If Evolution

[JudgeRightly]

then your Holy Book is incompatible with the real world

I think you're overstating your case. The Bible is incompatible with evolution. To say it's incompatible with "the real world" means you would have to utterly show that that is the case, but you can't, because there are things in the real world that reaffirm things written in the Bible.

 

[Jose Fly]

The Bible is incompatible with evolution.

Then if I'm convinced that evolution actually happens, I'm justified in rejecting the Bible and Christianity, correct?

 

[Jose Fly]

Yes, there is no conflict!

And the scriptures make it clear, with two creation stories with different orders and methods of creation back-to-back in the text, that we cannot and should not take the early chapters of Genesis literally.

In fact, even atheists who believe the earth brought forth life can find support for that view in the first chapter of Genesis: it say the earth brought forth life and the waters brought forth life.

I'm curious......what's your desired outcome in this thread? Is it to convince fundamentalist Christians to not read Genesis literally?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Then if I'm convinced that evolution actually happens, I'm justified in rejecting the Bible and Christianity, correct?

Justified? No. But you do have the ability to reject God. God isn't going to force you to live with Him if you reject Him.

Proving that evolution happens is not the same as believing/being convinced it happens.

 

[Jose Fly]

Justified? No. But you do have the ability to reject God. God isn't going to force you to live with Him if you reject Him.

Proving that evolution happens is not the same as believing/being convinced it happens.

You and others here have made it quite clear; evolution is completely incompatible with the Bible and Christianity. So the logical conclusion is that if I see evolution as a real process that actually happens, I cannot be a Christian.

Is that correct?

 

[2003cobra]

Then if I'm convinced that evolution actually happens, I'm justified in rejecting the Bible and Christianity, correct?

I think that is overstating the case.

You are certainly justified in rejecting the “it’s literal or it’s a lie” philosophy of interpreting the early chapters of Genesis. They can’t be taken literally, since there are two creation stories that differ in the order and method of creation.

 

[The Barbarian]

Then if I'm convinced that evolution actually happens, I'm justified in rejecting the Bible and Christianity, correct?

Jose responds:
Then if I'm convinced that evolution actually happens, I'm justified in rejecting the Bible and Christianity, correct?

This is exactly what St. Augustine warned us about:

Often, a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances, … and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, which people see as ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.

The shame is not so much that an ignorant person is laughed at, but rather that people outside the faith believe that we hold such opinions, and thus our teachings are rejected as ignorant and unlearned. If they find a Christian mistaken in a subject that they know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions as based on our teachings, how are they going to believe these teachings in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think these teachings are filled with fallacies about facts which they have learnt from experience and reason.

Reckless and presumptuous expounders of Scripture bring about much harm when they are caught in their mischievous false opinions by those not bound by our sacred texts. And even more so when they then try to defend their rash and obviously untrue statements by quoting a shower of words from Scripture and even recite from memory passages which they think will support their case ‘without understanding either what they are saying or what they assert with such assurance.’ (1 Timothy 1:7)
St. Augustine De Genisi ad litteram

 

[2003cobra]

I'm curious......what's your desired outcome in this thread? Is it to convince fundamentalist Christians to not read Genesis literally?

They include:
1) Let people who aren’t Christians know that they should not reject Christianity on the basis of the unreasonable and ill-conceived philosophies of a few people who call themselves Christians.
2) Encourage Christians who have bought into the error of “it’s literal or it’s a lie” to consider the alternatives.
3) Encourage Christians who have not yet taken a stand on this situation to take the right path, especially by pointing out that the Bible itself makes it clear that we should not take the early chapters of Genesis literally.

There may be more reasons. I would have to think about it, but I must get back to the grand baby soon.

 

[2003cobra]

You and others here have made it quite clear; evolution is completely incompatible with the Bible and Christianity. So the logical conclusion is that if I see evolution as a real process that actually happens, I cannot be a Christian.

Is that correct?

It is best not to let the least informed and most unreasonable direct your views and influence your future.

I am a Christian. I recognize evolution occurred and continues to occur.

