Theistic Evolution

[jbthree]

I think the true theist will believe that the Gen. 1-11 can be taken literally. Thanks for sharing your views.

 

Ah...a "true" theist. So someone who believes there is a god but not the god of your bible isn't really a theist? I pretty sure there's some people here that would disagree. Your defintion of theist seems eerily similar to christian. The two are not synomynous. A christian can be a theist, but a theist is not necessarily a christian. So I guess you would argue that anyone that calls themselves a christian, but doesn't believe every word of the bible is literal, isn't a "true" christian?

 

I should have qualified my statement. Theist, according to the Bible. One can be a non-biblical theist. Yes, I believe a "Biblical" Christian will accept Gen. 1-11 as literal history. Does this mean that one who doesn't, but claims to be a Christian, isn't really one? That's not for me to judge. But I do think there is sufficient evidence, archeological and scientific, that supports the literalness of these chapters.

 

The point of my topic, of course, addresses those who claim there is no conflict between the Bible and evolution. Are you such a person?

 

Your other counter-arguments all pre-suppose the bible is perfectly accurate description of past events. May I ask, which version of the bible you believe is the most "perfect"?

 

[JB] I use the KJV, NKJV, NIV and NASB. I believe them to be in accord.

 

If the entire bible is literal and is all the inspired word of god, why do you choose to follow some of the commandments and not others?

 

For example.

 

Peace

 

 

 

IMOHO,

[Antlerman]

The truths of scriptures are as applicable today as they were back then. There is no antiquity to the meaning of scripture, esp. the New Testament. Jesus said his words will never pass away. Now I don't expect a non-theist to believe that, but again, I'm addressing those who say they believe the Bible and theistic evolution.

Let me respectfully say that your saying this time and again, that an atheist has nothing to offer to this conversation, is frankly rude and unfair. I am a study of human nature and what I see happening here is not some mystical spirit war that can be used to excuse away the thoughts of another person who sees things from a different perspective. It is the age old rationalizations of someone who hangs onto preconceived ideas.

 

First of all, "there is no antiquity to the meaning of scripture"? Really? Are you certain? Have you ever read all the rainbow spectrum of interpretations of the Bible from the 2nd century forward? Do you see a singular interpretation? Do you pray to Mary? Do you believe the Peter was the first Pope of Rome? Do you believe the antichrist was Nero, or do you believe he is coming in the future? Should I continue? You are mistaken about this as a point of fact, and my being atheist does not alter that fact or affect that observation in any way.

 

Regarding your accusation against non-literalist Christians that not believing Adam was an actual historic figure means they are rejecting Christ because he referenced Adam: A few possibilities:

 

1. Jesus actually said this and was merely using the language of the mythology that the culture understood for the express purpose of communicating an idea. The problem lies with those today who think it was meant as anything more that a point of reference to a belief.

 

2. No person named Jesus ever said these words, but these are the words of the author of the gospel who the myth of Adam was the language of his culture.

 

3. Jesus actually said this, and actually believed in a literal historic person named Adam and that the account of Genesis should be taken literally and was 100% scientifically accurate. If this is the case, then he was not divine, as the facts of science, from multiple fields the world over have discredited these stories as being accurate on a scientific level. Allegorically, perhaps, but not scientifically.

 

Now, I'm hoping your biases against non/ex-Christians are not going to keep you from listening to the valid thoughts of other human beings? I know my views will never keep me from listening to you.

 

Respect

[insomniac]

i dont think they can be reconciled biblically because nothing indicates that such would ever be the case after the "fall of man"

[Ouroboros]

Some people claim they believe God made everything and then let evolution take over. But is this possible for the one who says he or she believes the Bible? Can evolution be reconciled with scripture?

In my opinion it can. First of all, the Bible doesn't say how this supposed God created things.

 

But first you have to step over the line of literal interpretation into the realm of figurative or metaphorical interpretation.

 

The Genesis could be interpreted as the "spiritual" meaning of (the supposed) God's creation. A&E ate the fruit can be looked at as how the humans at some point developed the ability to see cause and effect, or the need of norms to build a stable community, or the ability to form and create tools. Humans suddenly started to want the explanations to things, and it developed into a story that humans woke up from the animal ignorance, into the awareness of existence.

