Christianity... and the fact of evolution

Anguspure · Oct 1, 2016

RedPonyDriver said:
Factual, no. It is a MYTH...Every single ancient culture has one...who's to say the Genesis account is any more correct than any other one?

Come now, I would have thought we had already established that the earth is not flat and riding on the back of Elephants or Turtles or something or that we are not formed from cows milk, or eggs or some such other thing.
The fact is that discounting naturalism and rigid homocentric interpretations of the text of the Torah, the "myth" of Genesis fits very nicely with most of the latest observations of the heavens and the earth.
Perhaps this is why other creation accounts do not have quite the same threat value for Naturalistic Scientism.

Anguspure · Oct 1, 2016

2PhiloVoid said:
Anyway, yes Jesus created a universe by which we could grapple it with Calculus....but He did that in His pre-incarnate form ...

I also have some strange views that perhaps get me ostracized and this is one of them: When you refer to a pre-incarnate form of Christ you are thinking in terms of a strictly linear time frame for the Creatpr.
What if the beginning of all creation actually took place at the point in which God entered space time in the form of Jesus of Nazereth? Thereafter he creates the world and appears to a number of people throughout history.
So time itself makes a loop around Christ Himself.
Or perhaps I've been watching to much Dr Who.

Anguspure · Oct 1, 2016

Paul of Eugene OR said:
Here's a verse for your consideration. Paul wrote to the Corinthians and mentioned, in an aside, that he had not baptized any of them except the two he named:

1 Cor 1:14-15

14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,
15 so that no one would say you were baptized in my name.
NASU

The contradiction comes in the very next verse:

1 Cor 1:16 Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other.
NASU

Now how it happened is pretty plain. Stephanas was baptized by Paul in another place, and then moved over to Corinth, winding up as a member there. Stephanas was probably actually taking the dictation of the letter, and probably interrupted Paul as he spoke (having already written on the parchment) "Hey Paul, you baptized me!" and Paul immediately put in the correction, honest man that he was.

The mere fact that he issued the correction is his testimony that the words needed correction, they were not inerrantly kept from every minor glitch.

The point is, the minor, inconsequential contradiction is frozen into the words for all eternity now, we can all see it.

It also shows me that whatever we treat His letters as being now, that Paul was writing a pretty down to earth letter to some people he felt he needed to give some guidance to. No high faluting religous hoohaa, just good plain truthful guidance.

Archivist · Oct 1, 2016

AV1611VET said:
Even if it was a parable, I believe the parables were real events Jesus witnessed.

Proof of that please...

Anguspure · Oct 1, 2016

Archivist said:
Proof of that please...

He did say that he believes it. I would have thought that for the purposes of the interweb, the proof that he believes it is in his stating of it.

AV1611VET · Oct 1, 2016

RedPonyDriver said:
You do understand that God is not a "person", right? God is a non-corporeal being. So, your hypothesis and supporting statements fall flat.

The Godhead consists of three Persons in one.

AV1611VET · Oct 1, 2016

Archivist said:
Proof of that please...

Are you seriously asking for proof of a man being robbed on the street, then lying there begging for help while others crossed the street to avoid him?

I mean ... really?

A man sold all that he had and invested that money in gems (a pearl of great price), and you want what?

The sales receipt?

C'mon, Archivist, you're not that picky are you?

KWCrazy · Oct 1, 2016

RedPonyDriver said:
You do not get to define what a Christian is. You do not get to define MY faith for me. I get to do that.

Indeed, which is why I ASK rather than state.
The question was not about your faith. The question was why you label yourself as a Christian on a Christian website and post things which are contrary to what Christ taught. That seems rather curious to me. Whether you are the most devout person in the world or a complete non-believer is between you and God. We don't discuss or question each other's personal beliefs. It's against forum rules. Posts or posting behavior is fair game, which is why we address the post and not the poster.

Christian literally means "one who follows Christ", it doesn't mean "one who holds to a literal meaning of the entire bible

Interestingly, though, Jesus never taught evolution. He taught that the Bible was the inspired word of God. He taught that the Scriptures were suitable for teaching and instruction. He taught us that man lives not by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God. The Bible is a mixture of plainly written historical text, poetry, metaphors, parables and prophesy. His kingdom is not of this world. This world is a temporary home, constructed by God to exist for a time and then be destroyed. It is NOT the focus of our existence.

and freely condemns everyone who might have a different opinion".

Nobody is condemning anyone. I'm questioning your motivation, and why you post contrary to the teaching of Christ.

Oh, and in your quote there's nothing that tells me that Genesis 1 & 2 are an utterly scientific and historical fact.

They are historical, not scientific. There was nothing about the creation that follows natural law. God spoke and it happened.

