Evolution and Christianity

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Karl - Liberal Backslider] 1) Midway through your paragraph you shift from "literal and not" to "true and false". Is this your problem - you don't understand how something can be true without being literal?

Let faith guide your thinking chap, not mere human intuition. You obviously missed the point as what I was saying is why do we believe in what scripture says in certain things when we do not in others? Is it logical to believe in an inconsistent God? Or for that matter a God who deceives by saying He did one thing and then shows us another?

You really do have a problem understanding this. Again, you equate "not taking it literally" with "not believing it". For the nth time, I do believe what the Scripture says. However, I do not believe the literal meaning is the intended one.

2) Does it matter? The lessons and applications for today are the same whether it's literal or not.

Yes it does matter. If one were Satan and wanted to destroy the truth about God where would one begin? It would be pointless to attack the virgin birth or the resurrection of Christ, as that would be too obvious. One would start with the very foundation of all scripture – in discrediting God as sole creator as that is what makes Him God and gives Him sole proprietary rights to us.

Then Satan has failed dismally because Evolution does not address the question of whether God is sole creator or not.

What one has done then is proven (or think they have anyway) that God is not required or needed – therefore He has no right to us as natural processes could have done what God is said to have done.

Why is it an either/or proposition?

And so there was no literal Adam and Eve and there was no original sin therefore there is no need for Christ to die for anyone.

Nonsense. There's quite enough sin around to require a redeemer without any historical Adam and Eve.

That would be barbaric acording to todays standards and besides how can one man die for the whole world anyway or for that matter why would God allow His one and only son to die for a race descended of apes anyway?

What does our origin have to do with our value in the eyes of God? Why is a race descended from animated soil any more worthy of redemption than one descended from an ape-like ancestor?

 

[Crusadar]

Karl - Liberal Backslider So. Because these passages are explicitly parables it follows that all parables must be explicitly delared as such? I cannot present you with an example of an unannounced parable because by your definition it can't be a parable if it's unannounced. It's a True Scotsman fallacy:

That is not what I am saying at all and you know it. What I am saying is that if we cannot trust the language system in which scripture was written what can we trust? Certainly not our own intuitions? It is one thing to read scripture and understand what it says without any outside influence and yet it is another to misuse or make scripture conform to something that you know it does not say.

By the way thanks for telling others where I got the verses from, but any authorized version of the bible will do.

All True Scotsman eat salted porridge
My Uncle Hamish doesn't eat salted porridge
Your Uncle Hamish isn't a True Scotsman

i.e.

All parables are announced as parables
The book of Job is not announced as a parable
The book of Job is not a parable.

Very spiritually illogical indeed. Also an erroneous analogy I might add in that scripture does not support your reasoning, only you do.

and the fact that He was God also meant that He was omniscient

Wrong. Mark 13 v.32

Ah, a misused verse in telling us that Jesus was not really God. Of course you realize that He was God as you agreed, but if He were God how can He not know? Isn’t that an attribute of God in that He is all knowing? But then as you pointed below he was also man, and because He was also man did you ever think that in becoming man He voluntarily gave up this “all knowing” aspect of godhood to tell us that preparation at all times is needed since the second coming can be at any time? The verse in fact does not reveal the unknowing of Christ but that it reveals to us the human aspect of God when He became man - in that we as humans do not know nor can we predict or calculate God’s timing.

Because He had one as well. If He didn't, He wasn't truly human. He emptied Himself of the attributes of divinity to become Man (Philippians 2). But Christology is by the by.

Yes, that makes sense – but if you take away His godhood how then can a mere man die in the place of all mankind – past, present or future?

Indeed. Which is why He didn't tart around messing with the primitive scientific understanding of people but worked within that understanding.

Or that the concern was man’s soul and not the fanciful imaginations that man puts in his head.

 

[Vance]

I believe the Scripture is the inerrant Word of God. Everything in it is absolute truth.

I believe God created everything in the Universe and is omniscient and omnipotent and omnipresent.

I believe that sin entered the world through Man's choice of his own immediate interests rather than the greater things of God.

I believe that without God's redemptive gift, that sin will condemn us all to an eternity separated from God.

I believe that the Earth is millions of years old.

I believe that God created a great deal of his Creation by the process of evolution.

I belive in a regional flood.

I have no idea whether Adam and Eve were literal or allegorical, and I have no idea whether, if literal, they were the first humans he created or selected exemplars, and I have no idea whether they were special creations or if God created them by adding a "soul" to humanity at a specific time of his choosing. And I find that this lack of knowledge about these things does nothing to affect my belief in all those points described above.

