Christianity... and the fact of evolution

[throughfiierytrial]

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

Jesus humbled Himself to become a man and take our punishment for sin upon Himself...
Philippians 2:6-11
Hebrews 2:9
why? ...
Hebrews 2:14-15

 

[2PhiloVoid]

False. Foxes are incapable of complex reasoning.

Apparently, the Ginger Bread man got a bum deal, then!!

 

[throughfiierytrial]

I didn't say that Jesus was "just" a man.

No, but you ascribed those attributes to Him...saying you doubt He would have earthly knowledge in all areas. How could He utter wisdom hidden from the beginning of the world if He were not also exercising Godhood while on earth as a man? In my denomination He is described as fully God and fully human (while on earth)

 

[RedPonyDriver]

I think there are some folks here who failed English lit. The lack of understanding of literary devices and genres really bothers me...talk about the "dumbing down of America".

 

[smithed64]

To begin with I never claimed nor has anyone that I am aware of in this discussion claimed that God "Needed" evolution. However, I don't pretend to know why God might chose to use evolution to create us. Are you claiming that God couldn't use evolution to create us?

Not that God couldn't. Just that there is no need to.



Indeed so am I, for some time now and also agree that it is only by His Grace.

Evolution is actually about all flora and fauna. Specifically it's purpose is to explain how all of the flora and fauna occurred as it is today that is true. It does not attempt to prove or disprove God. Evolution is a Scientific Theory. You can look up the definitions of Scientific law, theory, hypotheses and fact on your own. You claim it can't be tested I say that adaptation is observable and reproducible.

Your correct, it does speak of flora and fauna, and adaptation. Should have made myself a bit more clear.
Micro-evolution...I understand it and do agree it is scientific. Adaptation happens all the time.
But macro-evolution...one kind to another kind...ape to man...the origin of man coming from X or from a single cell.
That is not true.

And at the moment we evolved into man we couldn't have become what God intended? You are the one limiting God, not me.

If your meaning of "evolved" is adapted to how things are today. I agree.
Not limiting God in anyway. And never concluded that you were.
And we aren't what intended? We are sinful, rebellious and not righteous. Unwilling to obey and walk with Him and have the relationship with Him. That is what God intended. But because of sin we are separated from God. That is not what he intended.

You are confusing humanism (a philosophy) with the Theory of Evolution (a Scientific Theory)

Nope not confusing it at all, many humanist stand by evolution. And the Theory of Evolution denies God and His creation.

I strongly disagree with your opinion that "everyone knows this." As for the Theory of Evolution yes it's a theory. "Theory" is not a synonym for "untrue."

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse," (Rom. 1:18). The Bible tells us that even those without the Bible can know a little about God. This does not mean they can figure out that God is a Trinity, or that Jesus is God in flesh, or that they need an atonement to escape God's judgment. But, they can, by looking at creation, deduce that there is a God. Therefore, they are without excuse. They know there is a God, even though so many suppress the truth of this knowledge in their sinfulness.

In addition to the evidence of creation, the very knowledge of God's existence is planted within the hearts of all people; "That which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them," (Rom. 1:19).

Theory is also not the synonym for "true" either.

I'm pretty sure Paul is speaking of death of the soul, not physical.

I don't think so.
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned. (Romans 5:12)

Paul is speaking of the physical death here.

Again you are implying that God couldn't make us through evolution. And, again you are claiming that evolution speaks about God. It doesn't.

I'm not implying the God couldn't make us through evolution. I'm stating that He didn't use evolution. He created us with His own hands and breath. Well, Christ did. Because God is a spirit and has no hands.
Your right evolution doesn't speak of God, it denies Him. Macro does that is.

God is absolute truth, agreed. Jesus is the word of God. I believe the Scriptures to be inspired but again God doesn't teach over our heads. To say that God spoke the world and all that is within it into existence is true. That doesn't mean that he didn't speak us into existence through evolution. I can tell my son to go to store X to buy a product. There are many ways I might tell him how to get to get to store X. There are many ways God could have spoken us into existence.

I agree he could have done anything to speak us into existence. But He didn't speak us into existence. He formed us from the ground into existence then breathed life into us. And It was done in a day and done perfectly.

Hypothetical question. If a physicist were asked by three different schools (elementary, high school, university) to explain nuclear fission all on the same day. Do you think he might use the same explanation to the third grade student as he would the graduate student at a university? Or might he use an explanation that the specific audience could understand?

