Theistic Evolutionist

[Ember]

Aye, but what about those people who cling to their scientific beliefs and spurn Christianity. If someone were to intelligently tell them about Creationism or Intelligent Design if you want to keep it more secular, then wouldn't that person have a better chance at accepting Christ? I feel that a lot of people these days ignore Christianity because it "doesn't make sense" both spiritually (why would God care about me?) and "scientifically" (the Earth was created by nothing exploding and we serve no purpose, therefore I don't need Jesus).

There will always be people who cling to their scientific beliefs and spurn Christianity. And there is certainly nothing wrong with intelligently talking to people about Creationism and/or Intelligent Design. I'm not saying leave all that stuff out. I didn't intend to make any blanket statements. But for those who really get hung up on the impression that all Christians are check-your-brain-at-the-door science-haters, I'm not into hitting the anti-science thing too hard if it's something that may be open to interpretation.

 

[RyanB]

Aye, but what about those people who cling to their scientific beliefs and spurn Christianity. If someone were to intelligently tell them about Creationism or Intelligent Design if you want to keep it more secular, then wouldn't that person have a better chance at accepting Christ? I feel that a lot of people these days ignore Christianity because it "doesn't make sense" both spiritually (why would God care about me?) and "scientifically" (the Earth was created by nothing exploding and we serve no purpose, therefore I don't need Jesus).

I find that most people who believe in evolution know very little about it...and yet are SO sure it's true. They either buy it because it's the "scientific thing" (just as many Christians reject it for that), or they figure "well, there's a ton of smart people who believe this, so there must be something to it, right?". Of course, there are plenty of people who know tons about evolution, and just come to a different conclusion than I do (both atheist and not). I'm not trying to knock any of these groups at all, just personal observations. I think that when we're sitting in heaven one day, we'll all be looking at a lot of things we had "totally figured out" and have a good laugh at our own expense.

I try to keep discussions completely secular, for a few reasons. Since they deny God's existence, it's hard to argue "and this is true because God said so". Secondly, since I believe the bible doesn't add to or contradict the idea of evolution after creation...really it's just a scientific conversation. So why factor it in?

I've had great success with just explaining that and saying, "so let's just keep this to a discussion on the science." This makes things much less adversarial, and it's amazing how fast most people run out of "ammo". Instead of hurling ad hominem attacks at your Christianity for hours, they actually have to think and discuss their beliefs and why they believe what they do. The goal isn't to attack them, control the conversation, or to "win one" for team Christianity...the goal is to have them asking questions and thinking. Their closed mind about how the universe came to be is a stumbling block for them...so that's why I think it's important to be able to discuss these sort of things in their terms. Rather...if they seek, they will find.

 

[OrryW]

Every word of the bible down to its punctuation is inspired of God. It is exactly what he wants us to know and believe. To say that things like the virgin birth and the authenticity of Adam and Eve could be wrong or that the Word of God is just a book of faith and lessons is not just an immature one, it is heretical in my opinion. It is clearly emergent in thought as Rob Bell in his book made a big issue of this exact same topic and has been labeled a heretic by most of orthodox Christianity.

These things do matter and have huge importance in how we are to live our lives as God has chosen us to.

No offence meant Grim, I just don't agree with you is all, and I happen to think that your line of questioning of the bible/faith is a dangerous one. I am not dismissing it, I am pointing it out and saying my opinion.

The entirety of the Bible is accurate not true, there is a difference. I know this because it reports the words of Satan at points, which were lies, if the entirety of the Bible was true then that wouldn't be in there, however if it is accurate it would be. Meaning the Bible was inspired by God, but inspiration doesn't always equal the end product, people like to write what they want, everybody has free will, everyone except Jesus sinned, and Jesus didn't directly write anything. There is the matter of translation compounded on top of that, even in the original language now it isn't original text, making it so details can be wrong, but the big picture is the same.

The only truly important thing is that Jesus died for us and we are saved.

 

[grimsauce]

The only truly important thing is that Jesus died for us and we are saved.

And that's why I believe the way that I do.

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness
2 Timothy 3:16

and I believe that. But that doesn't mean, to me, that God had to do everything that's written literally. The points and lessons are still there, and for all I care, God could have made the Earth and gotten us to where we are today however he wants. I try to leave God as open as I can, and only define him by things that are pertinent to my faith.

 

[Patriot]

A literal reading of Genesis is important. It shapes our Biblical worldview. There doesn't seem to be a lot of Biblical referencing going on in this thread so I thought I would throw some out there.

