Is it possible to believe in God, and be a darwinist at the same time?

[Rav]

My point is that I don't believe it is possible to hold that darwinian idea of evolution definately took place, and believe in God (not a concoction) simultaneously.

Yazata nailed it on the previous page when he said:

The only way that an incompatibility would seem to arise would be if the theist believed not only in the existence of a 'God' (however that word is defined), but also in a second special-creationist premise that has this God creating all the various 'kinds' of life initially at creation, with the 'kinds' continuing on essentially unchanged ever since.

So what you are actually saying is this:

"My point is that I don't believe it is possible to hold that darwinian idea of evolution definately took place, and believe in God (where God is defined as an entity that creates life according to various 'kinds' that essentially never change) simultaneously."

Well, duh! Of course it's not possible. You've rigged the game! But what I am really taking issue with here is your assertion that if a person instead conceives of God as an entity that set the evolutionary processes in motion, and perhaps even guided them along to ensure a certain outcome, and then perhaps even eventually breathed souls into some of them, that they are not actually conceiving of God at all, and are therefore not really theists, no matter how devout they are in their faith.

For as long as you persist with expressing this colossally arrogant nonsense openly, I'm going to be here to take you to task for it. And as you've seen, I'm not going to be nice about it because diplomacy is the very last thing you are inviting here.

 

[Grumpy]

The pool player who strokes the cue ball once leading to all the balls falling into pockets is mightier than the pool player who must strain and poke to put each ball in a pocket. A god who could say "Let there be light!" and the Big Bang, stellar evolution, chemical evolution and life evolving followed, probably throughout the Universe(where life can survive on Earth we find life already living there, even in boiling, chemical rich, volcanic springs), is far mightier than a god that must continually tinker with the works to achieve the same results. The first sort of god is the Deist god, the Founders of our country believed he endowed Nature with the wherewithal to achieve his goals(a Universe full of intelligent life)without need of his further intervention or regard. They thought many ancient scholars had hints of what god is, but he was essentially unknowable and religious texts were largely fabrications around grains of truth. Morals were the result of the Natural Law the Creator set up when he made everything. That was before evolutionary theory was much more than an idea held by cattle and dog breeders(and, interestingly enough, tulip growers). But, even then, we knew that creatures lived in the past that did not live today, they had their bones which had turned into rock, some were enough like extant species that the inference was obvious that they were related, if slightly different forms of the same animal or plant which had changed over time. And that is what evolution is, change in the traits of populations of lifeforms over time.

So, the answer is that of course you can believe in a creator and evolution at the same time, as long as you are not foolish enough to try to limit what god can do or tell him how he must do it(or even think you know what he can do or how he did it). Fundamentalists like to say they have certain knowledge, but most of what you see from them is fear and prejudice of those not like themselves, often to the point of madness. A lot of that is fear of flying, being unable to walk the rope without a safety net, they need certainty in a world where certainty just does not exist and they need validation of their moral superiority to those who do not accept their personal answer and knowledge. I've never seen anyone who breaks the Commandment not to lie like Creationists will to protect their own, twisted, faith-based illusions of superior knowledge, morals and certainties from close scrutiny.

Grumpy

 

[Jan Ardena]

Rav,

I'm not sure I really see the problem for the catholics (or any other sort of Christian theistic evolutionist) here.

I didn't say it was a problem. I said it was a contradiction.
Jesus clearly taught that God created humans, not that he caused their probability through the process of evolution.

They already insist that genesis shouldn't be read literally anyway.

Jesus teaching contradicts that.
It's not my opinion, it's in the gospels.

In fact one of the arguments in favour of that involves the idea that anything more than an allegorical creation story would have been inappropriate for a scientifically illiterate culture. In fact many Christians echo the sentiments of Caesar Baronius who once said "The Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go." And really, the way the Bible is written, from beginning to end, fit's that to a T. So what, exactly, is the problem with an example of God being consistent with himself?

I'm not arguing with you, they conduct their religion how they believe it should be, and interpret the scriptures how they see fit. All I'm saying is that by accepting dawinian explanations for origin of mankind, they contradict Jesus, who clearly believed that God created mankind.

"They said (in boast), “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah”—But they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not—Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise." - Qur'an 4:157

How do you reconcile such a verse with the fact that pretty much the entire New Testament explicitly affirms the crucifixion of Jesus, without getting a little liberal (a lot, in fact)? I'm not saying it's absolutely impossible to be creative enough to make sense of it all somehow, but in doing so you're doing exactly the same thing the catholics are doing, which is to diverge from scriptural literalism.

Sounds to me as they are saying that they didn't crucify Jesus, which corresponds with the bible because it makes accounts of people who saw Jesus afer he was crucified. So how can Jesus have been crucified, and not crucified at the same time?

Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots......

And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.....

And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

The first line corresponds with But they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them,....''. It's as if Jesus is seeing them do something to his body, thinking that they are killing him, but in reality they were killing a body made up of matter. That was the level of their understanding and the subject of Jesus' lament, IMHO.

The next two lines show the difference between the reality and the illusion.
So when looked at from a spiritual perspective, by spiritual I mean from the way Jesus himself looked at it, it's not a contradiction.