Of course he would use the right type of terminology and visuals for each one differently.

God does that also in His Word. He does the simple to confuse the wise. He spoke of highly involved religious topics in a very simple manner. Even as Christ did with Nicodemus about being born again. And He was a learned man according to scriptures, he didn't get it at first, Christ even admonished Him on how He could explain Heavenly things to Him if Nicodemus couldn't understand Christ Earthly way of things.

Again you are confusing humanism (a philosophy) with the Theory of Evolution (a Scientific Theory)

Not confusing anything. Evolution Denies God. God says there is sin. Evolution says its just bad things people do because we are basically primates with intelligence, survival of the fittest and all that. That there is no need for God because we came from X or the primordial ooze or from a single cell from the water..or the newest in kookiness...biologics were seeded here from aliens from outer space. (now I know the last one is taken quite lightly and even some evolutionist get insulted by it...but it's been floating around for awhile)
So if there is no God, then there is no reason to have sin, because there is no afterlife and no judgment.
So the humanistic view and evolution do coincide with each other quite frequently.

Yes Christ is God. Using evolution to create man would not change this in any way. And again the Theory of Evolution does not speak either pro or con about God.

Your right. on both on the second again...it's because it denies God's existence

Again you are confusing Humanism (a Philosophy) with Evolution (a Scientific Theory) I would add that while a myth can be factually inaccurate, it also can teach a spiritual truth. You know like a parable.

Already explain the humanism part above.
Your right a parable does show spiritual truth using a mythical figure.
But Adam was no myth.

You are definitely confusing Humanism with Evolution. Once again Evolution is a Scientific Theory, it speaks neither for or against the existence of God.

Again, not confusing anything.
And again your right for or against...it just denies God.

 

[Anguspure]

If God didn't create the world in six days, did Moses really
lead the exodus from Egypt, did Noah build an ark, did
Elijah defeat 450 prophets of Baal, was Jesus born of a virgin,
did Peter walk on water??? It's a slippery slope. What is too
unbelievable to be true?

Time itself was created at the beginning of the universe, and time itself, as well as space expanded into the very large space time that we inhabit.
This means a period of time equivalent to 6 terrestrial days (as is implied by Moses) may in fact appear to be a lot longer time from an observation point within the created universe.

This is one inference from General Relativity and has been expermientally verified. The Rabbi Maimonides, in the 12th century determined this from the first verses of Genesis and of course the work of Albert Einstein brought the idea into popular scientific thought.
This article is informative: http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48951136.html

So given the difference in perspective that relativity yeilds, who would be lying about how long things took to the person who claimed 6 days or the person who claimed a much longer time frame from their observation point? The answer is that neither is lying.

We can take the word of God literally because He is the Creator and the one who is telling the story from His perspective but we can also understand that time and space itself unfolded as it was created to make a space and time big enough for Gods creation to dwell within.

This is understanding and means that while we can confirm in our own minds that the observations of an apparantly old universe and earth are valid, we don't need head down some slippery slope of maligning the integrity of God.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No, but you ascribed those attributes to Him...saying you doubt He would have earthly knowledge in all areas. How could He utter wisdom hidden from the beginning of the world if He were not also exercising Godhood while on earth as a man? In my denomination He is described as fully God and fully human (while on earth)

So, you think Jesus knew advanced Calculus? Really? How about this: did He know every aspect of the future that was yet to come?

 

[throughfiierytrial]

So, you think Jesus knew advanced Calculus? Really? How about this: did He know every aspect of the future that was yet to come?

Psalm 139:15-18:
My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place,
when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw my unformed body;
all the days ordained for me were written in your book
before one of them came to be.
17 How precious to me are your thoughts, God!
How vast is the sum of them!
18 Were I to count them,
they would outnumber the grains of sand—

--This will probably be lost on you, but posting it anyway.
Just pray "increase my faith, O Lord".

 

[RedPonyDriver]

Ok...so something written as figurative poetry is supposed to be literal...

For the love of all that's holy, take an English lit class that delves into literary genres and devices.

 

[KWCrazy]

Apparently, the Ginger Bread man got a bum deal, then!!

He was a bread head anyway.

 

[Uncle Tommy]

Edited: Further considering the issue.

 

[KWCrazy]

Ok...so something written as figurative poetry is supposed to be literal...
For the love of all that's holy, take an English lit class that delves into literary genres and devices.

None of which are used in Genesis.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

None of which are used in Genesis.

