If Evolution is true what is purpose of life?

[HouseApe]

House Ape - My understanding of christianity is that you believe your purpose is to go to Heaven and glorify God (correct me if I'm wrong). Ummm, what's so meaningful about that?

You are pretty much right I would say its more like to worship God(as with music an dour lives) and lead others to Jesus but your statement pretty much covers that. That is just my idea I dont believe there is exact scriptures but there could be on our purpose in life.

The meaningful life comes from the preparation in creating each one of us uniquely for a seperate job. Then when we begin the path that God guides us down and the significance of a life that can seem so small in the big picture. It puts us(everyone saved and unsaved) aside as special in God's eyes

I still don't understand what "meaning" or "purpose" their is in life, this one or the supposed next, to a Christian, other than worshipping God. I would hate to think my entire existence is solely to worship some other being.

Imagine a small tribe of humans living off the land 20,000 years ago. They were very good at hunting and gathering. They lived probably from birth within their relatively small group. They knew everyone and everyone knew them. They must have loved everyone in their group and been loved by everyone. Every individual was highly valued for their skill & knowledge and everyone counted on each other for their very survival. Every life had purpose to tribe, to help provide. Every life had meaning, to see that the tribe existed into the next generation.

I think that as humanity moved away from that model of tribal existence, they lost that close, long term association with other people. They lost their real purpose and meaning. But we need to feel we have a higher purpose. I think Christians and Muslims have created a God to fulfill that need.

I don't mean any offense, and this is a personal feeling, but the idea of "worshipping God" seems like a trivial purpose, compared to the important business of living this life fully, and creating an Earth that the next generations will find at least as good and bountiful as this generation has found it to be.

 

[icebreaker]

Of course not. The only way to God is through Jesus. Not through a disbelief of Evolution. Christ is the key to Christianity. Belief in Christ is the fundamental aspect of slavation.


I'm going to copy and paste a previous I've given to this issue:

"The first and foremost thing about being a Christian is believing that Jesus, the Son of God, died on the cross to pay the debt of sin so that we may come into a relationship with God again. This was an act of Love for mankind. That is the core belief that qualifies you as a Christian. Acknowledging God and His love and the sacrifice Jesus made. This, beyond all else qualifies you as a Christian. And I totally accept that this is a matter of faith. It is a matter of the heart as well as the brain whether you accept that.

Regarding reconciling the Bible with science, I think that the most important thing is remembering this: the Bible is not and should not be used as a science text book. The Bible is a guide to becoming closer in your relationship with God. That is what is forgotten often. I'll copy an answer I gave previously when asked about how I view creation, and this is a similar view to most Christians, especially outside the US.


"

h2

Ok let me see if I understand you correctly. You believe in Jesus's virgin birth, crucifixtion, ressurection, and his miracles as well as the miracles of the Old Testament. Now when it comes to the account on creation that God created everything just like that you disbelieve the literal account that God just made everything by saying Let there be light etc... instead he created a sytem that would eventially create humans?

God has no limits and I dont understand why we should not believe what the Bible says in the book of Genisis. Why does God need to create us over billions of years? He is God it happens instantly if he wants it. In regards to the flood I dont understand how you can just pick and choose the miracles that you believe God did. It seems to me that you are very strong in what you believe about Jesus but when it comes to the science or creation of it all it is easier for you to take what the world accepts as truth over what the bible says.

 

[GoSeminoles!]

Ok let me see if I understand you correctly. You believe in Jesus's virgin birth, crucifixtion, ressurection, and his miracles as well as the miracles of the Old Testament. Now when it comes to the account on creation that God created everything just like that you disbelieve the literal account that God just made everything by saying Let there be light etc... instead he created a sytem that would eventially create humans?

God has no limits and I dont understand why we should not believe what the Bible says in the book of Genisis. Why does God need to create us over billions of years? He is God it happens instantly if he wants it. In regards to the flood I dont understand how you can just pick and choose the miracles that you believe God did. It seems to me that you are very strong in what you believe about Jesus but when it comes to the science or creation of it all it is easier for you to take what the world accepts as truth over what the bible says.