So how is it, exactly, that their theism is compromised, but yours isn't?

What do you mean by a compromised theism? Theism is what that aspect of the person is, there are no higher or lower levels. I don't know if individuals are theist or not. If they are, then they are. If you are a theist, then you can accept what Jesus says, because his position becomes more understandable to you. It means you are open to that dimension of thought. To rationalise it is to bring it to a materialistic conclusion, but Jesus wasn't concerned about the material world, God sent him to save those who would listen and take heed of his message. And what was saving them from? The same illusory states as those who were the subject of his lament?

jan

 

[Grumpy]

Jan Ardena

It's not my opinion, it's in the gospels.

Mathew, Mark, Luke and John do not even agree with each other, what gives you the idea that everything in the gospels was beyond a doubt true? And the book you are reading was not a book until the 5th Century, 450+ years after Jesus's time. The church threw out more than they included in the Bible and it was the prejudices of Dark Age clerics that determined which was which. And the books went from Ancient Aramaic to Greek to Latin and, after Guttenberg and Martin Luther, into german and French and finally, English. Each translation introduced confusion and error, garbling the meanings. Your gospels are at the very end of thousands of years of telephone, the Old Testament was literally passed down by word of mouth around the campfire for thousands of years before they were put on papyrus. Ever wonder about the similarity between the name Tut-Moses and Moses(hint, it isn't coincidence), one was a well known Pharaoh, one was a well known leader of Jews out of Egyptian bondage. You don't know what you think you know about your holy book and it is in no way more(nor any less)accurate or authoritative than any other fractured fairy tale, you certainly think every other religious creation myth is bunk, it just makes sense yours is no better.

Grumpy

 

[Aqueous Id]

Mathew, Mark, Luke and John do not even agree with each other, what gives you the idea that everything in the gospels was beyond a doubt true?

"Because the Bible tells me so". I find it paradoxical (at best) that the folks who are against statues (modern iconoclasts) such as Mormons, Catholics, and several Orthodox churches will use -- have elevated pieces of paper to the status of Godhead.

If for a minute anyone seriously believed it was divinely inspired, then there should not be a single error. (I have a few pet peeve.)

And the book you are reading was not a book until the 5th Century, 450+ years after Jesus's time.

Not only that, it went through further alterations when the Protestants (esp King James comittees) started speaking for God roughly 1000 years later.

The church threw out more than they included in the Bible and it was the prejudices of Dark Age clerics that determined which was which.

If anyone doubts this I encourage them to read Eusebius' Eccelesiastical History in which he basically catalogues which texts are to go on the "ban list" for originating from any sect ("heretics") he didn't like. So what you're saying isn't just hearsay. It's well documented.

And the books went from Ancient Aramaic to Greek to Latin and, after Guttenberg and Martin Luther, into German and French and finally, English.

Anyone who speaks a second language knows what kinds of problems it brings to convey an idea from just one language to the other. Admittedly, some of the later Bibles went back and re-translated directly from Hebrew and Greek sources. But the nutty thing about it is, they often stole the definitions from the older Catholic sources anyway.

Each translation introduced confusion and error, garbling the meanings.

So much so that you can turn on any TV evangelist and hear them still tripping over meanings.

Your gospels are at the very end of thousands of years of telephone, the Old Testament was literally passed down by word of mouth around the campfire for thousands of years before they were put on papyrus.

And some of that can be proven by facts the author gives which are taking place around him -- that we know occurred centuries after the timeline he's claiming for the story.

Ever wonder about the similarity between the name Tut-Moses and Moses(hint, it isn't coincidence), one was a well-known Pharaoh, one was a well-known leader of Jews out of Egyptian bondage.

Another pet peeve of mine. And another is that the Bible claims the Pharaoh’s family were wiped out and plague & etc. befell Egypt. Meanwhile we see books in Egypt from the same dynasty in which all they are doing is counting their livestock and crop yields and then they get into a war which alters their pace - but never a mention of any of the things the Bible claims happened.

You don't know what you think you know about your holy book and it is in no way more(nor any less)accurate or authoritative than any other fractured fairy tale, you certainly think every other religious creation myth is bunk, it just makes sense yours is no better.

In fact, Gen 1 begins by calling the creator "Elohim" which is "gods or godhead", and then retells the creation in Gen 2, now introducing Yahweh as the God of Creation. And it goes down entirely differently. It just makes all of this so much more absurd. But it explains why fundies are so scared about teaching their kids science. They're afraid of what the kids will find out.

 

[Aqueous Id]

jan,

You're having a hard time with this aren't you?
I'm not in denial of ''science''. Science is the way we learn about the world around us, it's damned near impossible to deny science.

At present you are refuting whale evolution simply by saying the facts presented are absurd. I'm trying to mediate that by providing you information that you say does not exist. I'm not really having a hard time with it, I just thought you were, so I offered the information.

I just don't accept whale evolution. The Philip Gingerich site you linked, gives no actual science other than his own affirmations.

I merely suggested that as your starting point for research. You just needed to scroll to the bottom or go here, two clicks away. In any case you should find all the technical details concerning whale evolution.

