Theistic Evolution

[ironduck]

classical hero, how do you know the bible is the word of god?

 

[nihilistic]

The debate here is not the inerrancy of the Bible,

That mini-debate with JoeM was, but I'm not going to bother you further with it. Instead, I'll go back to my other point:

but whether it is consistent to believe in both evolution and Christianity.

The problem I see with this thread is that evolution and the rest of scientific results are not subjects of faith. Evolution is not to be believed. Rather, it is to stand on its evidence, nothing more, and nothing less. Scientifically, there should be no emotional attachment to the concept of evolution itself for that if further evidence suggests that evolution is an erroneous hypothesis science will discard it just as it discarded ether.

In other words, I'm saying that if scientific results are to be accepted, they should really be accepted on scientific grounds. Otherwise we may end up with what essentially becomes another layer of superstition.

 

[Masquerouge]

To the question "is is consistent to think the ToE is true and to be a Christian" (note that I rephrased Eran's statement because I don't think "belief" applies to the ToE, another debate I know ), I would say that since the vast majority of Christians actually have no problems with the ToE, in effect the answer is yes, you can be a Christian and accept the ToE.

And it would not be the first time either that two persons calling themselves "Christian" would disagree over something.

So I think that at best you can argue that this is not YOUR vision of Christianity, not that these people are no Christians.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

nihilistic, I can believe in God and accept the theory of evolution by natural selection, because I apply different standards to them. I accept TENS based on its scientific merit, but God is a matter of faith (not the same as guessing or wishful thinking, but subject to different rules).

 

[warpus]

We can choose to believe in certain parts whilst acknowledging the problems with other parts. It's no more of an odd choice than choosing to believe that the whole thing is true.

But then all you're doing is in believing in parts you want to, based on nothing but random faith, and ignoring the parts you do not wish to believe in because they're "not true".

How do you know which parts are true and which aren't? You don't.

Basing an entire religion on random faith seems weird to me. "We'll believe that this part is true.. but not that part over there." etc.

 

[El_Machinae]

Who wrote Genesis?

 

[Masquerouge]

Basing an entire religion on random faith seems weird to me. "We'll believe that this part is true.. but not that part over there." etc.

And yet it happens all the time.
Judaism, Islam and all the various brands of Christianity pretty much exist because people decided to believe some things were true and others were not.

 

[Shadylookin]

This is a fallactic arguement. Prove this to be true and you'll win the debate.

You do need to define 'true' specifically, as truth isn't quite as simple as you might think, it would seem you mean literal truth.

We don't even need to use the Bible here, the principle is the important factor, I believe this is your proposition:

If the beginning of a given text is not true, it is consequent that none of it is true.



I don't think you can, but please try.

of course i'm not saying that because one part of a text is not true everything else it says is not true. I'm saying that if part of a book is not true because evidence points otherwise, then the rest of the book should be called into doubt until it can be proven. The bible however has many stories that are physcially impossible and since it can no longer claim to be innerant christians should stop believing in those events as well.

Stop being so literal. A 'day' could be used simply to denote time; not one of our days. Given that the sun and moon were not made when these 6 days started then it cannot be 24 hours. Not only this, but apparently the Hebrew word doesn't even mean a day, but a period of time. So in 6 periods of time God made the Earth.

i think it's fairly obvious that these people believed in a literal 6 day time period. but even if 1 jewish day = 2 billion years which would be the required amount of time, the events describe by genesis are out of sequential order of what science has shown to be how the universe came about.

The Bible was written by people. I have not seen the Bible claim that it is entirely true. It is a story about other things, not itself. It is a collection of metaphors and allegories, as well as some historical fact. If the allegories and metaphors are good examples that help people define their morality, why should one not base core beliefs on them? Why are they intrinsically bad for core beliefs? Where did you get this belief?

religion is a core belief and i feel you shouldn't base this upon something you see as a fable. I have no problem with fables or fairy tales, if that's what you want to claim the bible is. Of course you shouldn't worship fables or fairy tales people however do worship characters in the bible.

Spelling is essential for words to retain their meaning and to be recognised by others. This is particularly true on an international site such as this where many readers are foreign and do not automatically recognise misspelt words. I have this problem when I visit French chatrooms.

the world will not implode over my lack of capitalization

Some of the Bible stories were made up by people wishing to explain things that were often questioned. Their good intentions are no longer needed where science has found an answer. However, science has no answer to Jesus' parables (or the stories of Jesus' good works). Morality is beyond the realms of physical science. We can still accept Jesus' teachings and his status, even if the writers who wrote about him were not entirely accurate.