There are three scriptures that I base my life on...Matthew 25:31-46, Micah 6:8 and James 1:27.

I prefer John 3: 5-8.
None of which answers my question. Why are you proclaiming Christianity and posting the same things as the atheists? There are two sides in a spiritual war for the souls of man. You can't support them both. Either you believe the Bible is the word of God or you do not. Either you follow the teaching of Christ or you do not. Unbelievers call the writings of Moses a myth. Jesus said if you didn't believe Moses you won't believe Him. Personally, I care nothing for the opinions of others. I stand by what the word of God teaches and accept that the miracles of the Lord are greater than the physical laws of the world He created in less than a week.

Archivist · Oct 1, 2016

Anguspure said:
He did say that he believes it. I would have thought that for the purposes of the interweb, the proof that he believes it is in his stating of it.

AV1611VET said:
Are you seriously asking for proof of a man being robbed on the street, then lying there begging for help while others crossed the street to avoid him?

I mean ... really?

A man sold all that he had and invested that money in gems (a pearl of great price), and you want what?

The sales receipt?

C'mon, Archivist, you're not that picky are you?

I was told that I am wrong for believing that the Genesiis is an allegory, partly because it isn't identified as such. Yet you point to something that pretty much everyone agrees is a parable and say that it actually happened. Apparently you can pick and choose what you are going to believe but those who disagree with you are not free to do so.

Archivist · Oct 1, 2016

KWCrazy said:
Indeed, which is why I ASK rather than state.
The question was not about your faith. The question was why you label yourself as a Christian on a Christian website and post things which are contrary to what Christ taught. That seems rather curious to me. Whether you are the most devout person in the world or a complete non-believer is between you and God. We don't discuss or question each other's personal beliefs. It's against forum rules. Posts or posting behavior is fair game, which is why we address the post and not the poster.

Interestingly, though, Jesus never taught evolution. He taught that the Bible was the inspired word of God. He taught that the Scriptures were suitable for teaching and instruction. He taught us that man lives not by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God. The Bible is a mixture of plainly written historical text, poetry, metaphors, parables and prophesy. His kingdom is not of this world. This world is a temporary home, constructed by God to exist for a time and then be destroyed. It is NOT the focus of our existence.

Nobody is condemning anyone. I'm questioning your motivation, and why you post contrary to the teaching of Christ.

They are historical, not scientific. There was nothing about the creation that follows natural law. God spoke and it happened.

I prefer John 3: 5-8.
None of which answers my question. Why are you proclaiming Christianity and posting the same things as the atheists? There are two sides in a spiritual war for the souls of man. You can't support them both. Either you believe the Bible is the word of God or you do not. Either you follow the teaching of Christ or you do not. Unbelievers call the writings of Moses a myth. Jesus said if you didn't believe Moses you won't believe Him. Personally, I care nothing for the opinions of others. I stand by what the word of God teaches and accept that the miracles of the Lord are greater than the physical laws of the world He created in less than a week.

And how is viewing the Genesis creation stories as allegories posting things "which are contrary to what Christ taught"?

2PhiloVoid · Oct 1, 2016

Anguspure said:
I also have some strange views that perhaps get me ostracized and this is one of them: When you refer to a pre-incarnate form of Christ you are thinking in terms of a strictly linear time frame for the Creatpr.
What if the beginning of all creation actually took place at the point in which God entered space time in the form of Jesus of Nazereth? Thereafter he creates the world and appears to a number of people throughout history.
So time itself makes a loop around Christ Himself.
Or perhaps I've been watching to much Dr Who.

Those are some interesting ideas, and I don't have any problem with your philosophical attempts to rationally piece together a 'sci-fi' kind of explanation as to the exact nature of Jesus. And if you want to do that--and I know that I do this, and I'm sure that we all do this kind of thing to various degrees--then I'm not going to knock you for it. We're all free to try to configure our own personal sense of coherence about the mysteries which the Lord has placed in front of us for our consideration. And obviously, there are some things God has revealed to us that on a corporate level are not mysteries, and we should all try to be "on the same page" regarding these things.

In fact, I can very much appreciate your intelligence and your "strange views," or what I would label as "creative views," Anguspure. I get what you're saying about the possibility of that there may be some kind of time-space distortion which Jesus' complete nature displays, but I would contend that it is "relative" to whether or not any one of us can really understand it from God's perspective.

My descriptions are purposely meant to represent a phenomenal, or human perspective. So, when I say pre-incarnate, I'm simply employing a linguistic construct that allows me to say something without claiming at the same time that my statement reflects some kind of "all-in-all" discernment about Jesus' nature. In fact, I don't think anyone really captures the fullness of Jesus' nature through human descriptions; not even our doctrines or creeds fully capture Christ as He is through all space and time, or eternity. But, we Christians have a long history of thinking that our creeds have done just that very thing.