You mention affirmations. Here's what I call an affirmation:

Thanks in large part to Philip Gingerich, the fossil record of whales now offers one of the most stunning demonstrations of Darwinian evolution rather than a refutation of it. Ironically, Gingerich himself grew up in a strictly principled Christian environment, in a family of Amish Mennonites in eastern Iowa. (His grandfather was a farmer and lay preacher.) Yet at the time, he felt no clash between faith and science. "My grandfather had an open mind about the age of the Earth," he says, "and never mentioned evolution. Remember, these were people of great humility, who only expressed an opinion on something when they knew a lot about it."

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/08/whale-evolution/mueller-text/8

I just love that last line. It's like he just nuked people like ICR.

He even admitns to fabricatinlg fossils to fool people into accepting his idea.

I googled "philip gingerich fabricated fossil evidence" and got zero matches. What are you saying?

This particular account of darwinian evolution doesn't need to be denied by those who don't accept it.

Contrast what you just said with first statement by National Geographics above. Not accepting something that is widely acclaimed, especially among experts of the caliber we are discussing, should at least raise some alarms. How else other than denial can you describe the strident resistance to expert testimony? And then we get to the actual science in his papers. That's quite a reach for a person who says it's not a form of denial.

 

[billvon]

Jesus clearly taught that God created humans, not that he caused their probability through the process of evolution.

Yeah, well, the Bible says a lot of things. Even you have admitted that some of them probably aren't right. The various Gospels contradict each other, so there are clearly some errors there as well. Thus you have to say what the Bible says with a grain of salt. It's not a science book, and it is foolish to treat it as as scientifically accurate source.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Yeah, well, the Bible says a lot of things. Even you have admitted that some of them probably aren't right. The various Gospels contradict each other, so there are clearly some errors there as well. Thus you have to say what the Bible says with a grain of salt. It's not a science book, and it is foolish to treat it as as scientifically accurate source.

Or, billvon, we could suspend judgement on that for a moment, and simply conclude that Jesus didn't know a lot of things. He didn't know about gravity, surface tension and buoyancy when He walked on water. He didn't didn't know about conservation of energy when He multiplied the loaves and fishes, nor about chemistry when He changed water into wine. He didn't know any of the life sciences when He raised the dead, and nothing about escape velocity and the effects of pressure on human tissues when He ascended into Heaven. Nor did He know astronomy as far as locating Heaven, nor any of the physics involved in getting there.

Still suspending judgment, billvon, except to assume as true that Jesus loves you, it seems evident from your posts that you excel in knowledge of many if not all of these areas of learning, which -- further assuming that this gift of yours is by the grace of Jesus (and perhaps the inspiration of the Holy Spirit if we incorporate the broader tenets of Trinitarianism) -- which infers that Jesus out of love for you has given you basis to confirm that the laws of Nature are to be weighed against the beliefs of what a text actually says, as measured by the humble human intelligence. From that grace of Jesus you are told that the text in these stories is rich with myth, legend and fable, and that it is dishonor Him to reject such wisdom (of the Holy Spirit) by taking it upon yourself to force the text to drive any conclusion that requires Jesus to violate his own laws.

By the same token, billvon, graced by the light of Jesus as we know you are, you may - in fact you must - take notice that when Jesus taught that God created Adam, He was endorsing the teachings he delivered to you in those areas of life science that concern the genesis of all organisms, and in so doing, conferring his wisdom upon you that humans did indeed evolve from apelike ancestors, that whales evolved from ugulates and all of the other facts concerning all of the truths about the world which you have accepted with a conviction to learn, through perseverance, tests of strength, and good will.

That being said, while you are entirely correct in deciding that the Bible is not a book of science per se, we must insist that it directs you not to construe it in any way that requires Jesus to violate his own laws, but that you only must construe the works of science as literal truth insofar as they validate the sacred principle that theses laws shall not be broken.

You or any of the religious folks here should feel free correct me if I'm wrong, but until then I think this is the necessary logic that conforms religion to its own doctrine.

 

[wegs]

Or, billvon, we could suspend judgement on that for a moment, and simply conclude that Jesus didn't know a lot of things. He didn't know about gravity, surface tension and buoyancy when He walked on water. He didn't didn't know about conservation of energy when He multiplied the loaves and fishes, nor about chemistry when He changed water into wine. He didn't know any of the life sciences when He raised the dead, and nothing about escape velocity and the effects of pressure on human tissues when He ascended into Heaven. Nor did He know astronomy as far as locating Heaven, nor any of the physics involved in getting there.

Still suspending judgment, billvon, except to assume as true that Jesus loves you, it seems evident from your posts that you excel in knowledge of many if not all of these areas of learning, which -- further assuming that this gift of yours is by the grace of Jesus (and perhaps the inspiration of the Holy Spirit if we incorporate the broader tenets of Trinitarianism) -- which infers that Jesus out of love for you has given you basis to confirm that the laws of Nature are to be weighed against the beliefs of what a text actually says, as measured by the humble human intelligence. From that grace of Jesus you are told that the text in these stories is rich with myth, legend and fable, and that it is dishonor Him to reject such wisdom (of the Holy Spirit) by taking it upon yourself to force the text to drive any conclusion that requires Jesus to violate his own laws.