I enjoy the philosophical ponderings of many philosophers on occasion, but i don't worship them nor do i claim them to be innerant

If God had a hand in evolution, maybe it was in setting the whole thing up? Would a perfect being have to create everything separately, or would he create one rule; one universe in which things naturally evolved to sentience?
One rule is simpler, more efficient, more elegant; I would say that if a God did cause the big bang he certainly would make the universe so that evolution happened. Evolution is closer to perfection than making individual items.

seems odd that an omnipotent being would take no interest in a universe until 13 billion years. Then despite everything having evolved equal to suit its needs take a kind liking to homo sapiens claim they have souls and must choose between good and evil. Then stick around for a couple thousand years and leave again.

The debate here is not the inerrancy of the Bible, but whether it is consistent to believe in both evolution and Christianity. Now, I have said before and will repeat again, that my belief in God, and Christianity specifically, is not based on the fact that the Bible says so, but on other factors.

what other factors are there? most of the stories found in the bible have no other accounts than in the bible.

And I come to interpret the Bible based on a lot of other factors as well, including science and history, but also what I feel is inspiration from God, other scripture (I am Mormon, after all), and ultimately my own opinion.

god said the earth was created in 6 days. science and history disagrees. You side with science.

god said he impregnanted a virgin. science says it is impossible. Why change your mind here?

what stories do you take as fact and which ones are "metaphorical allegories?"

And as I said before, there is no dichotomy here: the Bible need not be completely inerrant or completely false. The book of Genesis was not used as a foundation for the rest, it was merely placed first before the Law and the Prophets when the Israelites assembled the Torah. Clearly, some parts can be true and others false (or again, true on another level - allegories are not lies). It is just harder to figure out which is which.

if part of a report is false then that brings the entire document under question and unless evidence proves otherwise then the entire document should be disgarded. Since the bible's stories rely solely upon the credibility of the bible if you can't accept one part you shouldn't accept any.

 

[Brighteye]

Basing an entire religion on random faith seems weird to me. "We'll believe that this part is true.. but not that part over there." etc.

All religion is based on faith, a point which those who claim it to be 'divine knowledge' or revelation should note.
What is so much more odd about looking at a collection of works by numerous authors and taking parts which to a rational mind seem sensible (and maybe some others which seem less scientifically credible, but are general points agreed apon by many of the authors), and discarding other parts which to you make less sense, either as a story, fact or principle?
I have only the mind God gave me. I use it to judge the Bible; not to do so would, by the very religion I was adhering to, be condemned as ungrateful. I reject those parts of the Bible (which is NOT the word of God, but written by those who were trying to convey it, as well as their own personal biases and beliefs) that I deem worthy of rejection, but choose to believe in the rest. Certain parts defy belief; they are contradictory or contradicted by science. For the rest, it's a choice. I've chosen my way; others may choose to believe it literally, but where science makes no comment I am free to choose what to believe, so I do.

 

[Brighteye]

religion is a core belief and i feel you shouldn't base this upon something you see as a fable. I have no problem with fables or fairy tales, if that's what you want to claim the bible is. Of course you shouldn't worship fables or fairy tales people however do worship characters in the bible.

One character only, I hope: Jesus. As son of God, trinitarians worship him. If you count God as a 'character' in the Bible, then two at most. Personally I've always, like the arians before me, been dubious about trinitarianism.

the world will not implode over my lack of capitalization

The world will not implode over almost anything humanity does. That doesn't make everything right. Language has rules for a reason.

I enjoy the philosophical ponderings of many philosophers on occasion, but i don't worship them nor do i claim them to be innerant

Everyone claims that his opinion is right, in that he currently believes it to be inerrant; if he did not, it would not, actually, be his opinion. The problem is with people who claim that their religion is an absolute truth. I have a dislike of this attitude too. I am always open to changing my beliefs, although I very much doubt that anyone can produce sufficient evidence to disprove those parts of the Bible that I accept.

seems odd that an omnipotent being would take no interest in a universe until 13 billion years. Then despite everything having evolved equal to suit its needs take a kind liking to homo sapiens claim they have souls and must choose between good and evil. Then stick around for a couple thousand years and leave again.

If God is timeless then he can perfectly easily create the universe with the knowledge that humans will evolve, and that these are his preferred creation. Why has everything evolved equally? Why should God not prefer the creatures with minds more capable of abstract thought and worship? If He wants us to make the choice, maybe He did need to tell us we have souls and need to make a choice. Having told us He can leave us to make that choice for ourselves.

if part of a report is false then that brings the entire document under question and unless evidence proves otherwise then the entire document should be disgarded. Since the bible's stories rely solely upon the credibility of the bible if you can't accept one part you shouldn't accept any.