 

[2003cobra]

Jose responds:
Then if I'm convinced that evolution actually happens, I'm justified in rejecting the Bible and Christianity, correct?

This is exactly what St. Augustine warned us about:

Often, a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances, … and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, which people see as ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.

The shame is not so much that an ignorant person is laughed at, but rather that people outside the faith believe that we hold such opinions, and thus our teachings are rejected as ignorant and unlearned. If they find a Christian mistaken in a subject that they know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions as based on our teachings, how are they going to believe these teachings in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think these teachings are filled with fallacies about facts which they have learnt from experience and reason.

Reckless and presumptuous expounders of Scripture bring about much harm when they are caught in their mischievous false opinions by those not bound by our sacred texts. And even more so when they then try to defend their rash and obviously untrue statements by quoting a shower of words from Scripture and even recite from memory passages which they think will support their case ‘without understanding either what they are saying or what they assert with such assurance.’ (1 Timothy 1:7)
St. Augustine De Genisi ad litteram

1600 years ago!

 

[Jose Fly]

I think that is overstating the case.

You are certainly justified in rejecting the “it’s literal or it’s a lie” philosophy of interpreting the early chapters of Genesis. They can’t be taken literally, since there are two creation stories that differ in the order and method of creation.

This is exactly what St. Augustine warned us about:

Thanks for posting, but I'm aware of all that. My question is specifically for those who are pushing the "evolution is incompatible with the Bible" narrative.

 

[Jose Fly]

They include:
1) Let people who aren’t Christians know that they should not reject Christianity on the basis of the unreasonable and ill-conceived philosophies of a few people who call themselves Christians.
2) Encourage Christians who have bought into the error of “it’s literal or it’s a lie” to consider the alternatives.
3) Encourage Christians who have not yet taken a stand on this situation to take the right path, especially by pointing out that the Bible itself makes it clear that we should not take the early chapters of Genesis literally.

There may be more reasons. I would have to think about it, but I must get back to the grand baby soon.

Thanks for answering. I do appreciate it.

If those are your goals, I would strongly suggest finding a way to direct your thoughts and posts to the specific people you're targeting, rather than getting dragged into the bottomless abyss of "debating" a few of the fundamentalist Christians you've been spending time with.

Just a suggestion.

 

[2003cobra]

Thanks for answering. I do appreciate it.

If those are your goals, I would strongly suggest finding a way to direct your thoughts and posts to the specific people you're targeting, rather than getting dragged into the bottomless abyss of "debating" a few of the fundamentalist Christians you've been spending time with.

Just a suggestion.

I have another activity in this mission. I support the work of one of the people involved in Biologos.

I am open to more specific suggestions.

I agree the discussions with the recalcitrant can seem fruitless, but I think others sitting on the fence may gain.

 

[2003cobra]

Thanks for posting, but I'm aware of all that. My question is specifically for those who are pushing the "evolution is incompatible with the Bible" narrative.

I hope they answer.

 

[JudgeRightly]

They include:
1) Let people who aren’t Christians know that they should not reject Christianity on the basis of the unreasonable and ill-conceived philosophies of a few people who call themselves Christians.
2) Encourage Christians who have bought into the error of “it’s literal or it’s a lie” to consider the alternatives.
3) Encourage Christians who have not yet taken a stand on this situation to take the right path, especially by pointing out that the Bible itself makes it clear that we should not take the early chapters of Genesis literally.

There may be more reasons. I would have to think about it, but I must get back to the grand baby soon.

As far as I'm aware, no one here that claims that Genesis 1+2 are speaking of the creation account as being literal has claimed that the entire Bible is to be take literally, every verse.

Jesus said:

[JESUS]For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”[/JESUS] - John 5:46-47 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John5:46-47&version=KJ21

Moses said:

For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. - Exodus 20:11 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus20:11&version=KJ2

Moses also wrote both Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. So the question is now, "Did Moses write two different creation accounts, as inspired by God, or did he write one creation account in both chapters, but with the first chapter he provided an overview, and with the second he went into the details a bit?"