By the same token, billvon, graced by the light of Jesus as we know you are, you may - in fact you must - take notice that when Jesus taught that God created Adam, He was endorsing the teachings he delivered to you in those areas of life science that concern the genesis of all organisms, and in so doing, conferring his wisdom upon you that humans did indeed evolve from apelike ancestors, that whales evolved from ugulates and all of the other facts concerning all of the truths about the world which you have accepted with a conviction to learn, through perseverance, tests of strength, and good will.

That being said, while you are entirely correct in deciding that the Bible is not a book of science per se, we must insist that it directs you not to construe it in any way that requires Jesus to violate his own laws, but that you only must construe the works of science as literal truth insofar as they validate the sacred principle that theses laws shall not be broken.

You or any of the religious folks here should feel free correct me if I'm wrong, but until then I think this is the necessary logic that conforms religion to its own doctrine.

Not to over simplify things, but many 'religious' folks, don't think much about the literal translation of the Bible. They just don't question it as anything but. It doesn't even enter into the thought process, that what they 'believe' could be at the least, improperly 'recorded,' or at the worst...just a bunch of fabrications and lies, in part, or entirely.

And it's really that basic. Often, people of a feather, flock together. Not too many staunch evangelicals hang with atheists. Not because they are necessarily closed minded, but because they just don't cross paths with many of them. They are often tightly into the social scene at their respective churches, and so, no one questions anything. In fact, many Christians of various 'denominations,' feel that the mere questioning of one's faith, or the bible, means you must not have faith to begin with! Guilt and shame are pervasive in many religions. Underscore the word, religion.

I just wanted to chime in here, and mention this, because you and billvon and many others here (and me, on most days lol) think logically about a number of things. But, not all people do, especially those who are zealots for their respective religions. Many people will simply never ever have the internal dialogue in which you present here, Aqueous.

It doesn't make anyone ignorant, stupid, malicious, etc...I don't know the word. But, people become used to a routine. For many, religion becomes a routine...in which they just don't question the routine. The book, Who Moved My Cheese? by Spencer Johnson, is a decent illustration of what I'm talking about here.

And I say all this without judgment, because I used to not question much, either.

(On a totally off topic note, I've just learned that judgment is spelled without an 'e' as spell check corrected it for me.) :bugeye:

 

[billvon]

Or, billvon, we could suspend judgement on that for a moment, and simply conclude that Jesus didn't know a lot of things.

Agreed. And to expand on that point:

1) Jesus did not know a lot of things
2) Jesus was trying not to get arrested and thus often spoke obliquely
3) The words of Jesus were not transcribed; they are based on the memories of people who knew him, and are thus not 100% accurate.
4) The words of Jesus were "polished" by the early Church in an attempt to survive.

By the same token, billvon, graced by the light of Jesus as we know you are, you may - in fact you must - take notice that when Jesus taught that God created Adam, He was endorsing the teachings he delivered to you in those areas of life science that concern the genesis of all organisms, and in so doing, conferring his wisdom upon you that humans did indeed evolve from apelike ancestors, that whales evolved from ugulates and all of the other facts concerning all of the truths about the world which you have accepted with a conviction to learn, through perseverance, tests of strength, and good will.

That's an awful lot of baggage to pile around a book that is basically a record of an oral tradition.

That being said, while you are entirely correct in deciding that the Bible is not a book of science per se, we must insist that it directs you not to construe it in any way that requires Jesus to violate his own laws, but that you only must construe the works of science as literal truth insofar as they validate the sacred principle that theses laws shall not be broken.

I don't think it insists that. The Bible and science are orthogonal; I think it's a mistake to try to conflate them.

 

[Rav]

I'm not arguing with you, they conduct their religion how they believe it should be, and interpret the scriptures how they see fit. All I'm saying is that by accepting dawinian explanations for origin of mankind, they contradict Jesus, who clearly believed that God created mankind.

You're trying to ignore my explanation, so I guess I will reiterate and expand upon it.

Given that Catholics view the biblical creation story as allegorical they are free to embrace the idea that creation was a process that occurred over many billions of years. Specifically, that many billions of years passed between the creation of the universe and the creation of man. In fact conceptualizing the "days" of creation as "periods of time" rather than 24 hour intervals is certainly nothing new. With this in mind, consider the phrase "from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female". Does "the beginning" mean the same instant that the heaven's and the earth were created? No, not even if the days of creation really were 24 hour periods. God didn't create man until the 6th day. It was pretty much the last thing he did before resting. Clearly then "the beginning" refers not to the very first moment of creation, but simply to the process of creation itself. In fact in terms of God's relationship to man, which is what the entire bible is really all about, the 6th day was when it all started.

Finally, given that Genesis 1 states that the animals were created before Man*, we can presume that at some point on the 6th day (period) a bunch of hominids had evolved that were suitable candidates to receive souls from God, which is consistent with the Catholic doctrine of special creation.

So, "from the beginning of creation [sometime during the 6th period specifically], God made them male and female [God made the first human male and female]".

*try to resist the urge to sabotage my argument by pointing to a possible contradiction between Genesis 1 & 2 regarding the order of creation because 1) if you really think about it it wont help your case and 2) I'll just link you to several articles that feature Christians resolving it.