 

I've been to websites with Christian scientists that believe in evolution, and still believe in the Bible, but not in the same sense as fundamentalists.

[Skankboy]

The point of my topic, of course, addresses those who claim there is no conflict between the Bible and evolution. Are you such a person?

 

If you take the bible literally, of course there is conflict. For example, evolution has no mechanism to explain talking snakes or donkeys.

 

If you take the bible to be mythological/allegorical document, then no, there needn't be any conflict.

 

As for your question about the commandments. There are a multitude of commandments listed in the bible (not just the 10 of fame) and I've always found it interesting how christians often are so vehement about everybody keeping some and then rationalize away the ones they themselves don't follow.

 

Some examples would be the eating of shellfish, the wearing of mixed fibers, the requirement that women wear veils in church, etc.

 

I use the KJV, NKJV, NIV and NASB. I believe them to be in accord.

 

In accordance with what? Do you find it odd that you require 4 versions of a "perfect" document to achieve a "literal truth"?

 

That's not for me to judge. But I do think there is sufficient evidence, archeological and scientific, that supports the literalness of these chapters.

 

I would be thrilled if you could provide some references for this claim...

 

 

IMOHO,

[Ouroboros]

I think the true theist will believe that the Gen. 1-11 can be taken literally. Thanks for sharing your views.

How can you claim that, when the human body consists of 70% water, and no dirt?

[TCH]

There is no conflict with the literal interpretation of the Bible and Evolution. God can do anything. Take Him out of the box in which you've placed Him. Whether you believe in Him or not you'll still need to take the definition of God from a believers perspective.

[insomniac]

God can do anything. Take Him out of the box in which you've placed Him. /quote]

 

I like my gods in boxes, preferably cardboard.

[Antlerman]

There is no conflict with the literal interpretation of the Bible and Evolution. God can do anything. Take Him out of the box in which you've placed Him. Whether you believe in Him or not you'll still need to take the definition of God from a believers perspective.

That's an interesting statement. Could you clarify what you mean be "literal" interpretation in regarding to the Genesis story? For instance, do you believe Eve was literally made from a rib bone from Adam's side, and that Adam was made from dirt and spittle?

 

I trust you mean you find no conflict, but I'm curious if you mean literal in the same sense that fundamentalist do, who feel it is necessary to discredit evolution in order to believe in the mud and rib origins of human beings?

[TCH]

Lets start with a simple "literal" from Genisis:

 

Gen 1:3 'And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. '

 

This was the big bang.

[Skankboy]

Lets start with a simple "literal" from Genisis:

 

Gen 1:3 'And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. '

 

This was the big bang.

I can see what you're trying to do TCH, but this actually causes more problems than it solves. Look at the 2 verses before this one:

 

1:1

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

 

1:2

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

 

How did "heaven and earth" exist before the big bang? How was there water before matter every had a chance to coalesce?

 

Later we have god creating the sun, moon and stars SEVERAL "DAYS" later than the light or the earth...

 

1:16

And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

 

But really, these don't even deal anything to do w/evolution. Let's look a little further and see what we find:

 

1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

 

1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

 

1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

 

1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

 

1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

 

1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

 

These verses are in direct contradiction of modern evolutionary theories. Whales didn't appear before land animals, birds certainly didn't appear before land animals.

 

I'm not trying to be mean TCH, but you really are opening yourself up to word of hurt if you continue this line of thinking. I am by no means an expert on these things, but others here are, and will not be nearly as kind as I have been...

 

IMOHO,

[white_raven23]

And according to the Genesis fiction, weren't there plants before there was a sun? The only way a literal and nonfictional POV of this story can reasonably work is if the people who believe this also disbelieve the science of photosynthesis.

 

And where do I fit here? I don't believe in religion or it's accompanying writings, but I do believe in a supreme being people commonly label as "god". But according to the OP's original notion of Theistic Evolution, I as a Deist, am supposed to be shut out from this topic because I don't believe the stories of the bible any more than I believe Zeus lived on Olympus and bore a daughter from his noggin.

[Ouroboros]

Lets start with a simple "literal" from Genisis:

 

Gen 1:3 'And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. '

 

This was the big bang.