Right...So Genesis is a combined science and history text?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Psalm 139:15-18:
My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place,
when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw my unformed body;
all the days ordained for me were written in your book
before one of them came to be.
17 How precious to me are your thoughts, God!
How vast is the sum of them!
18 Were I to count them,
they would outnumber the grains of sand—

--This will probably be lost on you, but posting it anyway.
Just pray "increase my faith, O Lord".

Don't be so optimistic, TFT!

So, tell me this. What do you make of the following verse? What does it mean to you?

Matthew 24:36 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

 

[dms1972]

Thanks for the referral, DMS1972, but I'll bet you 10 to 1 that just about no one on here will click the link I offered in my prevnot new to meious post and actually read the article by Conrad Hyers all the way through. Oh well! I guess I'll just have to love my assorted brothers and sisters in Christ anyway, despite the dozen or so ways we all try to wrestle with the meaning of Genesis 1-3 ...

2PhiloVoid

A lot of people give only a cursory glance to things particularly in long threads, I read some of the link but the view expressed is not entirely new to me. [Others may or may not have read, or go on to read writers I have mentioned or quoted in my posts.] For myself I am content to let people have their own 'explanatory' theory, as only conversion, not merely arguing can change an individual's intellectual stance.

However your ten to one odds, doesn't reckon with the surprising work of the Holy Spirit and so we never know when someone will come back and click on a link to a website which contains well articulated biblical truth.

Though I leave people to their theories sometimes, I do however think it is important to point out these theories of evolution are mainly theories to fill the gaps in our knowledge, and cannot really claim factuality. Evolution may be more phenomenological, than factual, and it may only be that things seem like they have evolved. In many respects it reflects and fits the industrial / factory era with its concept of advance by improved workability.

Psychiatrist Karl Stern has written: "The historical roots of the theory of evolution are quite complex...the idea that in the vast factory of nature things which do not work well are discarded for things which work better arises out of the mood of the nineteenth century. The entire universe was made to fit the drab climate of Manchester. While the epic of Genesis, with its powerful poetic form, was rejected as 'anthropomorphic,' an evolutionist concept of how things came about is tinged with the ephemeral of the laboratory and the market place."

Edit

This short quote from Karl Stern doesn't mean that all explanations are relative, and equally valid. They are not. Some come closer to being a true explanation than others. When it comes to the act of Creation, scientific methodology finds its depths impossible to probe, scientific language struggles to communicate, because these are only successful from a point. the book of Genesis has first of all revelatory, and salvific significance, salvific in that accounts the Fall of the human race and it shows the origins of the need for a Saviour. Secondarily there are circles of creative activity mentioned. We've been left with an explanatory task, but the Book of Nature (what we know of the world) can only be understood with the Book of Scripture. And "there is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death." Proverbs 14:12

To call the first chapters Genesis a poetic epic, doesn't remove it from the realm of knowledge. It is only in modern history that the poetic way of knowing and expressing has become undervalued. Rather poetry can in its highest form communicate transcendent truth and meaning.

End edit

There are counter-explantions to the theories of evolution (Darwinian theory is just one of those), such as Intelligent Design, which is more a deistic theory than a uniquely christian one.

The truely disinterested scientist will be as interested in one theory as another regardless of theological implications.

Myth and cosmogeny are closely connected, and when I use the term 'myth' in regard to Genesis, I don't mean non-historical, I mean there was obviously a creation, or we would not be here. There is something rather than nothing. The universe didn't create itself. And in the attempts to explain it we may lose sight of the basic message of the first chapters of Genesis, that what is there in terms of the created cosmos was spoken into being, the Cosmos is the result of God's creative Word, and the patient 'brooding' presence of the Holy Spirit. Therefore Genesis is more revelatory than explanatory.

A question is whether the first human pair being created in a special circle which the Bible speaks of as being made in the Image of God, excludes God making them from another creature? The answer to that I am not sure of. But I don't find that a problem, humans still bear the imprint of the Image of God, even though fallen and in need of redemption.

However outside the circle of faith, human theorising is influenced by human sinfulness, as you mentioned, and tends away from retaining, or acknowledging God in human knowledge, ie. in our theories.