Sounds to me as they are saying that they didn't crucify Jesus, which corresponds with the bible because it makes accounts of people who saw Jesus afer he was crucified. So how can Jesus have been crucified, and not crucified at the same time?

The first line corresponds with But they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them,....''. It's as if Jesus is seeing them do something to his body, thinking that they are killing him, but in reality they were killing a body made up of matter. That was the level of their understanding and the subject of Jesus' lament, IMHO.

The next two lines show the difference between the reality and the illusion.
So when looked at from a spiritual perspective, by spiritual I mean from the way Jesus himself looked at it, it's not a contradiction.

What you've done here is to demonstrate just how liberal you permit theists to get in their efforts to resolve scriptural inconsistencies. As such you are now unable to reject the legitimacy of my response above. Do it anyway and I'll just rain a whole collection of additional verses and scripture-based articles from people like William Lane Craig down upon your attempt here.

What do you mean by a compromised theism?

You have stated that you think it is impossible to be a true theist and believe in evolution at the same time. And in response to being presented with examples of theists who would claim otherwise, your tactic has been to question (if not outright reject) the legitimacy of that claim. In this particular case you said, about the Pope:

"So if one goes against the gospel of Jesus Christ by contradicting his teaching, how is that theistic?"

My point here is that Catholics are just being liberal when it comes to interpreting scripture. But clearly, so are you. So you can't use this as a basis for questioning the Pope's theistic integrity while simultaneously upholding your own.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Rav,

I'm not arguing with you, they conduct their religion how they believe it should be, and interpret the scriptures how they see fit. All I'm saying is that by accepting dawinian explanations for origin of mankind, they contradict Jesus, who clearly believed that God created mankind.

Given that Catholics view the biblical creation story as allegorical they are free to embrace the idea that creation was a process that occurred over many billions of years. Specifically, that many billions of years passed between the creation of the universe and the creation of man. In fact conceptualizing the "days" of creation as "periods of time" rather than 24 hour intervals is certainly nothing new. With this in mind, consider the phrase "from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female". Does "the beginning" mean the same instant that the heaven's and the earth were created? No, not even if the days of creation really were 24 hour periods. God didn't create man until the 6th day. It was pretty much the last thing he did before resting. Clearly then "the beginning" refers not to the very first moment of creation, but simply to the process of creation itself. In fact in terms of God's relationship to man, which is what the entire bible is really all about, the 6th day was when it all started.

I said I'm not arguing with you regarding the Catholic religion, or any other religion for that matter, for the simple reason that they can set it how they like. It's okay that they view the scriptures as allegorical, meaning that they decide what Jesus means even if they contradict his teaching for their own worldview. I'm concentrating purely on the source, the scriptures themselves, taking what they say literally, and drawing from it the only conclusion one can without contradicting, or interpreting the words in such a way that they have to give surplus explanations to match them.

Jesus stated clearly that from the begining of creation he created them (mankind) male and female:

Genesis: ''So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.''

It says nothing of man and woman coming about through any kind of process. Sure you can add darwinian evolution in there, but one does so with biblical, scriptural, and Jesus' teaching. Theisms means you believe in God, not in ideas. Jesus claimed that he and God were one, and that whatever he say's is not coming from him the man, but from the One who sent him, God. So if God said He created male and female (mankind), then as a theist, that is what you must accept. If you don't accept that, and look for an explanation that matches the current scientific ideas, then belief in God is compromised. You can't have it both ways.

Finally, given that Genesis 1 states that the animals were created before Man*, we can presume that at some point on the 6th day (period) a bunch of hominids had evolved that were suitable candidates to receive souls from God, which is consistent with the Catholic doctrine of special creation.

You can assume all you like, but that's not what it say's.

*try to resist the urge to sabotage my argument by pointing to a possible contradiction between Genesis 1 & 2 regarding the order of creation because 1) if you really think about it it wont help your case and 2) I'll just link you to several articles that feature Christians resolving it.

You've sabotaged you're own argument by making assumptions that fit with your worldview. Either accept what it say's or don't. If you want to try and work it out then you must use the bible itself (without contradiction) to draw conclusions. If you cannot accept what the bible say's, then you cannot accept God' sovereignty, or God. And please don't bring religion into it otherwise we run the risk of rendering the discussion to personal interpretations instead of taking the words literally.

What you've done here is to demonstrate just how liberal you permit theists to get in their efforts to resolve scriptural inconsistencies. As such you are now unable to reject the legitimacy of my response above. Do it anyway and I'll just rain a whole collection of additional verses and scripture-based articles from people like William Lane Craig down upon your attempt here.

What I've actually done is given an explanation which is drawn from the bible, so even if I am mistaken, it's not because I've interpreted it to suit my worldview.
As much as I like William Lane Craig, and have a tremendous amount of respect for him, if his conclusion aren't taken from the source itself it runs the risk of being arbitary.
But I'm prepared to bet that he believes that God created man and woman, and darwinian evolution was nowhere to be seen. I know for a fact he believes Jesus was murdered on the cross, and that he rose on the third day.

Are you afraid to use the scripture itself to defeat my points, why you feel you have post shed loads of links to slow the process of coming to the obvious conclusion down?