But was it literally a day that he created the land animals? How can that not be in conflict with evolution? You need thousands of generations and the fight for survival, food and land, for it to work. So did he make the animals run around like crazy and breed a new generation every 5 minutes, and then give birth and die withint half-an-hour?

 

And something I don't get is how could God make man in his "image"? Was God a male with a penis? Was he made out of particles like us? What part of humans are the image that was from God? It for sure wasn't omnipotence, omniscience or omnipresent, at least not in my case! So is it only the "spirit" part? But spirits don't have images... it just doesn't make sense. Anyway, that's a sidetracked paranthesis, and TCH you don't have to answer.

[Caretaker]

I was just wondering how the theisitic evolutionist justifies his belief in evolution with Genesis.

 

Peace

Very simple. Not all theists are Christians. And quite possibly not all Christians view the Bible literally.

[jbthree]

The point of my topic, of course, addresses those who claim there is no conflict between the Bible and evolution. Are you such a person?

 

If you take the bible literally, of course there is conflict. For example, evolution has no mechanism to explain talking snakes or donkeys.

 

Right, evolution is not found in scripture.

 

As for your question about the commandments. There are a multitude of commandments listed in the bible (not just the 10 of fame) and I've always found it interesting how christians often are so vehement about everybody keeping some and then rationalize away the ones they themselves don't follow.

 

Christians don't advocate observance of the Mosaic laws, which only condemn a person. The Ten commandments are binding on all people, not so much for observation, but to show man that he is a sinner (Rom. 3:20). The law is a ministry of death (2 Cor. 3:7). When we break God's laws and Commandments, it shows us what sinners we are (pride, hate, deceit, lust, fornication, lying, theft, covetousness, envy, jealousy, etc. - Mark 7:21-23) The purpose of law is to convict of sin. Having done that, man is pointed to the Savior who delivers from the guilt of sin through repentance and faith in Christ who died for our sins.

 

Some examples would be the eating of shellfish, the wearing of mixed fibers, the requirement that women wear veils in church, etc.

 

Gentiles are not under The Mosaic laws which were given only to Israel. Gentiles are bound by the Ten Commandments because it reveals them as sinners.

 

In accordance with what? Do you find it odd that you require 4 versions of a "perfect" document to achieve a "literal truth"?

 

I don't "require" four versions, but I like the wording in one, or some, over the others. There are no inconsistencies between them, although the wording is different. The same meanings are expressed using different words.

 

That's not for me to judge. But I do think there is sufficient evidence, archeological and scientific, that supports the literalness of these chapters.

 

I would be thrilled if you could provide some references for this claim...

 

All you have to do is look around and see all the different life forms that God created (Gen. 1:11,12, 20-26). Then look up and see the heavens, stars, sun, moon, which he also created (Gen. 1:14-17). By studying all these life forms, man should see that they "fearfully and wonderfully made" by a Creator (Ps. 139:14). While the Bible is not about science, it is not inconsistent with it. FE, law of increasing entropy (Ps. 102:25-27, Rom. 8:20,21). The prophets knew the earth was round before science (Isa. 40:22). Science affirms that the life of the flesh is in the blood (Lev. 17:11). Capital punishment (Gen. 9:6). Medical science affirms that joy and laughter are healthy (Prov. 17:22). Fossil record shows all life forms destroyed by a global flood (Gen. 7:23). Black holes (Matt. 8:12). Science affirms the Bible's prophecy that the universe will implode in fire (2 Pet. 3:7,10). The hydrologic cycle (Eccl. 1:7). Stars can't be numbered (Jer. 33:22). Earth the only planet with humanity (Ps. 115:16). Gravitational field (Job 26:7). Inflationary universe (Isa. 40:22). Fire and brimstone found in earth's core (Rev. 21:8). That's hell! Repent and give your life to Christ:-)

 

Peace

[theunraveler]

when there is a huge number of micro evolutions in an organism, can it be considered as macroevolution?

 

genetic engineering has made it possible to grow plants that glow in the dark, can that be considered as macroevolution?

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

when there is a huge number of micro evolutions in an organism, can it be considered as macroevolution?

 

genetic engineering has made it possible to grow plants that glow in the dark, can that be considered as macroevolution?