Pardon my interruption, but I think a rational criteria for a believer for deciding which miracle stories to believe and which to dismiss is whether they have been disproved. The virgin birth and the ressurection cannot be disproved, so I think a believer can accept them rationally within the framework of the religion. However, the universal flood and the Genesis creation stories have conclusive evidence against them, therefore these cannot be believed rationally.

Belief in what cannot be proven or disproven is faith. Belief in what has already been disproven is just silly.

 

[icebreaker]

In the end I am not the judge. Not everyone interprets scripture the same way. Like I said earlier I dont know what God will say about Christians believing Evololution as God's way of creating the earth and since the bible doesnt say how God feels about that as far as I know then I remain silent and try to keep my opinions to a minimum.

In reply to your post GoSeminoles!

By believing in God you believe in something that cannot be proved or disproved. So if you belief in and that he created the world then you should believe He can do anything like the miracles of the Old Testament or New Testament wither they are proved false or not by science.

 

[Lou Cifer]

you should believe He can do anything like the miracles of the Old Testament or New Testament wither they are proved false or not by science.

No you shouldn't. It's ignorant and arrogant.

 

[TheUndeadFish]

God has no limits and I dont understand why we should not believe what the Bible says in the book of Genisis. Why does God need to create us over billions of years? He is God it happens instantly if he wants it. In regards to the flood I dont understand how you can just pick and choose the miracles that you believe God did. It seems to me that you are very strong in what you believe about Jesus but when it comes to the science or creation of it all it is easier for you to take what the world accepts as truth over what the bible says.

There are two things you should think about in regards to this.

First, the interpretation and intent of various parts of scripture. Was the first chapter of Genesis actually meant to convey an accurate history of the Earth's creation? Or was it meant simply to convey the idea that God created everything (but not the specifics of the method)? Also, if a book had described something like what modern science says, would people thousands of years ago (with their limited understanding of the world and all) have been able to accept it? Perhaps what is written in Genesis is what was necessary to help get Christianity estabilished. A metephor for God's act of creation rather than a literal history.

Second, what if modern science is reading the evidence of a 4.5 billion year-old Earth correctly but a 6-day creation story is also literally true? Science has found more than just an appearance of age in the Earth. There are "records" of a history. For instance, tree rings, annual lake sediment, and annual ice layers record more than just the number of years that have passed. They give us indications of the climate and coniditions during those past years. Using these kinds of things, science can form a history of what the Earth was like going back millions of years past supposed date of creation according to creationists. Now it is well within God's power to have created all of that instantly during some particular 6-day period about 6000 years ago. But what would that tell us about God? He would have created a fake history of the Earth knowing we would later examine that history. Wouldn't that make Earth deceptive? And since God created Earth, wouldn't that mean he purposefully created that deception?


Take some time to consider these ideas and I think that should help you understand the Theistic Evolutionist point of view.

 

[napajohn]

There are two things you should think about in regards to this.

First, the interpretation and intent of various parts of scripture. Was the first chapter of Genesis actually meant to convey an accurate history of the Earth's creation? Or was it meant simply to convey the idea that God created everything (but not the specifics of the method)? Also, if a book had described something like what modern science says, would people thousands of years ago (with their limited understanding of the world and all) have been able to accept it? Perhaps what is written in Genesis is what was necessary to help get Christianity estabilished. A metephor for God's act of creation rather than a literal history.

at what point do you take anything from scriptures as literal..did Jesus really say that he was the way to heaven?..maybe he meant to say that really its trusting in a god, any god that gets you to heaven

