Christianity... and the fact of evolution

[smithed64]

So, which version of interpretation regarding Genesis 1 should we go with? Because, there are several that Creationists trot out---andthey can't all be right or considered the "right" one.

If you'd like to understand my view, ....really understand it...then you can read the following article in its entirety. Your comments will be welcomed for discussion if you so choose to read it completely, Brother Smithed64.

http://biologos.org/blogs/archive/the-cosmogonic-form-of-genesis-1

Read the link..Cosmongy
From the greek kosmogonia...meaning Creation of the World.

A whole lot of rhetoric on how to look at Genesis 1 through scientific glasses.
Okay, I get that.
But it all comes down to one thing. God is the creator and I trust His Word.

The bible wasn't written to be a science book. And to break things down into scientific terminology. It was written by 40 different people with their own outlooks, personalities and attributes. Inspired by God, is the author of the bible (the original text).

The Cosmological argument for the existence of God, logically concludes that God was the creator, yes.

Cosmological Argument

1. Things exist.
2. It is possible for those things to not exist.
3. Whatever has the possibility of non-existence, yet exists, has been caused to exist.
   1. Something cannot bring itself into existence since it must exist to bring itself into existence, which is illogical.
4. There cannot be an infinite number of causes to bring something into existence.
   1. An infinite regression of causes ultimately has no initial cause, which means there is no cause of existence.
   2. Since the universe exists, it must have a cause.
5. Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all things.
6. The uncaused cause must be God.

1. 
   Which the article brings up.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

There's only one Bible. Genesis 1 is very simple and doesn't need interpreting. It's pretty straight forward.
You can use KJV, NKJV, NIV, ESV or what ever bible you choose. They all pretty much say the same thing.

I've been to biologos.org and read there stuff and still disagree with them.
But will reread what you posted in all fairness.

Ok. That sounds fair. (And I don't assume that you must agree with it; I would just for you to understand where I'm coming from.) Thanks!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes, as so many you are unwittingly at war with Christianity...you have taken a bite of that poisonous apple which says I know better.

And I suppose you know all the mysteries of God's Creation and of His Kingdom.... Ay?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Read the link..Cosmongy
From the greek kosmogonia...meaning Creation of the World.

A whole lot of rhetoric on how to look at Genesis 1 through scientific glasses.
Okay, I get that.
But it all comes down to one thing. God is the creator and I trust His Word.

The bible wasn't written to be a science book. And to break things down into scientific terminology. It was written by 40 different people with their own outlooks, personalities and attributes. Inspired by God, is the author of the bible (the original text).

The Cosmological argument for the existence of God, logically concludes that God was the creator, yes.

Cosmological Argument

1. Things exist.
2. It is possible for those things to not exist.
3. Whatever has the possibility of non-existence, yet exists, has been caused to exist.
   1. Something cannot bring itself into existence since it must exist to bring itself into existence, which is illogical.
4. There cannot be an infinite number of causes to bring something into existence.
   1. An infinite regression of causes ultimately has no initial cause, which means there is no cause of existence.
   2. Since the universe exists, it must have a cause.
5. Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all things.
6. The uncaused cause must be God.

1. 
   Which the article brings up.

Well, the Cosmological Argument doesn't have much to say in deciding whether Evolution is true, or as to whether or not it is compatible with Genesis 1. All it does is philosophically lay out some premises to affirm that God (logically) exists.

I'm not under any illusions that He (the Trinity) doesn't exist, so God's existence is a non-issue for me. The central issue here, for me, is to whether or not I should be treated by fellow Christians as a heretic for believing that the ToE has some veracity to it.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

And I suppose you know all the mysteries of God's Creation and of His Kingdom.... Ay?

Is that what you are aspiring to through your supposedly scientific investigations which us silly, simpleton Christians neglect or dismiss in favor of taking God at His Word...the words of the Master, the Almighty?

I'm married to a nuclear engineer from CalTech and he too is a creationist. I've heard most of the theories which run contrary and one should cut them off short with Genesis. To be a Christian is to trust Jesus and to trust Jesus is to trust His Word. He gave the Kingdom to the children and has hidden it from the wise. My advice...don't try to be sooo wise by worldly standards.
Jesus walked on the water...defied gravity that is to say, Jesus had the boat arrive immediately at the other side the lake...defied time. Jesus defies the wisdom of men...they are of limited intelligence. We accept Genesis only on the grounds of faith. And like it or not the theory of evolution is a theory for the godless and for those with an unhealthy curiosity and it appeals to the flesh which does not want to be accountable to God. If you ascribe to the theory you aid in such error. You try to mix the two and you create corrupted Christianity with seeds to grow deep and spread wide and more is called into question...like Scripture itself...as you yourself can attest to.