Luke 3:23-38 - The genealogy of Christ through Adam. Christ is a descendant of Adam (His humanity at least). As such, He was under the curse and the law. If He was not, then he could not have saved us since His sinless life would not have meant anything. Likewise, 1 Chronicles 1 records the genealogy from Adam to Abraham.

Romans 5:12-21 & 1 Corinthians 15- As sin came through one man (Adam) so life comes from one Man (Christ).

1 Timothy 2 - Explains roles with regard to the order of creation.

Matthew 19 - Jesus explains marriage and divorce in light of creation.

More Random Thoughts

Our 7 day week comes from the creation account as well as our understanding of the Sabbath.

I happen to think that Adam was quite the good looking guy and Eve was probably fantastically beautiful. Why? Because when God created everything he called it "very good." If he had created them with genetic flaws or imperfections how would it have been good? No, I believe that the flaws and imperfections appeared when they had children due to the fall and curse.

And science has not been always contradictory to the church. In fact, the Church (catholic primarily) has been one of the primary supporters and financiers of science throughout history. Only recently, with the push toward naturalism (denial of the supernatural) has science begun to move to a contradictory stance with the Church.

In addition, our job is not necessarily to convince people of the truth. Our job is to proclaim the truth. We do not bring people to Christ, we tell them about Him and He draws them to Himself (John 6:44).

 

[OrryW]

I happen to think that Adam was quite the good looking guy and Eve was probably fantastically beautiful. Why? Because when God created everything he called it "very good." If he had created them with genetic flaws or imperfections how would it have been good?

You're associating beauty with genetic perfection, which it isn't. People are attracted to different things based on the climate and the time frame, and humans are highly adaptable based on the climate their family has lived in, people will eventually shift to darker skin near the equator, lighter skin near the poles. So while their genome may have had no flaws or decay, that doesn't assure beauty by today's standards, only by that time period's standards.

 

[ewoksrule]

You're associating beauty with genetic perfection, which it isn't. People are attracted to different things based on the climate and the time frame, and humans are highly adaptable based on the climate their family has lived in, people will eventually shift to darker skin near the equator, lighter skin near the poles. So while their genome may have had no flaws or decay, that doesn't assure beauty by today's standards, only by that time period's standards.

That sounds ridiculous to me. Of course the first humans with perfect genetics were the epitome of beautiful. We are talking about God's first release, untainted by sin and the curse.

 

[Unfetered]

The entirety of the Bible is accurate not true, there is a difference. I know this because it reports the words of Satan at points, which were lies, if the entirety of the Bible was true then that wouldn't be in there, however if it is accurate it would be. Meaning the Bible was inspired by God, but inspiration doesn't always equal the end product, people like to write what they want, everybody has free will, everyone except Jesus sinned, and Jesus didn't directly write anything. There is the matter of translation compounded on top of that, even in the original language now it isn't original text, making it so details can be wrong, but the big picture is the same.

The only truly important thing is that Jesus died for us and we are saved.

Question if the entirety of the bible is not true and the bible is God's living word then would that not state his word is lies? I am sorry I think that might be something you need to pray about. In essence you are saying that all of us that follow the bible should only follow certain parts as some parts might be accurate and others might be false. The lies that were said were truly said but were not true statements.

 

[ewoksrule]

Question if the entirety of the bible is not true and the bible is God's living word then would that not state his word is lies? I am sorry I think that might be something you need to pray about. In essence you are saying that all of us that follow the bible should only follow certain parts as some parts might be accurate and others might be false. The lies that were said were truly said but were not true statements.

Yeah that argument does not hold up, its kinda like a strawman argument. The Bible is not true because it records lies? What is your point there?

I agree that we should not worship the English version of the bible like it is some idol. Yes there are issues with textual criticism. However, regardless of translation and the authors being sinners, God is sovereign over all and especially the creation of His Word. I am confident it is exactly what He wants us to have in our hands. His plans are not being thwarted because of sinners.

 

[Unfetered]

Micro-evolution is mostly cellular degradation due to generations of inbreeding. Getting dogs with a certain trait by taking other dogs with that trait to get a dog you like actually goes against the theory of evolution as many of those types of dogs would die in the wild.

Height, eye colour, skin colour, etc. isn't really evolution, it isn't based on genetics, it involves more or less of certain chemicals that are actually not related to DNA. (white people can give birth to a black child and vice-versa, two blond people can have a child with black hair)

I thought that micro-evolution was based also on factors of your surroundings as in climate, location, etc? Those aspects can affect your height, eye color, skin color etc. Or am I mistaken?