Second, what if modern science is reading the evidence of a 4.5 billion year-old Earth correctly but a 6-day creation story is also literally true? Science has found more than just an appearance of age in the Earth. There are "records" of a history. For instance, tree rings, annual lake sediment, and annual ice layers record more than just the number of years that have passed. They give us indications of the climate and coniditions during those past years. Using these kinds of things, science can form a history of what the Earth was like going back millions of years past supposed date of creation according to creationists. Now it is well within God's power to have created all of that instantly during some particular 6-day period about 6000 years ago. But what would that tell us about God? He would have created a fake history of the Earth knowing we would later examine that history. Wouldn't that make Earth deceptive? And since God created Earth, wouldn't that mean he purposefully created that deception?
Take some time to consider these ideas and I think that should help you understand the Theistic Evolutionist point of view.

is it also in Gods power to have created things as he claims and that man has interpreted the evidence to fit god into science..the stars and animals and man were created complete and mature..its just that science has taken a concept like radio dating and tried to fit God in this model..remember he is God

 

[Nathan Poe]

at what point do you take anything from scriptures as literal..did Jesus really say that he was the way to heaven?..maybe he meant to say that really its trusting in a god, any god that gets you to heaven

That's why they call it faith.

is it also in Gods power to have created things as he claims and that man has interpreted the evidence to fit god into science..

If we can fit God into a book, we can certainly fit God into science. It'd be a larger fit, wouldn't it?

the stars and animals and man were created complete and mature..its just that science has taken a concept like radio dating and tried to fit God in this model..remember he is God

Appearance of age = deceptive God.
Sure, such a God might exist, but I have even less reason to trust Him now than in your example above...

 

[h2whoa]

God has no limits and I dont understand why we should not believe what the Bible says in the book of Genisis. Why does God need to create us over billions of years? He is God it happens instantly if he wants it.

Scientific arguments aside, the major theological flaw to this argument is: well why 6 days? Why not instantly as you say? On the other hand, if it could be 6 days then why not billions of years? It means nothing to God either way.

In regards to the flood I dont understand how you can just pick and choose the miracles that you believe God did.

Well because if the evidence is overwhelmingly stacked against a literal interpretation then there are two options that I see open to me:

1)Stick with the literal interpretation but believe that for some reason God made it look as though it was false.

2)Accept the actual evidence that exists and accept that parts of the Bible are probably metaphorical.

Now, opting for choice 1 raises an extremely significant theological problem for me. It suggests that God is lying and obviously this doesn't fit well with our picture of God. So the idea of sneaky, deceitful God just seems... well,, you know... weird, creepy and just wrong.

Opting for choice 2 seems to work well. It acknowldeges the theolgical and spiritual messages which exists in both the literal and metaphorical interpretations. It also solves the problem of a sneaky God falsifying evidence like a petty crook after a crime.

It seems to me that you are very strong in what you believe about Jesus but when it comes to the science or creation of it all it is easier for you to take what the world accepts as truth over what the bible says.

I disagree with you here. I am very strong in what I believe about the whole thing. It's not that it is easier for me to accept what the world accepts as truth. It's that I genuinely do not have a problem reconciling a metaphorical interpretation of parts of the Bible and still maintaining faith. Let's face it, we know the Earth isn't a (flat) circle, nor does it have corners (how would a circle have corners anyway??), nor is the Job description of precipitation accurate. But do these detract from the essence of the Bible? No.

As I said in my last post. The Bible is helping us in our relationship with God. And that is more important than anything. Hence delivering the lessons as concisely as possible.

As a brief personal note, icebreaker, it is nice to have a creationist actually ask me about my beliefs in a rational manner. Thank you, too often attacks occur, so I appreciate that even if you disagree with me you are at least taking the time to understand me.

h2

 

[icebreaker]

Even if our creation theories are different I still consider you a brother in Christ if you have done what the bible states to become a Christian and even if you were not it doesnt do me any good to attack you or anyone in regards to discussing our origns.

 

[Mr. Ex Nihilo]

Death did not come because of sin. Death was just always there. Sin was just always there. The two are not linked except in the physical context.

eh. maybe so.

However, one passage of Scripture seems to say other wise:

Romans 5 11-13

Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

Death Through Adam, Life Through Christ

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned-- for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.​

I might be wrong, but the Scriptures seem to indicate that death came through Adam. I'm willing to admit that this doesn't apply to animals. Also, admittedly, sin existed before the law was given.