Maybe time does make a loop around Jesus. But, I think we'd have to somehow take Morpheus' blue-pill to find out.

And in the mean-time, on a phenomenological level, I have to say that evolution looks "meaningful" to me, as does the Biblical affirmation and poetic polemic that God made the universe and all that is in it. Because of the Bible, I am able to affirm that ONE God created the universe, and I can deny that the universe came first and gave birth to a series of gods ...

Peace
2PhiloVoid

Daniel Marsh · Oct 1, 2016

Indent said:
If evolution is one of the strongest explanatory theories in any academic field, I mean, the evidence is simply overwhelming, how do Christians reconcile this?

What about the Biblical scholars that generally dismiss Genesis as a "historical" representation... but rather "myth" (however you want to define that)?

I understand I'm courting "controversy" here, but I'd genuinely like to hear this, supposedly, untouchable theological answer.

Even in High school, I have an IQ of 170 the movies did not provide any proof of Evolution or Textbooks. All they proved was variation within Species. Since, I was not there at Creation --- I do not know how it came about.

2PhiloVoid · Oct 1, 2016

RedPonyDriver said:
So either Jesus was quoting Psalm 22 or God really had forsaken him...which is it?

I'd like to **quietly** suggest that it was both a quote and an experential feeling that Jesus had. I think some of the problem here is that we, in our day and age with Modernist, analytical, quantifying thought processes, try to bring in a framework that requires analytical efforts to break ideas down into (somewhat) dichotomous entities, and that this perhaps contrasts with the Jewish framework of O.T. communication in Scripture wherein multiple, overlapping meanings and/or applications, or even hidden ones, could be intended.

See Langdon Gilkey's discussion of this kind of thing in his essay, "Disconnection between Ancient and Modern Worldviews" in the book entitled, History of Biblical Interpretation (2004), (Ed. William Yarchin).

2PhiloVoid · Oct 1, 2016

Anguspure said:
A common Rabbinical way to refer to a Psalm was to simply quote the first sentence then everybody that was listening would remember the rest of it, in much the same way that we can remind people about a popular song by singing only one line of the song.
It would seem that Jesus is here pointing to the fulfillment of one of many prophecies made about Him by quoting this Psalm.

Yes, good point! But I think we have to consider whether or not His "quoting" was the only thing he was doing with it. The text in Matthew doesn't tell us why He said this ... we have to use our Jewishly informed cognitive paths to surmise a bigger picture than that which is evident at a prima-facie, or "plain language," level.

In the case of this particular thread, I'd say that Genesis 1 is similar in structure and intent, the different being that the intended point of address and reference in Genesis 1 lies outside of the Bible itself, in the surrounding polytheistic culture(s).

As for whether He truly beleived that His Father had forsaken Him, this is from Psalm 22:

But you, Lord, do not be far from me.
You are my strength; come quickly to help me....
You who fear the Lord, praise him! All you descendants of Jacob, honor him!
Revere him, all you descendants of Israel! For he has not despised or scorned the suffering of the afflicted one;
he has not hidden his face from him but has listened to his cry for help.....
They will proclaim his righteousness, declaring to a people yet unborn: It is Finished! (Which just to underline teh point is the last thing He said)

Neogaia777 · Oct 1, 2016

RedPonyDriver said:
I don't think anyone's said it's "perfect and flawless"...I think most of us recognize that as knowledge grows, the science changes a bit...with each "hole" that gets filled in the fossil record, the theory becomes more complete.

Let's recall the definition of "scientific theory" shall we?
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

Why do you not allow Godly theories, or theories about God the same leniency...

Most scientific theories are "Guesses" based on observation and experiment, yes, or trial and, yes, "error" also... That's the process of how we learn and come to truth... Just like theories on God are supposed to be based on what we can and can't know, that go a little astray sometimes and make some invalid assumptions sometimes, that make and create "errors" or lies, just like "theories" in science do... There both based on trial and error, Scientific theories are not "completely reliable accounts of real world" either, not completely... That's a/the deception... Neither is all the information of theories many people have about God either...

Most people's ideas about God, are most of the time, mostly right, but with some errors sometimes... just like most peoples ideas about science, are most of the time, mostly right, but with some errors, also... And both are incomplete, yet you expect; it is "wrong" at this point to expect "perfection" or assume either one is "error free" either, cause neither is currently...

Treat and judge them the same please, is all I ask...

God Bless!

KWCrazy · Oct 1, 2016

Archivist said:
And how is viewing the Genesis creation stories as allegories posting things "which are contrary to what Christ taught"?