 

[Patriot]

You're associating beauty with genetic perfection, which it isn't. People are attracted to different things based on the climate and the time frame, and humans are highly adaptable based on the climate their family has lived in, people will eventually shift to darker skin near the equator, lighter skin near the poles. So while their genome may have had no flaws or decay, that doesn't assure beauty by today's standards, only by that time period's standards.

Fair enough. But they were certainly the most beautiful people on the Earth at that time. =)

 

[ewoksrule]

Fair enough. But they were certainly the most beautiful people on the Earth at that time. =)

I guess with that reasoning they were the ugliest as well eh?

 

[Sarugon]

I thought I'd put my 2 cents in, it may offend people, it may not.

I see a few big problems with believing in evolution as a christian. I'm talking macro evolution here, not micro, the belief that all life as we know it came from single celled organisms, or at least that species can change into completely different species over time. Let's ignore the gaping holes and crippling flaws in the theory of evolution for a moment and just focus on the principle of the thing.

Consider the origin of the theory of evolution, and the reason it is so popular today, it's because it's a way of explaining the existence of life without the existence of God. It's accepted because people (nonbelievers) were searching for some way, any way to take God out of the picture, and evolution is the only "somewhat" feasible way to do that.

When you try to squeeze into the Bible, a theory that seemingly conflicts with the Bible's account of how creation happened, you're not making evolution fit into the Bible, your making the Bible fit into evolution. You might say that God could have used evolution to create life, and he could have, but why would He? Why do we think God would use a "science" that consists merely of unprovable conjecture to create us? Why not just create us literally the way Genesis says He did? Do we think God is incapable of making us spontaneously appear because it seems illogical? Some of us seem so unwilling to take the Bible literally. Instead it seems we must cram in our flawed theories, created by flawed humans into God's perfect account.

If you don't believe the entirely of the Bible, where do you draw the line? You cannot pick and choose which parts of the Bible are infallible and which aren't. Anyway, that's the end of my rant.

 

[Unfetered]

If you don't believe the entirely of the Bible, where do you draw the line? You cannot pick and choose which parts of the Bible are infallible and which aren't. Anyway, that's the end of my rant.

Amen! If God's word is not all true that would make him a liar. The bible says what is not from the light is from the dark. So either it is all true or all a lie and me personally I will stay with all true. There is no middle ground.

 

[tjguitarz]

I should have been more clear in the first post. I did not want this thread to be a debate of evolution; I have long tired of such useless prose. I am an evolutionist, wholeheartedly, and I am a struggling Christian. I request the voice of a maturing Christian who accepts evolution and understands the science behind it. I need a brain to pick. No takers?

 

[RyanB]

I should have been more clear in the first post. I did not want this thread to be a debate of evolution; I have long tired of such useless prose. I am an evolutionist, wholeheartedly, and I am a struggling Christian. I request the voice of a maturing Christian who accepts evolution and understands the science behind it. I need a brain to pick. No takers?

I'll send you a PM. I do not believe in evolution, but I hope that won't be an issue. As I've said above, I see no point in bringing the Bible into play on any discussion of science. I'm also very familiar with the scientific communities answers to most of the unproven aspects - I just don't happen to buy them.

 

[grimsauce]

If you don't believe the entirely of the Bible, where do you draw the line? You cannot pick and choose which parts of the Bible are infallible and which aren't.

Okay, I understand the logic of your argument here, but please take the time to consider what I'm about to propose to you. As believers in God, we believe that truth finds it's reality in Him. When one says that a particular book or individual accurately reflects God, it must be absolutely perfect in every way (the book or individual). Truth, if it is truth, cannot change- it is absolute. The bible is a book of individual stories written by men who experienced God and wrote about those experiences. Those stories were combined into one book during the council of Nicene. To demand that this book be absolutely perfect in every way is to give a divine authority to book which is only deserving to God alone. It is a demand that unnecessarily and unintentionally forces one to believe that it is in itself "God". The danger of this position is that when a believer sees that the bible is inconsistent, they think that their faith was in vain. The foundation of their faith in God was not in God himself, but in a book which they believed must be inerrant if God is to be real. And to any honest seeker of truth, one will eventually come to the realization that there are theological and philosophical positions, not to mention grammatical errors, that are in opposition to one another. For example; within the Old Testament the concepts of grace and unconditional love were a small voice against the teachings of judgement and revenge.. made concrete through teachings such as "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". The Jews had every right to stone the woman who had committed adultery (in the New Testament) under their law, yet Jesus taught us a different lesson; that grace and forgiveness is of a higher moral value than righteous punishment.
The Old Testament is filled with the slaughter of innocent men, women, and children in the pursuit of a home land, yet Jesus taught us to resist not evil and to turn the other cheek. It is for these reasons that the Jews said that he was blasphemous and put him to death. I consider myself a follower of Jesus, it is his teachings of God's unconditional love for his creation and grace that are the foundation of my faith. Whether Adam and Eve were real people or the demand that the bible be a perfect divine supernatural revelation is peripheral at best and should not be foundational to a Christian's faith. Those that make the demand that the bible must be divinely inerrant, are no different from Muslims who claim that the Quran is the divine, inerrant word of God... or Mormons that make the claim that the Book of Mormon is the perfect revelation from the angel Moroni. These claims are made because their truth is not strong enough to stand on its own spiritual merits and must claim miraculous transmission in order to gain validation. Unconditional love and grace need no supernatural validation. The philosophical weight of these two concepts stand on their own.