What is needed is not an 'untouchable theological answer', but the convicting work of the Holy Spirit.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

A lot of people give only a cursory glance to things particularly when its mainly addressed to the OP, I read some of the link but the view expressed is not entirely new to me. For myself I am content to let people have their own 'explanatory' theory, as only conversion, not merely arguing can change ones intellectual stance. I do however think it is important to point out these theories of evolution are mainly theories to fill the gaps in our knowledge, and cannot really claim factuality. There are counter-explantions that are equally plausible. The truely disinterested scientist will be as interested in one theory as another regardless of theological implications.

Myth and cosmogeny are closely connected, and when I use the term 'myth' in regard to Genesis, I don't mean non-historical, I mean there was obviously a creation, or we would not be here. There is something rather than nothing. The universe didn't create itself. And in the attempts to explain it we may lose sight of the basic message of the first chapters of Genesis, that what is there in terms of the created cosmos was spoken into being, the cosmos is the result of God's creative Word, and the patient 'brooding' presence of the Holy Spirit.

A question is whether the first human pair being created in a special circle which the Bible speaks of as being made in the Image of God, excludes God making them from another creature? The answer to that I am not sure of. But I don't find that a problem, humans still bear the imprint of the Image of God, even though fallen and in need of redemption.

However outside the circle of faith, human theorising is influenced by human sinfulness, as you mentioned, and tends away from retaining, or acknowledging God in human knowledge, ie. in our theories.

Whats needed is not an 'untouchable theological answer', but the convicting work of the Holy Spirit.

I basically agree with you on this DMS. However, the main issue that I've been trying to address in this thread is that Fundamentalist Christians 'tend' to discount me as a Christian because of my general adherence to Theological Evolution. I'm not concerned much with convincing others of my perspective, other than that I think they should give me the hand of fellowship because I too have faith in Christ. It's seems my more ecumenical approach is to be swatted away like so much chaff.

2PhiloVoid

 

[KWCrazy]

Right...So Genesis is a combined science and history text?

Genesis has nothing to do with science. It's a historical record of the creation of the universe and of all living things within the timetable God describes. Genesis explains why man was created, why sin and death came into the world, how mankind became so corrupt God wiped the slate clean and started over with one family, and how God personally interacted with man from the beginning.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

Genesis has nothing to do with science. It's a historical record of the creation of the universe and of all living things within the timetable God describes. Genesis explains why man was created, why sin and death came into the world, how mankind became so corrupt God wiped the slate clean and started over with one family, and how God personally interacted with man from the beginning.

Factual, no. It is a MYTH...an attempt by ancient man to explain how he got there, why he worships the god he worships and explain the hard questions of life that they were aware of, death, illness, failed crops. Every single ancient culture has one...who's to say the Genesis account is any more correct than any other one?

 

[Anguspure]

There is no such division as micro vs. macro evolution.

How about the distinction between fiddling with something to fine tune it (in a given environment), and the invention of soemthing new?
You see Natural Selection aka Darwins Molecular Fiddler has been shown to be good at the modification of pre-existing forms so that they can live succesfully within the environment (micro evolution) but is a complete and utter failure when it comes to inventing new things (macro evolution), as would be expected from even a casual understanding of the theory.

Where does the Theory of Evolution even mention God let alone deny Him?

The primary definition of Judeao Christian God is Creator i.e. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Surely you have noticed that Naturalistic evolutionism/scientism seeks to deny that this is the truth.

This is where God teaches at the ability of the audience to understand comes into play. Mankind 6000 years ago would not have understood genetics, adaptation, evolution on any level. But they could understand God made us from the ground. We are physically made up of the elements found in the earth after all. When I referred to "speaking us into existence I was referring to "Let us make man...".
You claim all in one day because you are a literalist. I understand that. But the fact that you are a literalist doesn't make Genesis literal. It simply means you believe it to be.

There is truth in what you say here, that the truth can be made shallow enough for a child to wade in, however it is also true that God is clever enough to have made the stories deep enough to swallow an Elephant without compromising His own integrity.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

Don't be so optimistic, TFT!

So, tell me this. What do you make of the following verse? What does it mean to you?

Matthew 24:36 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

That is a tough one, I admit, but I could speculate that it means the knowledge of when the last day/hour was hidden from the Son (Jesus) while on earth by design. No, I do not know the why to it all. It could equally mean that the humanity did not possess this knowledge and that the God side did. The three are one we do know. For me this topic falls under the category of "knowledge too wonderful for me to attain" as King David writes in the Psalms.
The fact that Jesus was all-knowing (perhaps not as touching upon the last day...we or at least I do not know) is evidenced in many other Bible passages...some of which I have already quoted to you.