He posted that Genesis was a myth; not that he had trouble believing that the events happened; not that he didn't believe it as written, but that it was in fact a myth. That's a pretty declarative statement and it is 100% in opposition to what Christ taught. Now if you say "I believe that it's a myth," or "I believe it's not historical," then it's a statement of your belief which is far different than stating that Jesus did not tell the truth when He said the Scriptures were accurate as written.

Kenny'sID · Oct 1, 2016

RedPonyDriver said:
You do not get to define what a Christian is. You do not get to define MY faith for me. I get to do that.

Actually, in the end, God will define our faith. and there is nothing wrong with pointing out that believing in Gods word, and taking God at his word, is part of being a Christian.

Neogaia777 · Oct 1, 2016

RedPonyDriver said:
Ok...so you're comparing a scientific theory that is changing as knowledge is increasing to some sort of gnostic knowledge of the bible/God.

Doesn't make a whole lot of sense from here...

Yes, I am...

To "know thyself" is to "know God" and to "know God" is to "know thyself", A study of God, is dare I say scientific discovery of our own selves, through an exploration of God, we come to know also, ourselves, by exploring ourselves... Any science, like how the brain (or mind) works, for example, any science, like psychology, is a part of this also... And can incorporated with it... Any field that explores how, why we do what we do and is trying to discover and explain us, the way we act and behave and explain that, and how that operates and works, is part of this also, cause that is ultimately "who we are", that is, a study and discovery of our spirit within, that goes beyond just the physical self...

God Bless!

pat34lee · Oct 1, 2016

Paul of Eugene OR said:
Here's a verse for your consideration. Paul wrote to the Corinthians and mentioned, in an aside, that he had not baptized any of them except the two he named:

1 Cor 1:14-15
14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,
15 so that no one would say you were baptized in my name.
NASU

The contradiction comes in the very next verse:

1 Cor 1:16 Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other.
NASU

First, let's see what the KJV says.

14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

Note that he is specific in 14: I baptized NONE OF YOU [Corinthians] EXCEPT Crispus and Gaius

1 Cor 16:15
15 I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints,)

Article Quote:
"Probably no family in the Early Church did more for the Apostle Paul and their local church than this family, yet they were not fully appreciated for the work that they were doing among the saints at Corinth. The lack of appreciation, I would like to suggest, was due to the Corinthians’ prejudice against non-Corinthians within the church. Paul appealed to the believers in the church at Corinth to give them due recognition.

I would like to suggest that Epaenetus was a slave, a freedman, or a son within the household of Stephanas. This family originally lived in Athens where Paul first led Epaenetus to the Lord and then eventually the rest of the family. The entire household was baptized in Athens and later moved to Corinth to be involved in the work of the Lord in that city. This view is consistent with all the Biblical, geographical, and chronological data and there would be no need to emend the text in Romans 16 (Lenski 1963:47-48; Hiebert 1992:203)."
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/pos...ehold-of-Stephanas-Firstfruits-of-Achaia.aspx

pat34lee · Oct 1, 2016

Anguspure said:
Just another thought because this reminds me of an objection that the late Christopher Hitchens raised, that of the problem of thousands or perhaps millions of years of pain and suffering before God decides to save the world.

It occurs to me that from Gods perspective the accumulated time over which people have existed is of little consequence. That time really only matters in terms of a life lived and a life saved.
When Christ died, he died for the sin of all people who would recognise Him. This salvation was extended not only to people who lived after His ressurection but also to those who looked forward to His coming in the past.
Thus the only time the matters to God and to all of us (throughout history) is the time in our lives that we had to reconcile with our creator and live, irrespective of whether our time was a million years ago or tomorrow.
So perhaps the creator only sees (in respect of humanity) only one time and that is a lifetime during which he holds out His hand of reconciliation.
I'm not sure if this will make it any clearer, but to the creator it probably looks more like individual lifetimes stacked side by side rather than some linear sequence of events.

That overlooks another aspect of God. He is a God of the smallest details,
not just the big picture.

Matthew 10:29-31
29 Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.
30 But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.
31 Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows.

Psalms 147:4
He telleth the number of the stars; he calleth them all by their names.

Luke 12:27-28
27 Consider the lilies how they grow: they toil not, they spin not; and yet I say unto you, that Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.
28 If then God so clothe the grass, which is to day in the field, and to morrow is cast into the oven; how much more will he clothe you, O ye of little faith?

Christianity... and the fact of evolution

Kaitiaki Peacemakers NZ

Kaitiaki Peacemakers NZ

Kaitiaki Peacemakers NZ

Senior Veteran

Kaitiaki Peacemakers NZ

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Newbie

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Well-Known Member

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Old Soul

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Old Soul

Messianic

Messianic

Similar threads