Not at all. You have still failed to answer Eran's point that the Bible is many books, by many different authors. I can take into account author bias and ignorance and still accept the message a historical document is trying to portray. It's simple history: one has to learn to approach any evidence with caution. Having applied this caution I can discard numerous parts of the document, but still accept various other parts of it.
If someone then shows that a part that I have ignored is false, it doesn't mean that I must discard the whole document.

 

[Sidhe]

Who wrote Genesis?

I was going to say something flippant like God did, but here's something I found It's quite interesting.

http://www.csinfo.org/Who_Wrote_Genesis.htm

Who Wrote Genesis

The Book of Genesis, in common with all the other books of the canonical Scriptures, was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. “For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Peter 1:21). “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16).

The question is, however, exactly who were the “holy men” who were moved by the Holy Spirit to write the marvelous words of the Book of Genesis? There have been three main suggestions, or perhaps groups of suggestions, attempting to answer this question.

1 VARIOUS WRITERS AFTER MOSES

2 MOSES AS THE AUTHOR

3 COMPILATION OF PATRIARCHAL RECORDS



If you have a spare few minutes or so.

 

[El_Machinae]

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

You're quoting Paul? The man who directly contradicts Jesus in other places?

 

[warpus]

I have only the mind God gave me. I use it to judge the Bible; not to do so would, by the very religion I was adhering to, be condemned as ungrateful. I reject those parts of the Bible (which is NOT the word of God, but written by those who were trying to convey it, as well as their own personal biases and beliefs) that I deem worthy of rejection, but choose to believe in the rest. Certain parts defy belief; they are contradictory or contradicted by science. For the rest, it's a choice. I've chosen my way; others may choose to believe it literally, but where science makes no comment I am free to choose what to believe, so I do.

That seems like a very sensible position to take.

Question: Do you sometimes stop and wonder whether you've rejected parts of the Bible that might be true? or the other way around? There must be plenty of believers out there who disagree with your interpretation of the Bible.

Question 2: I take a similar approach to the Bible as you, but reach different conclusions. I believe that Jesus most likely existed, but not that he is the son of God. I don't believe that he died and came back from the dead 3 days later. I don't believe that Noah, Moses, etc. actually existed. I was, however, baptized, and I believe that Jesus had very important lessons to teach us. Am I a Christian?

Or are there core beliefs in the Bible that must be accepted for you to be a Christian? Who decides what these core ideas are?

You paint Christianity in a very dynamic fashion, which I like, but I don't see how it could survive if such an interpretation was accepted by a majority of Christians.

 

[Shadylookin]

One character only, I hope: Jesus. As son of God, trinitarians worship him. If you count God as a 'character' in the Bible, then two at most. Personally I've always, like the arians before me, been dubious about trinitarianism.

one or two that still one or two more than any other fairy tale

The world will not implode over almost anything humanity does. That doesn't make everything right. Language has rules for a reason.

this is not my english term paper. as long as it is reasonably coherent it is fine. Against spelling nazism is not only frowned upon but it is against the rules as well.

Everyone claims that his opinion is right, in that he currently believes it to be inerrant; if he did not, it would not, actually, be his opinion. The problem is with people who claim that their religion is an absolute truth. I have a dislike of this attitude too. I am always open to changing my beliefs, although I very much doubt that anyone can produce sufficient evidence to disprove those parts of the Bible that I accept.

why have an opinion that is not backed up by facts? when did saying i don't know become so hard for people?

What parts specifically do you believe to be true?

If God is timeless then he can perfectly easily create the universe with the knowledge that humans will evolve, and that these are his preferred creation. Why has everything evolved equally? Why should God not prefer the creatures with minds more capable of abstract thought and worship? If He wants us to make the choice, maybe He did need to tell us we have souls and need to make a choice. Having told us He can leave us to make that choice for ourselves.

an omnipotent being wouldn't make much distinction between humans and insects. nor would one desire worship of any kind nor would he have human emotions like love.

Not at all. You have still failed to answer Eran's point that the Bible is many books, by many different authors. I can take into account author bias and ignorance and still accept the message a historical document is trying to portray. It's simple history: one has to learn to approach any evidence with caution. Having applied this caution I can discard numerous parts of the document, but still accept various other parts of it.
If someone then shows that a part that I have ignored is false, it doesn't mean that I must discard the whole document.

the bible is supposed to have one author the christian god himself. if you believe it was written by various men who were not dictating the word of god then why bother with any of it unless reliable third party sources can confirm it? and course all the books in the bible are necessary for the christian religion or else they wouldn't be in the bible. Genesis espeically since it all ties together with original sin, Abraham, the 12 tribes of israel, and numerous other instances where genesis ties in with the other books

 

[GenMarshall]

no i am not wrong. hebrews and christians believed in a literal 6 day creation.

