Christianity & Evolution Are Compatible...A Reflection

Nathan Poe · #31 28th July 2009, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by AV1611VET

Nymphas = Nymphodorus?

Not likely -- they are separated by about 500 years.

AV1611VET · #32 28th July 2009, 01:34 PM

Originally Posted by Nathan Poe

Not likely -- they are separated by about 500 years.

(I was waiting for that --- I'm surprised it came from you, Nathan.)

So there's only one Nymphodorus who ever lived?

The man in Colossians 4:15 couldn't have been Nymphodorus V or VI or VII?

Or just another 'Nymphodorus'?

Nathan Poe · #33 28th July 2009, 01:43 PM

Originally Posted by AV1611VET

(I was waiting for that --- I'm surprised it came from you, Nathan.)

So there's only one Nymphodorus who ever lived?

Only one that matters. There are plenty of "George Washington"s in the world, but only two that accomplished anything historically relevent.

The man in Colossians 4:15 couldn't have been Nymphodorus V or VI or VII?

Far more likely had Nymphodorus had children.

Or just another 'Nymphodorus'?

So, the Bible is proven wrong over a random nobody?

BananaSlug · #34 28th July 2009, 09:41 PM

Originally Posted by Penumbra

But I don't think the doctrines of these religions are compatible with natural history, at least when rather mainstream Christianity is considered.

40% of the US population accepts evolution (whether or not that pertains to human evolution I have no clue). 70% of the population identify themselves as "Christian". Fundamental literalists are certainly not "Mainstream Christianity".

I'd be interested in hearing the views of your professors, but I doubt they'd sit down and chat with little old me. So far, I haven't seen someone describe how evolution and original sin can fit together well.

Just find a university near you and email some of the biology professors. If you seem genuinely interested they will take the time to reply.

True. I make the mistake of calling it perfect often when it does not say perfect. I've never learned what the original language uses for that part. It seems odd to me that a god that is considered "perfect" would make a non-perfect system right from the start, though...

I find it hard to believe a "perfect" God would create a system that he knew would become imperfect from the beginning.

When I discuss this with Christians, most say that things did not die before the fall, because death is due to sin. Most tell me that God is benevolent, a "god of the living", and that suffering and death are due to sin.

Remember that the scent of the burnt offering (a charcoaled animal carcass) is a "pleasing aroma to the Lord". And if God is a "God of the living" he enjoyed slaughtering entire cities for the simple fact of already living in the area he was going to give to the Israelites.

Penumbra · #35 28th July 2009, 09:51 PM

Originally Posted by BananaSlug

40% of the US population accepts evolution (whether or not that pertains to human evolution I have no clue). 70% of the population identify themselves as "Christian". Fundamental literalists are certainly not "Mainstream Christianity".

I said:

Originally Posted by Penumbra

I'm not saying that there do not exist theistic evolutionist Christians. (In fact, many do.)

My argument is not that Christians can't fundamentally accept evolution. My argument instead is that their doctrine is incompatible with evolution. That's a major difference.

I mean, what percentage of American Catholics do you think use condoms?

What percentage of American Christians do you think have read the entire Old Testament?

Just find a university near you and email some of the biology professors. If you seem genuinely interested they will take the time to reply.

I guess. I go to a university so I could just do it there.

I find it hard to believe a "perfect" God would create a system that he knew would become imperfect from the beginning.

I agree.

Remember that the scent of the burnt offering (a charcoaled animal carcass) is a "pleasing aroma to the Lord". And if God is a "God of the living" he enjoyed slaughtering entire cities for the simple fact of already living in the area he was going to give to the Israelites.

I agree, it's very inconsistent. This echoes back to my first point about how Christianity and Evolution are incompatible. Christians say God is loving and benevolent and a god of the living and all that, while events such as the one you point out exist in their Bible. What people say and what people believe and what people understand are three different things.

If a good percentage chunk of Christians accept evolution, that doesn't mean Christian doctrine works well with evolution, just as how they can say things and their Bible can say different things.

-Lyn

marktheblake · #36 29th July 2009, 06:42 AM

Originally Posted by BananaSlug

. And if God is a "God of the living" he enjoyed slaughtering entire cities for the simple fact ofalready living in the area he was going to give to the Israelites.

FAIL.

enjoyed - No.
Simple fact - not even close.

If you are going to use this as an argument, you could have at least tried to obtain some facts first instead of uninformed rhetoric.

Hespera · #37 29th July 2009, 10:04 AM

Originally Posted by marktheblake

FAIL.

enjoyed - No.
Simple fact - not even close.

If you are going to use this as an argument, you could have at least tried to obtain some facts first instead of uninformed rhetoric.

I dont know that there is anything in the bible that suggests that god "enjoyed" the slaughter of innocents. There are tho a lot of stories of god being responsible for the mass killing of innocents. Is that "uninformed rhetoric" or just a statement of fact, as to what the stories tell?