You have stated that you think it is impossible to be a true theist and believe in evolution at the same time. And in response to being presented with examples of theists who would claim otherwise, your tactic has been to question (if not outright reject) the legitimacy of that claim. In this particular case you said, about the Pope:

"So if one goes against the gospel of Jesus Christ by contradicting his teaching, how is that theistic?"

My point here is that Catholics are just being liberal when it comes to interpreting scripture. But clearly, so are you. So you can't use this as a basis for questioning the Pope's theistic integrity while simultaneously upholding your own.

I don't think I've used or related to the term ''true'' theist. ''Real'' theist, yes, in other threads. The distinction is so because if someone believe they are theist, then for them it is true, but upon closer inspection, it may not be real. I suppose it's like some evolutionists not regarding ''theistic evolutionary ideas'' as real knowers of darwinian evolution, but do so more for societal purposes.

It's a legitimate question:

“Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God;[a] believe also in me.....

.....Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

I rest my case.

jan.

 

[Rav]

OK then. As promised...

Sounds to me as they are saying that they didn't crucify Jesus, which corresponds with the bible because it makes accounts of people who saw Jesus afer he was crucified.

Jesus wasn't really crucified because he appeared to people after He was crucified? What an impotent argument. Moving on...

It's as if Jesus is seeing them do something to his body, thinking that they are killing him, but in reality they were killing a body made up of matter. That was the level of their understanding and the subject of Jesus' lament, IMHO.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." - John 1:1-3

"The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us." - John 1:14

Just establishing the fleshly incarnation of God in the form of Jesus. Read the whole chapter for proper context.

Now read John Chapter 19. Clearly the torture, mockery, crucifixion and eventual death happened to the fleshly incarnation of God.


Regarding death:

"In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made Himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross!" - Philippians 2:5-8

"But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." - Romans 5:7-9

"For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living." - Romans 14:8-10

"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures" - 1 Corinthians 15:2-4

"I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!" - Galatians 2:20-21

I'd say that's pretty clear. Jesus may have risen again, but he was definitely crucified, and he definitely made Himself obedient to death. In fact that was the whole point.

And now again, from the Quran:

"They said (in boast), “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah”—But they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not—Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise." - Qur'an 4:157

Your interpretation clearly violates your stated methodology: "I'm concentrating purely on the source, the scriptures themselves, taking what they say literally, and drawing from it the only conclusion one can without contradicting, or interpreting the words in such a way that they have to give surplus explanations to match them."


Further, you also have the following problems to deal with:


"The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God" - Mark 1:1

"The Jews say, "Ezra is the son of Allah "; and the Christians say, "The Messiah is the son of Allah ." That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?" - Quran 9:30


"For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form" - Col 2:9
""Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage" - Philippians 2:5 (presented in context further up)

"They have certainly disbelieved who say that Allah is Christ, the son of Mary. Say, "Then who could prevent Allah at all if He had intended to destroy Christ, the son of Mary, or his mother or everyone on the earth?" And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and whatever is between them. He creates what He wills, and Allah is over all things competent." - Quran 5:17


So not only does the Quran contradict the Bible on the topic of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, it also rejects as false the clear biblical affirmation of His divinity.


Also as promised, see: Who Is The Real Jesus: The Jesus Of The Bible Or The Jesus Of The Qur’An? which explores the differences, and more importantly the relevance of those differences, in much greater detail. And yes, contrary to:

As much as I like William Lane Craig, and have a tremendous amount of respect for him, if his conclusion aren't taken from the source itself it runs the risk of being arbitary.

the case being made is indeed scripturally based. In fact given that you're implying here that Craig would even attempt to make a theological case that wasn't based on scripture shows that you're probably only familiar his more purely philosophical material (discussed with atheists, for example). That gels of course since you've already shown how hopelessly ignorant you are of Christian theology.

But we're not even going to stop here. Speaking of the scripturally based cases there are to make regarding the fundamental theological differences between Christianity and other religions, I refer you again to some of the articles I linked you to in a previous post:

How Can Christ Be the Only Way to God?
What does the Bible say about reincarnation?
The Future Judgment of the Believer

Every one of these articles is relevant because it highlights fundamental differences between Christianity and other faiths that need to be effectively addressed if you want to maintain that it is possible to harmonize all scripture while remaining within the parameters you have established. Providing resources that address the content of these articles directly will be good enough. I'm not going to demand that you address them directly yourself.

And since you've clearly committed yourself to this ridiculous course of action, and since I've stated before that I am up for the challenge, what we're going to do next is discuss a whole bunch of differences between the worlds many different religions. I will use this as a reference, and probably some other resources as well, pick a topic, quote some scripture, and then ask you to harmonize it with all the major religions of the world. And again it will be done with reference to the parameters you have set for such an activity, as already stated by you.

Why? Because you've been making this bullshit claim for years, and in spite of being repeatedly linked to resources that oppose it, and in spite of repeated requests to back it up, you've basically done squat. But also, because in criticizing what I maintain was a perfectly reasonable catholic perspective on how scripture should be read while simultaneously holding that your own rather creative reading of the Quran was above reproach, you're totally asking for it.

 

[Rav]

I was going to leave this 'till later, if indeed it even needed to come up again, but it seems that I am being perpetually bugged by an inclination to respond directly to your criticism of my thoughts regarding creation through evolution. So...

