Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Most of religion is window dressing. Dogma, ritual, and prayer are just so much stinking dung. What is needful is simple. If you aren't doing what is needful, you're just hinding in a dung-hill.
Jesus prayed alot. I'm not sure if you know what you're saying.
Then apparently the majority of christians are not "true christians" because the majority of christians accept evolution.
I did not say that you should go and pick and choose which verses to take literally and which verses not to. If you believe god created the universe, he does that for you.
If god created the universe and nature, then nature is gods creation.
Science is the study of nature.
Thus, science is the study of gods creation.
If gods creation disagrees with a human interpretation of the bible, which is incorrect? Gods creation or human interpretation of the bible?
I would assume god does not lie to us, thus if gods creation disagrees with our falible interpretation of the bible, I would guess that it would be our interpretation that needs changing.
A quote I stole from Lucaspas Sig,
"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437;
Many agree with this quote.
Tell me, do you believe the earth is flat? Do you believe the sun and planets revolve around the earth?
At one time, both of these things were believed because of a literal interpretation of the bible (and still are believed by small groups). Yet many seem to accepts what gods creation tells them, that those verses should not be taken literally.
Just the same, I am not saying you should arbitrarily pick and choose what you take literally, I am saying that you should look at all the evidence in gods creation and let that evidence tell you what you should not take literally.
Just as the evidence suggests certain geocentric verses of the bible not be taken literally, the evidence also suggests that creationist and young earth verses in the bible should not be taken literally. This of course does not diminish any of the other verses, nore jesus, or original sin, etc., and has allowed many christians to delve deeper into the verses that they used to take literally and get further inspiration from.
Originally Posted by jay_swift
I'm very impressed with your post in response to mine, Arikay! Very deep indeed.
If I don't believe the literal interpretation, then I don't think I would be a real Christian. If I got to pick and chose which parts of the Bible were true and which were for the sake of the overall story, then what's stopping me from saying The Commandments were wrong? (There might be some theory that contradicts a passage) Plus if I buckle under every hard question about the Bible, do I really believe what it says?
I would assume god does not lie to us, thus if gods creation disagrees with our falible interpretation of the bible, I would guess that it would be our interpretation that needs changing.
A literal reading is not an interpretation. I mean a verse like Matthew 4:8 "Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;" does not say that the world is flat because you can't see a whole sphere from one point... that's an interpretation. It says the devil showed Him the kingdoms. It doesn't say that Jesus was on mount everest because the further you get from something big the more you can see of it... that's an interpretation. It only says the devil showed Him the kingdoms.
To be literal is not to take something out of context or to interpret. To get meaning out of a passage in the Bible is not the same as interpreting it.
The problem is, you have now either made god a liar, or the devil stronger than god.
Gods creation says creationism is false. Creationists say a literal reading of the bible says creationism is true. If the literal reading of the bible must be true, then gods creation must be false, and god created an elaborate lie to try and trick us.
Does your god lie?
Originally Posted by jay_swift
A literal reading is not an interpretation. I mean a verse like Matthew 4:8 "Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;" does not say that the world is flat because you can't see a whole sphere from one point... that's an interpretation. It says the devil showed Him the kingdoms. It doesn't say that Jesus was on mount everest because the further you get from something big the more you can see of it... that's an interpretation. It only says the devil showed Him the kingdoms.
To be literal is not to take something out of context or to interpret. To get meaning out of a passage in the Bible is not the same as interpreting it.
As is my understanding, if Darwinism is true then there is no Christian God.
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt! Wrong, but thank you for playing.
Common descent says everything started from one single organism. The Bible, however, says that God created all living creatures...
So the Who and How questions are both answered. The problem here is what exactly?
then Adam named them.
Adam means man. You will be aware that man did indeed name the animals. I don't recall evolutionary theory having a different explanation of the origin of the word "cat". I think we all agree that they're called cats because men gave that name to furry things with whiskers that meowed.
That theory is against God.
Doesn't seem to be from what you've said.
Science isn't athiestic, but many of the theories assume it is.
Nope. I know what assumptions evolution is based on:
Variation in species
Overproduction of offspring
Heredity
Didn't spot "non-existence of God" in that list.
__________________ I take a stand on justice, I take a stand on race Gonna take me a TV evangelist and punch him in the face I sing about the hope that’s in me and ask why the poor aren’t fed But if I don’t tow the party line, it’s be better if I were dead
I’m a liberal backslider I’ve been sliding ‘bout ten years
People ask me how I’m doin’ and I confirm all their fears I’m swearing like a trooper, and I’m drinking like a bum
I'm a liberal backslider, and it sure is a lot of fun
A literal reading is not an interpretation. I mean a verse like Matthew 4:8 "Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;" does not say that the world is flat because you can't see a whole sphere from one point... that's an interpretation. It says the devil showed Him the kingdoms. It doesn't say that Jesus was on mount everest because the further you get from something big the more you can see of it... that's an interpretation. It only says the devil showed Him the kingdoms.