So, where is this danger you are so concerned about?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Karl - Liberal Backslider So. Because these passages are explicitly parables it follows that all parables must be explicitly delared as such? I cannot present you with an example of an unannounced parable because by your definition it can't be a parable if it's unannounced. It's a True Scotsman fallacy:

That is not what I am saying at all and you know it. What I am saying is that if we cannot trust the language system in which scripture was written what can we trust? Certainly not our own intuitions? It is one thing to read scripture and understand what it says without any outside influence and yet it is another to misuse or make scripture conform to something that you know it does not say.

But we can trust the language system. We can trust that a poetic picture like Genesis 1 and a narrative crammed full of symbolic elements like Genesis 2-3 is not historical.

All True Scotsman eat salted porridge
My Uncle Hamish doesn't eat salted porridge
Your Uncle Hamish isn't a True Scotsman

i.e.

All parables are announced as parables
The book of Job is not announced as a parable
The book of Job is not a parable.

Very spiritually illogical indeed. Also an erroneous analogy I might add in that scripture does not support your reasoning, only you do.

But that's the reasoning you used to demonstrate that all parables have "this is a parable" at the front of them.

and the fact that He was God also meant that He was omniscient

Wrong. Mark 13 v.32

Ah, a misused verse in telling us that Jesus was not really God. Of course you realize that He was God as you agreed, but if He were God how can He not know? Isn’t that an attribute of God in that He is all knowing? But then as you pointed below he was also man, and because He was also man did you ever think that in becoming man He voluntarily gave up this “all knowing” aspect of godhood to tell us that preparation at all times is needed since the second coming can be at any time? The verse in fact does not reveal the unknowing of Christ but that it reveals to us the human aspect of God when He became man - in that we as humans do not know nor can we predict or calculate God’s timing.

Exactly. A human aspect of Christ is that He was not omniscient, or all-knowing. This is what He gave up - without giving up His inherent Godness - in becoming human.

Because He had one as well. If He didn't, He wasn't truly human. He emptied Himself of the attributes of divinity to become Man (Philippians 2). But Christology is by the by.

Yes, that makes sense – but if you take away His godhood how then can a mere man die in the place of all mankind – past, present or future?

Our Lord did not give up His Godhood. He gave up voluntarily some of the aspects of Godhood to become human. He is God by virtue of who He is, not by virtue of what He can do. An omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent Jesus is Docetic - God mucking about pretending to be human. If Jesus truly is God become Man, He is God who has taken on the limitations of being human. Else His temptation, His Passion and His bewildered abandonment on the Cross are meaningless.

Indeed. Which is why He didn't tart around messing with the primitive scientific understanding of people but worked within that understanding.

Or that the concern was man’s soul and not the fanciful imaginations that man puts in his head.

Like Kent Hovind's fire-breathing dinosaurs and T. rex wrestling Anglo-Saxon heroes, for example....

 

[Crusadar]

Karl - Liberal Backslider: You really do have a problem understanding this. Again, you equate "not taking it literally" with "not believing it". For the nth time, I do believe what the Scripture says. However, I do not believe the literal meaning is the intended one.

I don’t think I am the one with a problem since I do believe in all that the scripture teaches and you obviously don’t. What you have done is nothing more than shown me your inconsistency of faith in that you only pick and choose what you want to believe and then attempt to justify this to no avail.

Then Satan has failed dismally because Evolution does not address the question of whether God is sole creator or not.

He has not failed, for you believe it be so, do you not? And of course evolution doesn’t address God as sole creator because He is already quietly and conveniently excluded from the equation as evolution tells us that chance can do what God has told us He did do.

It seems a Christian with a backward faith in the palm of Satan’s hand is worrth more than ten die hard atheists in the bush as the atheists can be converted but the backward Christian – he already thinks he is saved - even though he may not be. Not only do they justify the lie of evolution, they are much better at spreading it and are an essential weapon in Satan’s arsenal.

What one has done then is proven (or think they have anyway) that God is not required or needed – therefore He has no right to us as natural processes could have done what God is said to have done.

Why is it an either/or proposition?

First, where is the purpose of God evident in the evolutionary process? Does not God represent everything that is of purpose? What does evolution teach us about purpose? That there is none for chance does what God can. Second, what glory is there in a creator creating through such a slow process that declares not the capabilities of its designer? And another is the sovereignty of God over death. Is it logical to conclude that He can deliver us from pain and suffering when they are synonymous with death - an essential component of His creative process? After all why promise to deliver anyone from something that only makes them into better beings?

Despite yours and many theistic evolutionists conclusions that evolution is how God created - it is not. For if you believe so you believe not God but your own concoctions of what God has not revealed to you through His word.

Nonsense. There's quite enough sin around to require a redeemer without any historical Adam and Eve.

I am sure there are plenty but that is not what is being disagreed on. What is being disagreed on is that if there was no original sin why does scripture reiterate that it was by Adam that sin entered the world as in the following verse:

“Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:” Romans 5:12

What does our origin have to do with our value in the eyes of God? Why is a race descended from animated soil any more worthy of redemption than one descended from an ape-like ancestor?