It's okay that they view the scriptures as allegorical, meaning that they decide what Jesus means even if they contradict his teaching for their own worldview.

They aren't contradicting His teaching, and I have already explained why. To summarize, it is already clear that "from the beginning of creation" can't possibly mean "from the very first instant of creation" because God didn't create man until the 6th day. A whole heap of shit went on before then, such as the initial creation of the universe itself, the forming of the earth, the separation of land from water, the production of flora, the creation of fish and birds and finally the creation of land based life. Only after He did all that, and saw that it was good, did he finally create man.

I'm concentrating purely on the source, the scriptures themselves, taking what they say literally

And if you take "from the very beginning of creation" literally, then you end up with man being created before everything else. And guess what? That produces a contradiction!

It says nothing of man and woman coming about through any kind of process.

Errr, so what? Really, it says very little about how God did anything. It just says that He did.

So if God said He created male and female (mankind), then as a theist, that is what you must accept. If you don't accept that,

The catholics do accept that.

and look for an explanation that matches the current scientific ideas, then belief in God is compromised.

And this is complete nonsense. As has already been explained to you by several people, it's not belief in God that is compromised, it is only belief in a premise that you have attached to God that is compromised.

Clearly you'd like to pretend that this distinction doesn't exist, but it's not going to work.

You've sabotaged you're own argument by making assumptions that fit with your worldview.

The Catholic doctrine of special creation, as considered in the context of theistic evolution, is hardly my worldview.

Either accept what it say's or don't.

And this is the main problem you are going to have against the thrust of Christian particularism and it's employment of biblical quotes that you now have an obligation to interpret literally. And I certainly plan to bring this to the fore of our discussion at some point considering how incredibly relevant it is.

If you want to try and work it out then you must use the bible itself (without contradiction) to draw conclusions. If you cannot accept what the bible say's, then you cannot accept God' sovereignty, or God.

I will be throwing this back in your face at some point soon.

And please don't bring religion into it otherwise we run the risk of rendering the discussion to personal interpretations instead of taking the words literally.

Actually religion, as separate from any particular scriptural considerations, is still highly relevant in the sense that you're yet establish that scripture is the primary or only source of knowledge about God. In fact you're yet to establish that it is a source of knowledge about God at all. And unless you can do that, you have precisely zero justification for demanding that religious views of any persuasion be omitted from this discussion. So no, sorry, I wont be respecting your request.

 

[Randwolf]

I was going to leave this 'till later, if indeed it even needed to come up again, but it seems that I am being perpetually bugged by an inclination to respond directly to your criticism of my thoughts regarding creation through evolution.

So sad that Jan had to run and hide - guess he has no time to reply. Or has no reply to proffer...

You're so good at this Rav

 

[Rav]

So sad that Jan had to run and hide - guess he has no time to reply. Or has no reply to proffer...

Jan occasionally takes a few days off and then comes back. But he is making it hard for himself because he's assuming what is pretty much the most untenable theological position one can possibly assume. Christian fundamentalists, for example, just harp on about how the Bible is the only infallible source of knowledge about God, and even though that is of course impossible to establish, pretty much anyone can "preach the word". Christian theology has, after all, evolved to become highly internally consistent, especially when you bring some of the best apologetic works into the equation. And Christian fundamentalism certainly isn't the only variety of religious fundamentalism.

Then we have the Roman Catholics. They might believe that they are the one true church (in the sense that they alone have properly preserved the continuity of the fullness of the original Christian faith) but they are not really exclusivists at all. Instead they essentially believe that other religions generally contain enough truth to give adherents a fighting chance at salvation, assuming an appropriate degree of God-focused sincerity. Obviously this means they reject the simplistic biblical literalism that the fundamentalists embrace, but at the core of the aforementioned continuity is apostolic succession, which means that the Pope speaks with the same authority that Peter the Apostle did. Interpreting scripture therefore is a formal process that involves both tradition and papal authority, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Again, it is of course impossible to establish the truth of all this, but Catholicism has also evolved to become highly internally consistent, especially when you bring some of the best apologetic works into the equation. As such, it's a defensible enough position. And just like fundamentalism isn't unique to protestant Christianity, the expression of the philosophical underpinnings of ecumenism, moderated somewhat by the simultaneous existence of claims of theological superiority, isn't unique to catholicism either.

Finally, we have what one could call "freestyle theism". It is essentially the view that it doesn't matter what collection of scriptural resources you like to bury your head in, or even if you do much burying at all, as long as you show reverence to God in the course of living your life. It's common for such people (if they even have a strong position on it all) to deal with scriptural inconsistencies mostly as artifacts of inappropriately literal readings. It is therefore also common for them to accept or reject different scriptural teachings on purely subjective grounds, often citing the fact that the whole ballgame is fundamentally subjective anyway as justification. Some would even say that the ultimate authority is simply the direction in which the spirit of God seems to be moving them at any given moment. We seem to have many such theists around here actually, and as should be obvious by the now, they don't really seem to get themselves into any major binds that they can't wriggle out of by making it all up as they along -- contradictions be damned! And hey, that's just how the spirit moved them anyway, which again is all that's really important.

