Christianity... and the fact of evolution

[AV1611VET]

Actually, you take a very easy route . . . you just say "no" to whatever evidence comes along. Hardly requires any actual effort.

That's right.

I'm of the persuasion that a little child should be able to put a scientist in his place.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It’s a bit upsetting when Christians conduct a so-called “plain reading”, as it just doesn’t make a lot of sense. It hardly matters if a person is reading the Bible, Charlotte’s Web, or the daily news—to read is to engage in a process of interpretation, abstraction, representation.

I share your "pain," Indent. And you're right. But let's also not forget that in the U.S., where a majority of Fundamentalists reside, there is a majority mass of the population that has either dropped out of high school (~20%), or hasn't gone beyond high school (another 30 - 40 %). While there is no shame in not having gone to college, the trend for a number of Christians to keep things simple is reflective of the fact that they are being told by church leaders to not worry about, learn, or investigate the findings of higher education; this trend is especially reinforced when the secular universities are painted as being utterly under the influence of Satan. So, it isn't much to wonder why "some" Fundamentalist Christians either aren't familiar with more coherent ways of handling and interpreting the Bible, or refuse to engage in any investigation about the possible meanings of Scripture, other than what seems to be implied in plain language.

So, just like our recognition about those who don't know God, we can't really lay all of the guilt for naivety in the Church at the doorstep of each and every Fundamentalist. Some of them are just doing what they've been told by those they trust and/or respect in the church or in their families. Of course, that can make living in today's Christian climate somewhat of a hair-pulling experience for those of us who genuinely see that there could be "more to the story" than what is typically told.

It’s an inescapable reality, as we are dealing with cognitive processes. We are dealing with people, inspired or not.

You can have a plainly written news article, and all kinds of people will have all kinds of responses to it. You can revisit Charlotte’s Web over and over again and find what appears to be a new meaning/message behind it, whether the author intended it or not. The Bible has been debated inside and outside the Church for thousands of years.

To conduct a so-called “plain reading”, is to effectively communicate “I don’t care about the historical context.”

You make no effort to understand the worldview of the ancient Israelites, the world that these people are inescapably anchored in, but instead substitute a cultural understanding of the Genesis narratives. You want the Bible to be something it just isn’t prepared to deliver on.

What are we to make of Job, Ecclesiastes, the Psalms? What do these books tell us about what a spiritual life looks like? That Christ takes on humanity and meets us right in drama. I think Christians have a curious idea of what "faith" means.

It’s clear to me that the Christian God comes meet us at our cultural and intellectual limitations.

Great stuff, Indent!! Very well said.

2PhiloVoid

 

[KWCrazy]

Where does Jesus mention Adam (or Eve) by name?
I'm seeing some little reference given by Jesus that in the beginning "He made them male and female," but .... no direct mention of names.

He didn't use Adam's name, In Mark 10 He quoted Genesis 2 by saying, " 6 But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ 7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh.’ This is also recorded in Matthew 4. In Matthew 23:35 He mentions Abel by name. Clearly these are real people.

I also find it slightly odd that Josephus seemed to think that Moses was being a bit philosophical when describing the creation and fall of Adam and Eve.

Jesus, however, was not.
Mark 13:19 also talks about the beginning when God created the world.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

He didn't use Adam's name, In Mark 10 He quoted Genesis 2 by saying, " 6 But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ 7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh.’ This is also recorded in Matthew 4. In Matthew 23:35 He mentions Abel by name. Clearly these are real people.

Jesus, however, was not.
Mark 13:19 also talks about the beginning when God created the world.

The trick here, KWC, is to realize that there wasn't much in the way of any alternative world-view for Jesus to consider, other than the Roman or Asian ones. Even Jesus didn't know everything about the future, and I'm surmising that the [pre-historic] past was generally unknown to Him too ... that is, while He was in human form for 30 some years. What's the chance, I wonder, that Jesus ever read Lucretius? Probably pretty low. So the only alternative to the Israelite worldview would have been mostly one from among several from the surrounding polytheistic cultures. Besides, Jesus was a carpenter and Old Testament scholar, not an archaeologist or paleontologist, and I don't perceive that He was prone to swim in Greek philosophy (other than in His adaptation of Hades).