In that we are God’s species because He created Adam in His image – with the ability to reason, and the choice to obey and love God from the very start. And we know the rest of the story. But we humans (made from dust) are much more valuable than angels. But Christ did not die for the fallen angels - only for us, now does that not tell you of our value before God? The logic behind the redemption process is that there must be a much greater and more intimate bond between the creator and His creation than the mere fact that the creation was the product of laws He has put in place.

 

[wblastyn]

I don’t think I am the one with a problem since I do believe in all that the scripture teaches and you obviously don’t. What you have done is nothing more than shown me your inconsistency of faith in that you only pick and choose what you want to believe and then attempt to justify this to no avail.

You just proved his point, you are completely unable to separate your interpretation from "God's Word", so you think your interpretation IS God's Word, which it is not. For some reason your brain cannot comprehend that non-literal DOES NOT MEAN FALSE. I want to understand you better, why can you not understand non-literal does not mean false? Is there something wrong with you?

He has not failed, for you believe it be so, do you not? And of course evolution doesn’t address God as sole creator because He is already quietly and conveniently excluded from the equation as evolution tells us that chance can do what God has told us He did do.

We don't know if evolution can run without God or not, He might be the driving force behind it.

It seems a Christian with a backward faith in the palm of Satan’s hand is worrth more than ten die hard atheists in the bush as the atheists can be converted but the backward Christian – he already thinks he is saved - even though he may not be. Not only do they justify the lie of evolution, they are much better at spreading it and are an essential weapon in Satan’s arsenal.

So because someone accepts evolution you say they "may" not be Christian.

First, where is the purpose of God evident in the evolutionary process? Does not God represent everything that is of purpose? What does evolution teach us about purpose? That there is none for chance does what God can. Second, what glory is there in a creator creating through such a slow process that declares not the capabilities of its designer? And another is the sovereignty of God over death. Is it logical to conclude that He can deliver us from pain and suffering when they are synonymous with death - an essential component of His creative process? After all why promise to deliver anyone from something that only makes them into better beings?

Where is the purpose of god evident in the theory of gravity? Where is the purpose of God evident in a cow excreting? What does the theory of relativity teach about purpose?

Despite yours and many theistic evolutionists conclusions that evolution is how God created - it is not. For if you believe so you believe not God but your own concoctions of what God has not revealed to you through His word.

No, we believe what God has revealed through his creation, wich has gone un hindered by man, unlike scripture which was written by fallible men, complied by fallible men, translated by fallible men and finally interpreted by fallible men.

 

[Crusadar]

Polly want a cracker!!

Blasty,

It seems you are simply rehashing many of your basic unsupported assumptions about biblical truths as you chose to read your bible in a backward manner (as before). Your reasoning has remained static and futile for your faith in God requires man made assumptions and mine does not.

Bible literalists such as myself who take their faith too seriously and stand firm on the solid rock of God's word are a rare breed and meeting individuals such as yourself has only reaffirmed me that we all do need to walk our own faith and look only at Christ for guidance.

Since I have gone through much of your spitritual nonsense before there is no need for me to waste my time responding to your spiritual problems or disbelief in what scripture tells you, but I will pray that you see the truth of God.

 

[Vance]

Crusader:

I believe wholly in what the Bible says and believe theologically probably everything you believe. I believe in original sin and God's redemptive gift. I think everything in the Bible is true and inerrant.

But I think your interpretation of Genesis which requires a young earth and excludes evolution as a means of creation is simply wrong. This is not based on any *dis*-belief in the Scripture. It is easy to disregard those who hold different theological beliefs, but you can see that my belief in an old earth and in evolution as one of God's processes for creation has done NOTHING to hinder my belief.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Polly want a cracker!!

Blasty,

It seems you are simply rehashing many of your basic unsupported assumptions about biblical truths as you chose to read your bible in a backward manner (as before). Your reasoning has remained static and futile for your faith in God requires man made assumptions and mine does not.

Bible literalists such as myself who take their faith too seriously and stand firm on the solid rock of God's word are a rare breed and meeting individuals such as yourself has only reaffirmed me that we all do need to walk our own faith and look only at Christ for guidance.

Since I have gone through much of your spitritual nonsense before there is no need for me to waste my time responding to your spiritual problems or disbelief in what scripture tells you, but I will pray that you see the truth of God.

Your arrogance is breathtaking. The only thing on which I agree with you here is that your debating here is pointless.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I would like to point out that the Orthodox church does not believe in original sin, as such, IIRC. Perhaps we could lure Oblio or Phillip in here to qualify.

If I am correct, Christianity has existed in at least one form without the concept of Original Sin for 2000 years.

Tinker

 

[wblastyn]

Polly want a cracker!!