 

[Kenny'sID]

The Genesis 1 account is, in my view, saying basically what most of us think it is saying, IF we take it as a poetic, Hebrew polemic that affirms a specific monotheism while countering the paganism of the surrounding cultures of the time in which it was written. It's a sacred cosmogeny, not a scientific treatise.

So, no, I don't think it is talking about, or can be construed to support, the idea of evolution. But, it's also not dealing in any kind of ancient science, yet Creationists often try to make it form-fit that role in an anachronistic fashion.

2PhiloVoid

So. when you say "creationists" it appear you are saying that's not you? correct? (I've read very little of the thread) And since you agree the bible doesn't support evolution, are you saying you don't take the bible as the truth? And if that is so, and getting back to my original point, do you think God is ok with you not believing his word?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Is that what you are aspiring to through your supposedly scientific investigations which us silly, simpleton Christians neglect or dismiss in favor of taking God at His Word...the words of the Master, the Almighty?

I'm married to a nuclear engineer from CalTech and he too is a creationist. I've heard most of the theories which run contrary and one should cut them off short with Genesis. To be a Christian is to trust Jesus and to trust Jesus is to trust His Word. He gave the Kingdom to the children and has hidden it from the wise. My advice...don't try to be sooo wise by worldly standards.
Jesus walked on the water...defied gravity that is to say, Jesus had the boat arrive immediately at the other side the lake...defied time. Jesus defies the wisdom of men...they are of limited intelligence. We accept Genesis only on the grounds of faith. And like it or not the theory of evolution is a theory for the godless and for those with an unhealthy curiosity and it appeals to the flesh which does not want to be accountable to God. If you ascribe to the theory you aid in such error. You try to mix the two and you create corrupted Christianity with seeds to grow deep and spread wide and more is called into question...like Scripture itself...as you yourself can attest to.

No kidding, I didn't understand half of what he was saying in his last reply to me...too smart for me, I guess. So I agree, sometime it just ain't wise to be so wise. we may see it as impressive to some but when we start questioning the simple truths of the Bible, at the very least, maybe we should keep our "wisdom" to ourselves, but better yet, simply believe God.

God is very clear on creation, we can believe it, or explain it away because we would rather go with the way of the world, something that, once again, sounds very dangerous to me.

 

[JacksBratt]

And the majority of people who call themselves Christians will tell you that the body and blood of Holy Communion is body and blood, not just a metaphor. Many Christians will likewise agree with me that the Genesis creation account is an allegory not an historical account.

You are, of course, entitled to your interpretation of scripture.

Just a quick question. What Christians would you be speaking of. The churches that I have attended, since childhood, are all Christian ( associated Gospel, Baptist, Pentecostal, Christian Reform and Salvation Army ) None believe in the literal body of Christ or literal Blood. They all recognize it as an emblem or representation for "remembering".

From what I understand, this would be the RC church. I don't know what others.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

No one will be correcting me because what I said is correct. Humans and apes share a common ancestor. Humans are not descended from modern apes.

We aren't descended from modern apes, but one could classify our common ancestor as an early ape, and one could . . . many do . . . classify us as apes as well.

"ape" is a classification. There is nothing for an animal to do to be an ape except . . . . resemble an ape.

Its just a word. No big deal.

 

[JacksBratt]

Perhaps some of it is an indication that people in Western society especially were, and have been, becoming 'ripe' for untruth.

Of course society is ripe for "untruth". It's been 2000 years since Christ walked this earth. That is a long time from the presence of the earthly bodily Christ and His message of truth, to the time of today.

Plus, the whole of academia is rife with anti christian teachings and goes out of it's way to present so called "facts" that complicate and confuse the truth of the scriptures. A student of today is purposely immersed in a curriculum of ungodly teaching.

Society is ripe for untruth and overwhelmed by it.

What you need to take into account is that most of the dates in the textbooks are of the late 90's, just about the time that Intelligent Design began to become a contender and forced secularists to "double-check" their textbook publishing.

I'll bet if you look at the most recent editions, since textbook publishers put out new editions about every 2 years, you'll probably not find Haeckel's "junk science" still there. You might not even find the "peppered moth" presented without some major overhaul in its articulation. These are just some things to think about.

Agreed. I have no way of knowing what is present and what is not. It's just sad that it was presented as far as into the 21st century when it was know to be a hoax in the 19th century.

But, yes, I understand that somewhere in the shadows lurks...the dark shadow of anti-christian rhetoric which you, me, and a host of other Christians personally deplore.

Yep.