But, at least in my heart, passages like this hold me back from fully embracing an evolutionary creation of Adam until the concepts can be reconciled better. I'm still reading and praying though and have not closed my mind to this possibility.

 

[Asimov]

eh. maybe so.

However, one passage of Scripture seems to say other wise:

Romans 5 11-13

Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

Death Through Adam, Life Through Christ

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned-- for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.​

I might be wrong, but the Scriptures seem to indicate that death came through Adam. I'm willing to admit that this doesn't apply to animals. Also, admittedly, sin existed before the law was given.

But, at least in my heart, passages like this hold me back from fully embracing an evolutionary creation of Adam until the concepts can be reconciled better. I'm still reading and praying though and have not closed my mind to this possibility.

Spiritual death. We die physically, but this seems to suggest that our spirit will not be destroyed if we accept Christ.

 

[anunbeliever]

It is still irrelevant.
Evolution is a scientific theory. It tries to describe the way nature works. It is descriptive, not prescriptive. It does not tell us what we ought to do.

I understand what you are saying, but lets humor the OP. I think he uses the term 'evolution' when he really means a Godless universe; A universe that was not created by God and which God does not direct the destiny of any part of it (including us).

 

[Mr. Ex Nihilo]

Spiritual death. We die physically, but this seems to suggest that our spirit will not be destroyed if we accept Christ.

Yes, but Christ died "physically" -- not "spiritually". In the passage, Christ died physically so that the transmission of Adam's physical death onto all people would have no more hold over humanity...at least that's how I see it.

 

[h2whoa]

Yes, but Christ died "physically" -- not "spiritually". In the passage, Christ died physically so that the transmission of Adam's physical death onto all people would have no more hold over humanity...at least that's how I see it.

The problem with that, is that if that is the case then shouldn't Christians no longer suffer from physical death?

h2

 

[Jet Black]

Yes, but Christ died "physically" -- not "spiritually".

wasn't that so he could go to hell and deliver the proverbial Get out of Jail free card?

 

[Jet Black]

I might be wrong, but the Scriptures seem to indicate that death came through Adam. I'm willing to admit that this doesn't apply to animals. Also, admittedly, sin existed before the law was given.

But, at least in my heart, passages like this hold me back from fully embracing an evolutionary creation of Adam until the concepts can be reconciled better. I'm still reading and praying though and have not closed my mind to this possibility.

not wishing to divert too much, but for whose sins are you condemned to death for? who is the actual sinner being sent to hell/annihilated/whatever? From what I can gather, Adam is all of us; we make the decisions to sin, and Jesus saves us from ourselves.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Yes, but Christ died "physically" -- not "spiritually".

It's called "metaphor." Christ does physically what we all (up until that point) did spiritually.

In the passage, Christ died physically so that the transmission of Adam's physical death onto all people would have no more hold over humanity...at least that's how I see it.

There's one thing you're not seeing... We all still face physical death.
If this was Christ's mission. he failed.

 

[Alchemist]

From what I can gather, Adam is all of us; we make the decisions to sin, and Jesus saves us from ourselves.

Hi Jet Black,

For your interest: this is where the Orthodox Church differs from the Roman Catholic and some Protestant denominations. Eastern Orthodoxy teaches that humans are not guilty for Adam's sin, but because the world is sinful we sin also, i.e. we are not sinful by default. This view is shared with Judaism. The idea of man being 'tainted' by Adam's sin, and hence being inherantly bad (i.e. 'total depravity') was proposed by the Roman Catholic Church, and was strongly reinforced by the teachings of Luther and Calvin (hence its typical presense in Protestantism).

Peace,
Alchemist

 

[Alchemist]

Oh, and re: the OP;

One's purpose in life is the purpose which is revealed to him through his experiences, physically, emotionally and spiritually (if he believes in such dimensions). I strongly believe that God exists; the fact that He may have created the world via evolutionary processes does not change that at all .