So, sure. Jesus and His Apostles held to a Biblically tethered paradigm regarding the nature of the world. At the same time, I'm pretty sure that Jesus and Paul considered the implications of Deuteronomy 29:29 and Isaiah 48:6-8.

2PhiloVoid

 

[Uncle Tommy]

There's a typo in your signature.

Possibly but I don't see a typo in my signature. Would you be kind enough to point it out?

 

[KWCrazy]

Why is allegorical truth less truth than literal truth?

Allegories didn't actually happen.

 

[KWCrazy]

The trick here, KWC, is to realize that there wasn't much in the way of any alternative world-view for Jesus to consider, other than the Roman or Asian ones. Even Jesus didn't know everything about the future, and I'm surmising that the [pre-historic] past was generally unknown to Him too ... that is, while He was in human form for 30 some years.

Jesus taught the religious leaders when He was 12 years old. Though a child of man, He was perfect and free of sin with a hunger to learn all that the Scriptures taught. When He was baptized the spirit of the Lord came to Him and He was truly the son of God. He had knowledge that no other living person possessed. He spoke in parables which were easily understood. Though most of the people He encountered spoke commonly understood languages, There is no doubt that if He had encountered someone speaking Navaho that He would have been able to converse freely in that tongue. His access to unlimited intelligence was only a prayer away. Had he so requested it, legions of angels would have descended to protect Him. Instead He set a good example by submitting to the will of the Father.

He didn't believe the Scriptures were true out of ignorance. He KNEW they were true through divine knowledge.

 

[KWCrazy]

Possibly but I don't see a typo in my signature. Would you be kind enough to point it out?

You won't run out of you show more kindness today than you did yesterday.
You won't run out IF you show more kindness today than you did yesterday.

 

[Indent]

Allegories didn't actually happen.

If the myth of Narkissos (Narcissus) tells a truth through a narrative, where it points to a real pattern of human hehaviour, tells us of a serious pitfall, but it didn't actually happen as describe so it's not truth?

There are a lot of truths in the world that aren't journalistic/scientific accounts.

You might have a hierarchy for "truth", but that doesn't mean that's how God operates.

 

[Uncle Tommy]

You won't run out of you show more kindness today than you did yesterday.
You won't run out IF you show more kindness today than you did yesterday.

Thank you!

 

[smithed64]

When I started to read through this thread I was truly hoping that this might shape up into a meaningful discussion. It had promise. Sadly, I was wrong and all of the promise was shattered. Asking hard questions is an important part of growth. Ignoring that which doesn't fit into one's worldview doesn't make it cease to exist. One cannot dismiss the scientific method simply because it may cause one to be uncomfortable. If one is a Christian, one also cannot avoid the Scriptures. The human race has a desire to learn and to understand all that is possible to learn and to understand. That desire has served humanity well and indeed has preserved humanity at times. If God chose to create through evolution it would not make him any less omnipotent, omniscient or omnipresent. It would not make man any less fallen, any less in need of a savior or any less a creation. Jesus would still be both fully divine and fully man, His sacrifice would still be necessary for creation to be reunited with the Father and for us to be redeemed. Accepting that Genesis may be a collection of the oral tradition passed down through many generations doesn't deny the truthfulness, nor the inspiration of the Scriptures. It does however challenge you to believe in a God that teaches to the ability of the student to understand. Being that He created us I'm pretty confident that He would know where our limits were and where they are now. I believe in Theistic Evolution, however I recognize that some do not. That doesn't make me any more or less a believer and the same is true for the individual who believes in a literal 6 day creation. One last thought: This is not an original thought but I can't find it attributed to anyone. "It's not the Bible that I believe might be in error, it's your understanding of the Bible that I question."

Question for you.