I will still humbly and will still refute on your statement is wrong. Let me kick it right into your thick head . A day in creation is not a litteral 24 hour day in human terms for the concept and the word for a very very long time was not around. You can state as many times that your wrong, I will still insist that you are wrong.

If they didn't then evolutionary theory wouldn't have been a controversy and we would not be having this discussion right now.

Excuse me, but I did explicidly remember posting a statement of what Pope John Paul II explicidly stating (as well as his predicessor) that Evolution does not conflict with the doctrines and teachings of the church so long as it does not conflict with the materialistic origans of the Human spirit. I am not an expert in Judaism (Though I hope that some Jewish posters would jump in to defend their viewpoint), but I recall that the non fundamentalist protestant Christians such as Lutherism and Anglicanism/Episcopal dont take Genesis and Creation litteraly.

On the 7th day god rested, did god rest for 900,000 years? do christians/jews celebrate the 7th day(sabath) for 900,000 years? no they do not. Even if a day =a billion years, it would still not come out to the 13 billion years old the universe is.

I am sorry to say but a day in God's relm is totaly different than our time (Chronos). Its like comparing a foot (our time) with the length of a mile (God's time). The exact length and equality or overlap of your so called "days" may varry from model to model

and the events the bible lists are not in order with how science explains them.

O RLY?! Well I am sorry to burst your bubble on that one. But the bible did listed the events in order. As I stated earlyer in this post and I will repeat it again that the Order of light, then firmament, then starts, Might be taken as a simplified discription of modern theories of cosmology, namely the Big Bang (First light), followed by cosmic inflation, followed by stellar evolution (God created the heavens). Simmilarly, how modern zoology believes that marine animals preceded land animals (On the fifth, created marine life.. ..on the sixth, land animals and finaly man and woman.

NOW, Many Old Earth creationists (such as myself) hold that the Sun, Moon, and Stars were only given their status by God on the fourth day and not literally created ex nihio. As for plant life comming before aqutic life is logical and is correct in the bible, for it is the first plants that produced the oxygen and thus making animal life possible. The Sun, Moon, and stars were only made completely visible "for signs and for seasons and for days and years" in the fourth period when the atmosphere was made fully transparent and that the that the Sun was in existence well before Earth. On the topic of Earth and the bible. The "earth" mentioned in the first verse would be the cosmos as it existed in before the big bange and not literally the Earth itself in modern form. This comes from the hebrew phrase "shamayim erets" which translates roughly into "Heavens and the earth" has always reffered to the entire universe.
if god had a hand in the evolution where was it?

allegories and metaphores are not something to base core beliefs upon.

Well how would you go about explaining to someone who does not understand the origan of the universe. It most certanly did not pop out of no where in just one day. Have you ever heard of the phrase "Rome was not built in a day", well the same also applied to the creation of the universe which is a timely and lengthy process that God has to take his time sculpting his work. God does not rush his work, he takes his time even if it takes millions or billions of years.

and you still haven't answered the question how you can just accept the divinity of jesus and not 6 day creationism?

Ho boy, here we go again. I will say it again more bluntly. The six days referred to are not ordinary 24-hour days, but insted the hebrew word for "day" which is yom and is interpreted in this context to mean a long period of time. We do accept the divinity of Jesus and we still accept the 6 PERIOD creationism.

it doesn't matter if its one book or 100 if it contains lies then it shouldn't be trusted until proven by an outside source. The bible is the only place that describes jesus's divinity.

Sorry, but the bible should be trusted only if you dont take it too litteraly. Somehow in all this commotion of all this I do have to say Put a Helmet On and stop taking the Bible so litteral .

 

[Brighteye]

why have an opinion that is not backed up by facts? when did saying i don't know become so hard for people?

an omnipotent being wouldn't make much distinction between humans and insects. nor would one desire worship of any kind nor would he have human emotions like love.

the bible is supposed to have one author the christian god himself. if you believe it was written by various men who were not dictating the word of god then why bother with any of it unless reliable third party sources can confirm it? and course all the books in the bible are necessary for the christian religion or else they wouldn't be in the bible. Genesis espeically since it all ties together with original sin, Abraham, the 12 tribes of israel, and numerous other instances where genesis ties in with the other books

There are no facts that apply to beliefs. If there were they would not be beliefs: they would either be facts themselves or theories. I do not know that Jesus existed and was the son of God. I choose to believe so. So, I do indeed admit that I do not know; calling my belief a belief is an implicit admission.
Admittedly, others have a certainty in their belief that beggars belief. That, as I have said, is not what I'd consider the correct attitude or even a justifiable attitude.