 

[Archivist]

Just a quick question. What Christians would you be speaking of. The churches that I have attended, since childhood, are all Christian ( associated Gospel, Baptist, Pentecostal, Christian Reform and Salvation Army ) None believe in the literal body of Christ or literal Blood. They all recognize it as an emblem or representation for "remembering".

From what I understand, this would be the RC church. I don't know what others.

The Lutheran Church, which I attend believes in sacrimental union, meaning that Christ is bodily present at the Lord's supper. My understanding is that the Anglican Church believes in consubstantiation, meaning that those who receive the bread and wine of holy communion in faith also receive the body and blood of Christ. I also understand that the eucharist in the Orthodox Church is understood to be the genuine body and blood of Christ.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

You skipped the other evidence I presented and pounced on this love of the young but, where did it come from?

Making declarations is not presenting evidence.

Had to be innate according to your discourse b/c somehow we and/or they (the animals that care for their young...though there are some species that do not care for their young...explain that too) knew that caring for the young would make them survive.

You want to know why some animals are different from others in the way they provide for the next generation? You might alternatively ask why should they all be the same? Once we have a separate species, each species is on its own evolutionary track and nothing makes them stay identical!

What is the origin of this trait? and how does that evolve?

Mutations, natural selection, accumulation of beneficial changes over time.

You fail to explain...just as Darwin never explained origins nor does his theory. You are using his failed methods too...make an observation, hypothesize and sum up. Now, this is just reckless and bold and brazen.

Thank you for likening me to Darwin, that is a high complement, he was a brilliant and influential man.

Why does it matter if Darwin - or me - didn't explain the origin of life? As I see it, there are two possibilities.

a - you think that maybe there isn't any life after all, so evolution can't work because there is no life.
b - you think that by changing the subject to origin of life instead of evolution of life you assert evolution theory is in error.

I lean toward the second idea. Its a common trick of debate. That you have to stoop to debate tricks instead of actual logic and actual evidence does not lend any real credence to your cause.

 

[smithed64]

Ok. That sounds fair. (And I don't assume that you must agree with it; I would just for you to understand where I'm coming from.) Thanks!

I understand.
Just hope you understand where I'm coming from also.
Thanks

 

[smithed64]

Well, the Cosmological Argument doesn't have much to say in deciding whether Evolution is true, or as to whether or not it is compatible with Genesis 1. All it does is philosophically lay out some premises to affirm that God (logically) exists.

I'm not under any illusions that He (the Trinity) doesn't exist, so God's existence is a non-issue for me. The central issue here, for me, is to whether or not I should be treated by fellow Christians as a heretic for believing that the ToE has some veracity to it.

Not trying to treat you as a heretic.

Just reminding you that evolution is a heretical subject and should be taught as such.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

So you've made up your own story then?

In what universe does saying one does not believe a story . . . . such as the lady hope story . . . . equate to making up a story?

 

[Archivist]

We aren't descended from modern apes, but one could classify our common ancestor as an early ape, and one could . . . many do . . . classify us as apes as well.

"ape" is a classification. There is nothing for an animal to do to be an ape except . . . . resemble an ape.

Its just a word. No big deal.

I'm curious--who are the many who you say classify humans as apes? I usually hear this only from from those who oppose evolution. None of the writing I see on evolution prepared by rthe scientific community classify humans as apes. The PBS Library entry for evolution (sorry, not the best source but easily copied) specifically states "Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees."

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Yes, we are saying that you are at war with Christianity.
Also, saying "trotting them out" is derogatory as though we deserve less respect in our views.

Isn't it also derogatory to assert someone is "at war with Christianity"? It is not a valid argument for your side to assert that anyone who disagrees with you is being derogatory. They could, possibly, still be . . . right.

 

[Archivist]

Not trying to treat you as a heretic.

Just reminding you that evolution is a heretical subject and should be taught as such.

A heretical subject according to who?

 

[smithed64]

A heretical subject according to who?

To many churches.
To many Born Again men, women and children.

The definition of heresy covers it well.

1. opinion or doctrine at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine, especially of a church or religious system.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I'm curious--who are the many who you say classify humans as apes? I usually hear this only from from those who oppose evolution. None of the writing I see on evolution prepared by rthe scientific community classify humans as apes. The PBS Library entry for evolution (sorry, not the best source but easily copied) specifically states "Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees."

Here's one site saying we are apes

http://australianmuseum.net.au/humans-are-apes-great-apes

Another:

http://tvindy.typepad.com/tvindy/2003/08/are_humans_apes.html

It is to be noted that "ape" is not strictly a scientific classification and has several alternate meanings. To exclude humans from the ape classification is an arbitrary choice, akin to saying humans aren't animals. Well, sometimes we really are animals, other times the animals aren't human. The words have different meanings in different contexts.