Western Branch of orthodox, Chalcedonian Christianity, has had the same basic outlines for interpretation since its founding. Straight from the horses mouth, a Catholic guide for proper exegesis.

"IV. The Meaning of Inspired Scripture

12. The Literal Sense (TOP)

The literal sense of Scripture is that which has been expressed directly by the inspired human authors. Since it is the fruit of inspiration, this sense is also intended by God, as principal author. One arrives at this sense by means of a careful analysis of the text, within its literary and historical context (II.B.1.c).

The literal meanings of many texts possess a dynamic aspect that enables them to be re-read later in new circumstances (II.B.1.e).
13. The Spiritual Sense, Typology (TOP)

The spiritual sense of Sacred Scripture is the meaning expressed by the biblical texts when read under the influence of the Holy Spirit in the context of the paschal mystery and of the new life which flows from it. (II.B.2.b)

The spiritual sense is always founded on the literal sense. A relationship of continuity and conformity between the literal and the spiritual sense is necessary in order for the literal sense of an Old Testament text to be fulfilled at a higher level in the New. (II.B.2.e)

Typology is an aspect of the spiritual sense. (II.B.2.i)
14. The Fuller Sense (TOP)

The fuller sense (sensus plenior) is a deeper meaning of the text, intended by God but not clearly expressed by the human author (II.B.3.a). It has its foundation in the fact that the Holy Spirit, principal author of the Bible, can guide human authors in the choice of expressions in such a way that the latter will express a truth, the fullest depths of which the authors do not perceive (II.B.3.c).

The existence of a fuller sense to a biblical text can be recognized when one studies the text in the light of other biblical texts or authoritative doctrinal traditions which utilize it. (II.B.3.a)

16. A Plurality of Methods and Approaches (TOP)

Catholic exegesis is characterized by openness to a plurality of methods and approaches. Although the historical-critical method retains its primacy, literary methods and approaches based on tradition, the social sciences, or particular contemporary contexts can yield important insights into the meaning of the biblical word. However, the value of these insights will correspond to their harmony with the fundamental principles which guide Catholic interpretation."

 

[warpus]

You could easily give a virgin birth.

Think about it. Nothing miraculous about it.

 

[GenMarshall]

a day to the jews 5,000 years ago is the same length as a day to us now.

I am sorry to say, but ancient hebrews did not have a term "period" or "season". I have already explained about that a few posts back and I suggest that you look into it.

 

[Shadylookin]

I am sorry to say, but ancient hebrews did not have a term "period" or "season". I have already explained about that a few posts back and I suggest that you look into it.

they certaintly had days. they didn't start and end at midnight, but they still lasted 24hrs

 

[Tulkas12]

Hell there has even been anecdotal evidene of virgin births. There have also been cases of people supposedly dying but coming back from the dead( because they weren't dead in the first place), it happens even today.

I think you are mising the point of a miracle though.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I am actually just a simple theistic evolutionist, I think that Genesis 1 is true only in symbolic or thematic terms and in none of the details. I also think that God is not omnipotent in the classical sense. Further, I hold that virgin conceptions (as described in the Gospels) or a true resurrection (rather than resuscitation) are not possible by human means, so we would not be able to understand the principles behind them or to recreate these events; only God, who exists on a whole other and higher level than us, could do such a thing. And when He caused Genesis to be written, His purpose had nothing at all to do with the physical causes and processes involved in creating the earth.

So it appears that Shady and Elrohir, arguing from opposite ends, think that theistic evolution is not a consistent view, and that the theory of evolution or the Bible must be completely false, with no room for overlap. This is still not a perspective I can accept.

 

[Elrohir]

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.

I don't disagree with you in that there are different interpetations of the Bible by different people. My concern, though, is that the Bible is being interpeted differently not because it is believed that the Bible was incorrectly interpeted in the past, but because we don't like what it says.

I don't agree that two people interpeting the Bible different ways is the same as someone not interpeting it literally. If you don't interpet it literally, if you don't treat the Bible as the inerrant Word of God, then you are basically giving yourself a free pass to do, or believe anything if you feel like it, regardless of what God actually said. Don't want to believe that homosexuality is wrong? Just pretend those verses were talking about something else! And so on. It leaves you open to changing your views on literally anything, and simply because you no longer feel comfortable believing it.


Sorry, on rereading that, that last paragraph didn't sound very coherent. If it didn't make any sense, just say so, and I'll give it another shot.

The acceptance of scientific knowledge is not casually tossing out God's word, in m view. It seems like Eran has thought long and hard about this.

As I said above, if he truly has thought long and hard about it, and this is the conclusion he reached, then fine. It's not a conclusion I personally agree with, but that's his privilege. As I said earlier, I'm not so much worried about the concept of theistic evolution as compared to Creationism (The theological ramifications are fairly moderate, if real) as I am with the common modern-day viewpoint of "customizable faith" - that if you don't like something, just toss it out, regardless whether it's actually true. That's a philosophy that has severe theological ramifications, and one I'd like to see eradicated.