Moses was reaffirmed by Jesus as writing something that should be taken as truth. Which is more likely, Jesus being wrong about what Moses wrote, or you being wrong about what Moses wrote?

 

[JudgeRightly]

I have another activity in this mission. I support the work of one of the people involved in Biologos.

I am open to more specific suggestions.

I agree the discussions with the recalcitrant can seem fruitless, but I think others sitting on the fence may gain.

So you have a vested interest in showing that Genesis is not to be taken literally.

Thanks for showing your motives.

See, Cobra, words have meaning. If what you say is true, and Genesis 1-2 are not to be taken literally, then it removes the entire foundation for the rest of the Bible, the most important part being that there would no longer be any reason for God to have come as a Man and died and be raised from the dead to pay for our sins.

My question to you is this: if Genesis 1,2 are not literal accounts of the creation story, are they just figures of speech/analogies? If so, what do those figures of speech mean/what do those analogies represent?

 

[The Barbarian]

So you have a vested interest in showing that Genesis is not to be taken literally.

Thanks for showing your motives.

See, Cobra, words have meaning. If what you say is true, and Genesis 1-2 are not to be taken literally, then it removes the entire foundation for the rest of the Bible,

That's certainly wrong. Unless you think pre-20th century Christians were all stupid, there's no way to justify such a faulty claim.

the most important part being that there would no longer be any reason for God to have come as a Man and died and be raised from the dead to pay for our sins.

No, that's wrong, too. If there was a literal Adam and Eve (and there were, and evolutionary theory does not in any way require that there weren't) and there was a real fall (and there was, and that is also consistent with evolutionary theory) then it doesn't matter at all if it was recounted as a parable or as literal history. You know this. Why should anyone even have to remind you of this?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

My question to you is this: if Genesis 1,2 are not literal accounts of the creation story, are they just figures of speech/analogies? If so, what do those figures of speech mean/what do those analogies represent?

Some serious hermeneutical hopscotch is needed to deny the literal meaning of days in Exodus 20:11.

- The ordinance of the Sabbath is now doubtful if six days is not literal.
- If the first Adam is allegorical, then the second Adam is, too?
- A literal Adam is required in Romans.
- The Apostle clearly described Adam as the first human sinner—not whatever millions of human-like beings in the presumed evolutionary chain.
- Death came through Adamic sin, an explanation from Scripture that is cast aside in the notion of millions of years of death and destruction prior to Adam assumed by evolution.
- That vast stellar distances seem contradict the plain reading of Scripture should lead us to question the vast distances versus trying to force the Bible to conform to extra-Biblical theories.

AMR

 

[JudgeRightly]

Some serious hermeneutical hopscotch is needed to deny the literal meaning of days in Exodus 20:11.

Agreed.

- The ordinance of the Sabbath is now doubtful if six days is not literal.

Agreed.

- If the first Adam is allegorical, then the second Adam is, too?

Maybe not necessarily, but it certainly calls into question the second Adam.

- A literal Adam is required in Romans.

Yup

- The Apostle clearly described Adam as the first human sinner—not whatever millions of human-like beings in the presumed evolutionary chain.

Which Apostle? (Paul, I'm guessing?)

The rest we agree on.

- Death came through Adamic sin, an explanation from Scripture that is cast aside in the notion of millions of years of death and destruction prior to Adam assumed by evolution.

Agreed.

- That vast stellar distances seem contradict the plain reading of Scripture should lead us to question the vast distances versus trying to force the Bible to conform to extra-Biblical theories.

I think you out a words. (I think you left out a few words)

My position on the universe being so large yet the time allotted being so small is that God, during the creation week, specifically on day four, literally stretched out the heavens.

 

[Jose Fly]

I have another activity in this mission. I support the work of one of the people involved in Biologos.

I am open to more specific suggestions.

I agree the discussions with the recalcitrant can seem fruitless, but I think others sitting on the fence may gain.

My main suggestion would be to put more effort into finding the people on the fence and talking with them directly, rather than spending time "debating" fundamentalists and hoping the fence-sitters are quietly lurking in the background.