But then we have Jan. He can't assume a proper fundamentalist stance because he claims to be a scriptural pluralist, and therefore cannot take advantage of the wealth of apologetic material that has been made available by those who do. He also can't assume the sort of inclusivist stance that the Catholics assume, because he rejects the stated methodology in interpreting scripture, and therefore loses access to the wealth of material that justifies an inclusivist approach on the grounds of such a methodology. And, of course, he also can't assume the stance of a freestyle theist, because again he maintains that all scripture must be interpreted literally. So he's essentially dug himself an impossibly deep hole. Only he doesn't quite realize it yet because as has become all too clear from his failures to understand basic Christian theological concepts (as detailed in the Bible itself), he's not nearly as familiar with scripture as he pretends to be.

And you know what would be really tragic? If the only reason that he'd gotten himself into this bind was because he couldn't stomach the lending of any sort of credibility to the concept of theistic evolution, which by definition is a decidedly theological position rather than an atheistic one. So it's not even Jan Ardena vs the Chimp-brained atheists, it's Jan Ardena vs the catholics, and a very significant portion of the rest of the theistic world as well.

It's all just so unnecessary...

 

[wegs]

We have become quite the labeling society...and because of that more than what the labels even mean anymore, there is a tendency to pigeon hole Jan into a particular mindset; if he doesn't 'fit,' then where to place him?

Thing is, something I've gleaned from all the exchanges with Jan, is that he seems to be ....at peace. With himself, with his faith. So, who are we to judge?

Just food for thought, kind sirs.

 

[Grumpy]

wegs

I would not disabuse anyone of what they believe about god, as long as they reciprocate and don't try to claim that what they believe about god dictates reality for all. That is Jan's error. Belief may provide comfort and peace(the human psyche is not as rigorous as human science, it is possible to believe things which are not true, scientifically)and it thus can be a good thing. But if one thinks their religious convictions overrule the knowledge science gives us, one is being delusional. Fundamentalism in religion is idiocy, not wisdom. It is thinking that you know what god is, what he wants and how he does things(if he indeed does exist at all), what he thinks about others("God Hates Fags" anyone?), and they claim certain knwledge when they have nothing of the kind.and that is evil in the world(often in the name of one god or another). Don't get me wrong, even Fundies have a right to believe and worship as they will and to gather with like minded others(as long as they impose on those who want to be imposed upon). But when they try to project their idiocy on everyone(abortion, gay marriage, homophobia, etc.)it is ALWAYS wrong for a free society.

Rav

Apologists are apologizing because their position is not logical, no matter how they twist and turn with their rhetoric. If it takes a whole profession to justify(feebly)the claims of your religion it is a sure sign that what you are trying to validate is not valid in the first place. Most religions would be vastly improved by a stiff injection of Deism, a more humble and receptive paradigm that maintains the morals of most religions without the false claims of certain knowledge of the subject of god.

Grumpy

 

[Rav]

We have become quite the labeling society...and because of that more than what the labels even mean anymore, there is a tendency to pigeon hole Jan into a particular mindset; if he doesn't 'fit,' then where to place him?

Right now I am simply placing him into a category we could call "people who insist that anyone who claims to believe in God and evolution is full of shit about the believing in God part".

And he fits perfectly, wouldn't you say?

Thing is, something I've gleaned from all the exchanges with Jan, is that he seems to be ....at peace. With himself, with his faith. So, who are we to judge?

You know what wegs? I don't sign up to forums that were created for the express purpose of allowing religious people to freely discuss religion just so I can stir the pot by throwing evolution in their faces. Do you know why I don't do that, and have never done that? Because I think they should be allowed to discuss their religion in peace if they want to.

I know it's easy to forget sometimes, but this is a science forum. It was created for the express purpose of allowing people to discuss science freely. I initially signed up here around about the same time I finished reading my first Brian Greene book and was excited about discussing some of the things that I had learned. But people like Jan, and others like him, signed up here for the express purpose of throwing religion in everyone's face. It wouldn't even be so bad if it was restricted to this particular subforum (which was itself originally designed to be a place where religion was discussed in the context of science specifically) but it regularly spills out into all the other subforums too. So far from this being a situation where notions such as "live and let live" are being respected, divisiveness has been introduced on purpose. In fact that's exactly what this thread is really all about. It's a purposeful attack on science as well as the legitimacy of the theological views of any religious person who embraces it.

So, who are we to judge? Who is Jan to judge?

Just food for thought, kind sirs.

And now I have returned the favour by preparing a dish for you too

 

[Rav]

Most religions would be vastly improved by a stiff injection of Deism, a more humble and receptive paradigm that maintains the morals of most religions without the false claims of certain knowledge of the subject of god.

I completely agree. Of course "improvement" is a subjective term. Some religious people might argue that because it isn't explicit about exactly how the individual should go about solving the problems of human existence, that it is an inferior theological position, and therefore further from the ultimate truth (as if it's somehow impossible for the ultimate truth of existence to be hidden, or beyond our reach).

I would of course see it as an improvement in the sense that it leaves a religious person free to embrace all the miracles of creation as they learn about exactly how it unfolded. There's a whole lotta extra room for tolerance as well.