Okay, Like this.

I nor anyone else can say if someone is saved or not...That is God's.
So agree there.
If you believe in God, that's awesome..but in what way do you believe in God? As the demons do or in Faith/believing, placing your trust in Christ completely.
If so why even go the evolution way? If you believe and know God created Man. Then why would there be a need for evolution in it's macro form that is?
I'm a seasoned Born Again man. Been living for Christ for some time now and Only by His Grace have I done this.
But if mixing of God and evolution, confounds me a bit. I can't imagine what it does to newborn Children of God. Or those who are Lost seeking out God.
Now God can renew their minds and clear it up for them.
My biggest concern about this theistic evolution is this.
Living and trusting Christ is about God.
Evolution is about Man. And how man don't need a God to explain why he is here. Or how he got here.
Evolution is a theory that tries really hard to be a science, which it isn't because you can't observe it, nor even experiment with it.
The Key to Salvation and living for God is........it's not about man...it's about God.
We are to deny ourselves and submit to God everything we have.

God...He made us in His image.
Evolution...everything came from one thing
God...Men will die and then stand before Christ.
Evolution....Men grow old, die and who knows what.
God exist....everyone knows this but many just deny it.
Evolution....you hear a lot of ..not sure, could be this way, it might happen, we think, a lot of presupposition and guessing. again it's a theory.
God....Death came first through Adam
Evolution.....thousands of years of death before Christ.
God...in him are all things made and we by Him
Evolution.....God is only important in those things they cannot explain..."God of the gaps"
God...He is the absolute Truth and His Word is regarded the same since inspired by God
Evolution.....undermines the word of God and events that happened and written are look at as myths and not truth.
God...Man is lost in sin. God sent His son to be that sacrifice to redeem us from our sins. Sin is the transgression of God's Law.
Evolution....No sin, Just man doing His thing. He has nothing to be saved from.
God...Christ is incarnation of God.
Evolution.......Man came from x...no incarnation of God.
God....sin entered the world, death is by sin, death passé to all men all have sinned
Evolution.....no sin...Adam a myth...undermines Christ.

Yeah, way too much against God is this evolution mess....No way I could even think of believing in it
And it most definitely don't mix with God's plan for man's salvation...at all.
So, why teach it in church?


.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Jesus taught the religious leaders when He was 12 years old. Though a child of man, He was perfect and free of sin with a hunger to learn all that the Scriptures taught. When He was baptized the spirit of the Lord came to Him and He was truly the son of God. He had knowledge that no other living person possessed. He spoke in parables which were easily understood. Though most of the people He encountered spoke commonly understood languages, There is no doubt that if He had encountered someone speaking Navaho that He would have been able to converse freely in that tongue. His access to unlimited intelligence was only a prayer away. Had he so requested it, legions of angels would have descended to protect Him. Instead He set a good example by submitting to the will of the Father.

He didn't believe the Scriptures were true out of ignorance. He KNEW they were true through divine knowledge.

I don't think you're well-intended assumptions bear more than a modicum of veracity, but since this forum is primarily about evolution, I'm not going to get into lengthy discussion about the extent of Jesus' empowerment by the Holy Spirit.

I'll just say that I do think Jesus' abilities and knowledge, even though made much greater than would be possible for any other human being, still exhibited constraints that came from Jesus' having been fully human. If Jesus was some kind of empowered Superman, why would He have needed any protection at all by legions of angels? Something doesn't click with that. No, Jesus had greater but still limited knowledge, and He was vulnerable and subject even to death. But...isn't that why He emptied Himself and came down in the first place?

So, I'm going to go with the conclusion that Jesus didn't know much at all about Prehistory while in His human form during the first Advent. When He rose again from the dead and took up His full mantle as Creator/God, I'm sure that at that point, He knew everything about Prehistory (hidden from us), just as He did before He came down into our world as a Suffering Servant.

2PhiloVoid

 

[smithed64]

Why is allegorical truth less truth than literal truth?