Blasty,

It seems you are simply rehashing many of your basic unsupported assumptions about biblical truths as you chose to read your bible in a backward manner (as before). Your reasoning has remained static and futile for your faith in God requires man made assumptions and mine does not.

Actually, you, as man, assume that Genesis is literal based on zero evidence, whereas we assume Genesis is non-literal based on what God tells us in His creation.

Bible literalists such as myself who take their faith too seriously and stand firm on the solid rock of God's word are a rare breed and meeting individuals such as yourself has only reaffirmed me that we all do need to walk our own faith and look only at Christ for guidance.

You mean you take your interpretation too seriously and stand firm in your idol.
Meeting individuals such as your self has only reaffirmed me that Biblical literalists turn the Bible into a false idol and attack anyone who dares attack their god (literal Genesis).

Since I have gone through much of your spitritual nonsense before there is no need for me to waste my time responding to your spiritual problems or disbelief in what scripture tells you, but I will pray that you see the truth of God.

Twinkie defense, you run away without answering any of my post, not because you can't, but because you don't want to associate with a heretic like me (yah right haha).

Thankyou for proving my point. Again you are completely unable to disconnect your interpretation from "God's Word", then with this whole display of "holier than thou"-ness it would seem that you are one of those lost people lucaspa was talking about on that other thread.

 

[Crusadar]

Your arrogance is breathtaking. The only thing on which I agree with you here is that your debating here is pointless.

"For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ." Galatians 1:10

 

[Crusadar]

Karl - Liberal Backslider But we can trust the language system. We can trust that a poetic picture like Genesis 1 and a narrative crammed full of symbolic elements like Genesis 2-3 is not historical.

Let me see if I understand you. You do trust the language system but you just don't believe in what God tells you. That explains alot.

But that's the reasoning you used to demonstrate that all parables have "this is a parable" at the front of them.

So does Genesis?

Or that the concern was man’s soul and not the fanciful imaginations that man puts in his head.

Like Kent Hovind's fire-breathing dinosaurs and T. rex wrestling Anglo-Saxon heroes, for example....

No, more like how a lizard one day decided it wanted to fly and began sprouting wings, or how a pimple became an eye, or how ape grunts suddenly took on meaning and became language, and best yet how inorganic matter organized itself into a living organism.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Karl - Liberal Backslider But we can trust the language system. We can trust that a poetic picture like Genesis 1 and a narrative crammed full of symbolic elements like Genesis 2-3 is not historical.

Let me see if I understand you. You do trust the language system but you just don't believe in what God tells you. That explains alot.

You really do find it impossible to understand that something can be believed but not taken literally, don't you?

But that's the reasoning you used to demonstrate that all parables have "this is a parable" at the front of them.

So does Genesis?

No it doesn't. Your reasoning requiring it was faulty. Therefore it doesn't have to.

Or that the concern was man’s soul and not the fanciful imaginations that man puts in his head.

Like Kent Hovind's fire-breathing dinosaurs and T. rex wrestling Anglo-Saxon heroes, for example....

No, more like how a lizard one day decided it wanted to fly and began sprouting wings, or how a pimple became an eye, or how ape grunts suddenly took on meaning and became language, and best yet how inorganic matter organized itself into a living organism.

And what makes you think evolution proposes any of the above?

 

[Crusadar]

And what makes you think evolution proposes any of the above?

I could quote the silly examples from evolutionary textbooks, but I'm not here to promote evolution.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

And what makes you think evolution proposes any of the above?

I could quote the silly examples from evolutionary textbooks, but I'm not here to promote evolution.

They would have to be very silly textbooks indeed if they proposed any of those things. Evolutionary theory does not propose any of them.

 

[Vance]

No, Crusader, you got those examples from a YEC source, not from any textbook on evolution.

If the YEC source told you they got it from a textbook, they are lying to you.

It really is not appropriate to attack a scientific theory about which you know so little. This is just common sense. And, believe me, you will NOT gain an understanding of what the theory of evolution teaches from Creationist sources. It is like the Christian teachings during the middle ages that Jews killed babies for the blood to make matza balls. Makes for good propoganda, but is simply not true.

 

[wblastyn]

"For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ." Galatians 1:10

How does that give you a licence to be arrogant?

 

[wblastyn]

And what makes you think evolution proposes any of the above?

I could quote the silly examples from evolutionary textbooks, but I'm not here to promote evolution.

That is not evolution. So here you are sitting on your holier than thou throne telling us how we're all bad Christians and how only you have a true relationship with Jesus Christ because you take Genesis literally and evolution is a lie, when you don't even know what evolution is.

I can't even act surprised.

Oh and PUHLEASE, "I would post a defintion but I don't want to" is the type of response you'd get from a 3 year old. Why don't you just admit that you don't know what evolution is instead of lying about it.

 

[Crusadar]

How does that give you a licence to be arrogant?

Arrogance?

We'll let God be the judge of that.