 

It's a good question, and there is another question inside it. Is evolution still evolution regardless of whether it is man made or is it just genetic manipulation? Is it the same plant? It reminds me of the philosophical question about Jason and the Argonauts' boat.

[Ouroboros]

It reminds me of the philosophical question about Jason and the Argonauts' boat.

Just to clarify, that's the one where the pieces of the boat is replaced during the journey, and when they finally come back home, all pieces have been replaced. Is it a new boat, or is it the same boat? If it is a new one, at what point did it become new? Is that the question?

[TCH]

Omniscient - Having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight. Possessed of universal or complete knowledge.

 

Omnipotent - having virtually unlimited authority or influence

 

Omnipresent - present in all places at all times

 

God - Omniscient, Omnipresent and having unlimited authority and influence

 

Sin – Not doing the Will of God.

 

Free Choice – That which allows us to sin.

 

Notice that I did not say that God was Omnipotent. That word is not a correct definition of God because God has all authority over everything. Thus the statement, “God can do anything.” Describes His power best.

 

Now all of you Ex-Christians need to get over this little problem before you continue. What is ‘anything?’ Well let’s look at a common paradox (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paradox):

 

What came first the Chicken or the egg?

 

Argue either side. It doesn’t matter unless you can let go of your boxed in thinking. There are no paradoxes with God. If there were then He wouldn’t be much of a God would He? As soon as you put God under some constraint then He is no God.

[Ouroboros]

As soon as you put God under some constraint then He is no God.

That's exactly the dilemma with Christianity or any kind of organized religion. Put a label on God, and you've put constraint on him. That's one of the agnostic views that "God" is an unknowable and incomprehensive object. We can't define him/it/her. When you said "God can do anything", you already put a constraint on God, because you also said "Sin – Not doing the Will of God", which means that God can or can not do anything. Can he commit an act of sin?

[TCH]

As soon as you put God under some constraint then He is no God.

That's exactly the dilemma with Christianity or any kind of organized religion. Put a label on God, and you've put constraint on him. That's one of the agnostic views that "God" is an unknowable and incomprehensive object. We can't define him/it/her. When you said "God can do anything", you already put a constraint on God, because you also said "Sin – Not doing the Will of God", which means that God can or can not do anything. Can he commit an act of sin?

 

 

Did you not see the statement there are no paradoxes with God? If God does something it must be His Will. Why would you think that God would sin? Can He sin is not the question. The question is would He sin? You need to get over the constraints of a paradox. There are no mutually exclusive traits to God. If He wants to do something, He can. Period.

[Ouroboros]

The statement "There are no paradoxes with God", is nothing but a statement. There are no paradoxes with the universe either, but it doesn't mean the universe can do anything it "wants" to. Everything that happens is the "will" of the universe.

 

The paradox is that God can not act against his own will, because acting is based on your will. So when you ask "but would he", that means "would he want to", or "does he have the will to do it". So he doesn't have the will to act against his own will, and there's one thing he can't do. So he can't sin.

[TCH]

The paradox only exists in your mind as you cannot grasp this concept. You might as well argue that the existence I see and experience is only perceptable by me, there for only I exist and everything else is something I created. Therefore I am God.

[TCH]

Try reading Carl Jung, Sigmund Freud, Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Nietzsche.

[Ouroboros]

Oh no, there is definitely a paradox.

 

Let's say I told my kids that if they acted against what I want, they would be sinning.

 

I want them to clean their room, if they don't they are sinning.

 

The question is, can I want to act against what I want?

 

If I want to do act against what I want, then it immediately is something that I want and hence I want what I want, not want what I don't want. So I can't want something that I don't want.

 

The next question is can I act against what I want. Only if I'm forced to it. If someone puts a gun to my head or of other reasons I act against my wants.

 

Can God act against what he want? Same thing apply, he must want it to act on it, otherwise why would he do it? He can't want to act against what he wants. (And that's what you said "Does he want to?")

 

Can God be forced to act against what he want? No, there's supposedly no power greater than him. So he can't be forced to act against his wants.

 

So God can't act against his own wants (which is the same as will).

 

You can't will against your will, and neither can he. (Just because that's EXACTLY what you said. He doesn't want to.)

 

So God can not sin.