You have no idea what an omnipotent being might desire. Why would he not make a distinction between humans and insects? Why would he not value the active mind over mindless procreation? How can you know that he would not desire worship?

You have a ridiculously narrow-minded view of Christianity. I have repeated that this is not the sort of religion that I am trying to defend, and you bringing it up again makes no difference to this statement. Which part of the Bible tells you that it was written (or dictated, or inspired) by God itself?

Who says that the books in the Bible are required for Christianity? The Council of Nicaea. And who were they? Fallible humans. Why should I accept their judgement when I have a mind capable of its own thought? Why should I accept each book as a whole literal truth if I accept it at all?

And, once again, forget original sin. It's not an essential feature of Christianity.

 

[Brighteye]

That seems like a very sensible position to take.

Question: Do you sometimes stop and wonder whether you've rejected parts of the Bible that might be true? or the other way around? There must be plenty of believers out there who disagree with your interpretation of the Bible.

Of course. I'm open to new argument about whether bits are contradictory or not. It doesn't matter. What matters is that I base my belief on the best evidence around, so as soon as science disproves a part, or careful consideration shows two parts to be incompatible, I need to reconsider what I accept.

Question 2: I take a similar approach to the Bible as you, but reach different conclusions. I believe that Jesus most likely existed, but not that he is the son of God. I don't believe that he died and came back from the dead 3 days later. I don't believe that Noah, Moses, etc. actually existed. I was, however, baptized, and I believe that Jesus had very important lessons to teach us. Am I a Christian?

Or are there core beliefs in the Bible that must be accepted for you to be a Christian? Who decides what these core ideas are?

]
People decide what these core ideas are. It is ridiculous that I should simply accept someone else's decisions when I can consider the matter myself. Therefore I disregard such decisions.
However, I do think that you can't really count yourself as a Christian if you do not believe that Jesus was the son of God, conquered death and showed us the way to do it too.
Of course, such a statement is open to a number of interpretations, including metaphorical ones...

You paint Christianity in a very dynamic fashion, which I like, but I don't see how it could survive if such an interpretation was accepted by a majority of Christians.

Indeed. It is impossible to justify religious doctrine as an absolute; science must take precedence.
Many people who have a religion have not chosen to hold such beliefs after thought, but as a comfort, to prevent them thinking. To accept a dynamic doctrine requires constant assessment, and is anathema to many, who regard the essence of religion as a stable comfort; a solid truth in an otherwise uncertain world.

 

[Masquerouge]

I will still humbly and will still refute on your statement is wrong. Let me kick it right into your thick head . A day in creation is not a litteral 24 hour day in human terms for the concept and the word for a very very long time was not around. You can state as many times that your wrong, I will still insist that you are wrong.

Don't be kidding yourself. The word day has never, ever been used in common language as an indefinite period. It always refers to a definite time period that either has happened, or will happen. You cannot even get anything but a 24 hour period from the Bible because after each day the Bible would say "evening and morning were the (#) day." This is consistent in how a Jew would say a day. While we would say morning and evening, they consider the start of the day to be sunset, not midnight or even sunrise, as how we often.

I want you to give me an example where the word day is used for an indefinite time period.

According to you both, there can be only one true Christian between the two of you. I'll let you two sort it out.

 

[GenMarshall]

According to you both, there can be only one true Christian between the two of you. I'll let you two sort it out.

And there we have a problem, a conflict of Christian denomination if you would call it.

I am a Roman Catholic and Classical Hero is a Baptist. So we both use different versions of the bible and such different interpretations. So realy I would hold a Catholic viewpoint on this issue where as Classical Hero will have a Protestant (Baptist) viewpoint on this issue.

 

[Masquerouge]

And there we have a problem, a conflict of Christian denomination if you would call it.

I am a Roman Catholic and Classical Hero is a Baptist. So we both use different versions of the bible and such different interpretations. So realy I would hold a Catholic viewpoint on this issue where as Classical Hero will have a Protestant (Baptist) viewpoint on this issue.

Ooooohhh... DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE! How do I know which one is true, then? I can't. You can't. Nobody can. And thus that whole inerrancy thing is moot, since the fact that we have different Bibles, different interpretation, shows that even if the Bible is inerrant, it does not result in One Truth. And thus I don't see any issue with theistic evolution.