No. That the devil took Jesus up to a mountain involves interpretation. It shows you are intepreting the story as an event rather than a figurative story, for example. And others will disagree with that interpretation.
To be literal is not to take something out of context
It is if you take, for example, the words of Job's comforters literally.
or to interpret.
But it is. You have already interpreted the text as literal. It may not be. Just as you interpret the story of the Prodigal Son as not literal, so you interpret another passage as being literal. You have some basis for doing so; you interpret.
To get meaning out of a passage in the Bible is not the same as interpreting it.
No, getting meaning out of something is exactly the same as interpreting it. That's why we call people who turn French speech into English speech "Interpreters", because they get meaning from the French.
__________________ I take a stand on justice, I take a stand on race Gonna take me a TV evangelist and punch him in the face I sing about the hope that’s in me and ask why the poor aren’t fed But if I don’t tow the party line, it’s be better if I were dead
I’m a liberal backslider I’ve been sliding ‘bout ten years
People ask me how I’m doin’ and I confirm all their fears I’m swearing like a trooper, and I’m drinking like a bum
I'm a liberal backslider, and it sure is a lot of fun
Variation in species
Overproduction of offspring
Heredity
Darwinism contains the theories of 1. Evolution 2. Common Descent 3. Multiplication of species 4. Gradualism 5. Natural Selection.
The only one of those 4 that doesn't conflict with the Bible is natural selection, which says that species do change through adaptation and survival of the fittest. All the others assume that life came from a single celled organism.
Originally Posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider
Adam means man.
That is an interpretation, which I have already discussed.
And as I said, if Darwinism exists, the Bible is false and everything about the Christian God is doubtful. You only need to prove the Bible to be wrong once in order to question the entire thing.
Darwinism contains the theories of 1. Evolution 2. Common Descent 3. Multiplication of species 4. Gradualism 5. Natural Selection.
I'm not sure these are really distinct theories like that. For example, Natural Selection is a mechanism of evolution.
The only one of those 4 that doesn't conflict with the Bible is natural selection, which says that species do change through adaptation and survival of the fittest. All the others assume that life came from a single celled organism.
I see. The problem you are having here is that like many others you are conflating "a literal interpretation of the Bible" with "the Bible". They are not the same thing. A literal interpretation of Genesis 1 is not appropriate, because apart from anything else it contradicts the account in Genesis 2.
That is an interpretation, which I have already discussed.
Yes. Just like yours is.
And as I said, if Darwinism exists, the Bible is false and everything about the Christian God is doubtful.
Same mistaken conflation again.
You only need to prove the Bible to be wrong once in order to question the entire thing.
I'd dispute that, but it's a theological question and a different issue. But no-one is proving the Bible to be wrong - all that's disproved by the triumph of evolutionary theory is a particular, extreme fundamentalist, interpretation of it, which even most evangelicals consider to be nonsense.
__________________ I take a stand on justice, I take a stand on race Gonna take me a TV evangelist and punch him in the face I sing about the hope that’s in me and ask why the poor aren’t fed But if I don’t tow the party line, it’s be better if I were dead
I’m a liberal backslider I’ve been sliding ‘bout ten years
People ask me how I’m doin’ and I confirm all their fears I’m swearing like a trooper, and I’m drinking like a bum
I'm a liberal backslider, and it sure is a lot of fun
I'm not sure these are really distinct theories like that. For example, Natural Selection is a mechanism of evolution.
Ernst Mayr, in One Long Argument (A Harvard Press book) states that Darwinism contains those beliefs. You should read up if you're going to argue about this.
And as I said, if Darwinism exists, the Bible is false and everything about the Christian God is doubtful. You only need to prove the Bible to be wrong once in order to question the entire thing.
That's why creationism becomes the greatest threat to Christianity.
If you tie Christianity to being only a literal interpretation of your religious text, then you put it up for easy falsification. If Christianity can exist ONLY if a literal interpretation of that text is true, then it becomes quite simple to disprove Christianity. In effect, by that equation of literal Bible to true Christianity, then Christianity has been proven false for nearly two centuries now.
However, considering more allegorical and metaphorical interpretations of stories like the creation story and the global flood which are obviously inconstitent with reality if taken literally, they gain a much more poetic and profound meaning, in my opinion (although I don't think there is any reason to believe Christianity is true in the first place). It also is the only way you can save Christiantiy from falsification because taking the text literally is demonstrably not in line with reality.
Linear Mode