First some definitions:

The plain sense (or literal) method of interpretation is more concerned about the what the scripture meant when it was first written.
The allegorical method is more concerned about what the scripture means to each individual--i.e., understanding is determined soley by the reader.

20Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private [Of one's own self] interpretation. 21For 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 1:20-21)

It is not an individual's prerogative to interpret the Holy Bible in a way that particularly suits them and their lifestyle. Each are challenged instead to discover what God meant when His Spirit inspired the "holy men of God" to write down His word--regardless of whether what they read suits them or not.

Number 1 rule....Never go by just one verse.

For example:

John 11:35 Jesus wept.

Easiest scripture to remember, the shortest I believe. But because Jesus wept...should we weep a lot also.
Why did he cry? was he hurt physically?

If you read the whole chapter 11 you'll find the story of Mary and Martha and how Christ wept because of the death of Lazarus. Thus showing the Man side of Christ. How he felt grieve toward the loss of His friend Lazarus.
Then later on you get the see the God side of Christ, when he raises Lazarus from the Dead.

You see if you went by that one verse and came up with your own conclusions or presuppositions about it. You would miss the mark on learning an import aspect of Christ the Man/God union or hypostatic union of God incarnate as Christ.
Showing his Human and Divine sides in the chapter. And it's a literal verse.

Allegory is a beautifully artistic way of explaining spiritual matters in easily understood terms. Through the Bible’s allegories, God helps us understand difficult concepts through a more relatable context. He also reveals Himself as the Great Storyteller, working through history to foreshadow and carry out His plan. We can rejoice that we have a God who addresses us in ways we can understand and who has given us symbols and allegories to remind us of Himself

So, it's not that an allegory is less than literal. It's God's way of making things simple for us.

 

[Indent]

Jesus was fully God and fully human.

He depended entirely on God and/or the Spirit—therefore, it's through his life that he provides an example for his followers. Even if Jesus was living in the fullness of life, and, therefore, miraculous things happened, the exceptional insight/foresight came from the Spirit and at the discretion of the Spirit.

It's critical to understand the humanity of Christ, and what it means for us. He doesn't go around pulling the "God card", but instead leads by example.

I'm a Christian and believe in Christ, but we have to recognize that there are assumptions here.

Christ did not tell us everything, he told us what was necessary.

 

[Uncle Tommy]

Edited: Further considering the issue.

 

[pat34lee]

So, how do you think God is going to "overthrow" the theory of evolution?

Why would he? If the majority of the world is lost,
the truth they need to know is that God loves them.

 

[pat34lee]

What, another evolutionary "just so" story? How unusual.

Try listening with a critical mind, and see how often they
state theories and even hypotheses as confirmed facts.
There is no proof of any major milestone in the 'history'
of earth. No big bang, stellar formation, stellar evolution,
planetary formation and evolution, abiogenesis, and the
killer, evolution of species.

Think of this: Science cannot explain, much less recreate
life from non-life, and it has NEVER been observed, not
even anything close. Yet, how many living organisms
would be necessary to create a viable community that
would not die out at the first minor catastrophe? There
would need to be hundreds or thousands or more living
creatures all popping to life at the same time. Fairy Tale.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

That's right.

I'm of the persuasion that a little child should be able to put a scientist in his place.

Well, that explains a lot.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

...
Think of this: Science cannot explain, much less recreate
life from non-life, and it has NEVER been observed, not
even anything close. ....

OK does this mean that as soon as a scientist makes a living cell from non living ingredients you will accept evolution?

 

[pat34lee]

How about "any"? Would that be too mindblowing?

I'll let you look up the sources, but here are the facts.

Over 100 years of testing fruit flies.
They have mutated every gene every way they can.
Nothing resembling a new useful feature or anything
positive came of it. They mutated many to the point
of death or sterility or inability to live without help.
Those with useless extra wings or legs, etc., when
bred to normal flies, the offspring reverted to normal
within a few generations. DNA does not permit wild
changes, only adaptation.