You made the point that we are not capable of picking and choosing what is truth and not truth out of scripture. What I am saying is that we are very capable of discerning the truth of love and grace, which has been revealed by men who experienced God through Jesus(the writers of the Bible). Those that demand the condition of Bible inerrancy have chosen to put their faith in a book. In doing so, they elevate it to Godhead, as apposed to allowing the book to lead them to the Spirit of God. The New Testament teaches us that we are to be led by Spirit, not legal code. The Spirit of God is what illuminates the words within it, not it's literal wording. I am not saying that the Old Testament is without benefit, just as Paul says to Timothy that it is inspired by God-useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. Do you think the writings of C.S. Lewis are NOT inspired by God? are they useful for teaching? He, just like the authors of the bible, is a man who has experienced God and written down his experiences. Of course I do not believe that anything he has written is 'perfect' and I have, as I believe I should, a higher reverence towards the Bible than any other religious text. But to believe that the Bible is flawless is to almost believe that without it, we would have no way of knowing God through his Spirit.

Now, tjguitarz,
if you didn't read what I just wrote, please do, because it pertains a lot to what you're trying to figure out. First of all, the foundation of your faith should not be in regards to how we got to this Earth, but how we are to live while we are here. The evolution vs creationism debate can be food for thought but should in no way keep you from following the message of unconditional love and grace that Jesus taught us.

Sorry for the huge amount of thought, but if there's anything in this world worth pondering, I would argue that something along these lines is close to that. THANKS!

 

[Ember]

Whoa, huge post. I don't have the brain power to focus right now, but I'll try later.
So forgive me if I'm being redundant.

I don't think any Christian can say any part of the Bible is untrue. Of course you can't pick and choose what's convenient to believe. You take it all because it is THE word of God and without error.
However, interpretation can vary, which is why we don't all attend the exact same kinds of churches. But we all (all of the Christians among us) believe in the Bible, we believe God created everything, He loves us deeply, and He sent His son to die for us. Through Him, we can have eternal life. There's more to it of course, but for the sake of being succinct, those are many of the basics.

tj - you can try PMing me, but I can't say I'll be qualified to answer all your questions. I can't say I buy evolution, especially certain parts of it, but there are also parts I don't flat-out reject as possibility. I wouldn't say believing in it disqualifies you as a believer. I took a LOT of science classes, so I've heard a variety of perspectives (for and against) from a variety of highly intelligent people, many of them Christians. I might have to send your questions up to tier 2 pretty quickly, but I might be able to help find you someone to talk to. I'll be praying for you and your search. I think...kudos to you for earnestly seeking truth. It would be a bigger issue, I think, if you didn't even care enough to investigate.

 

[OrryW]

Question if the entirety of the bible is not true and the bible is God's living word then would that not state his word is lies? I am sorry I think that might be something you need to pray about. In essence you are saying that all of us that follow the bible should only follow certain parts as some parts might be accurate and others might be false. The lies that were said were truly said but were not true statements.

Not what I'm saying at all, the Bible is a perfectly accurate history text, so it says what people did and what God said, and what other people said perfectly accurately.

So, everything God said you should do, you should do, just not everything in the Bible was said by God but it had to be included because it was relevant and truly happened, mostly things that are obvious, and everything that really matters is obvious, it is only small details(is it the Red Sea or the sea of reeds that Moses led the Israelites through) that are really lost in translation.

If you don't believe the entirely of the Bible, where do you draw the line? You cannot pick and choose which parts of the Bible are infallible and which aren't. Anyway, that's the end of my rant.

I said the Bible wasn't true, it was accurate, it's semantics, but an important bit of it. If the Bible was true it would contain no lies(as such it wouldn't even report them) if it was accurate, which it is, it would give a true account of what happened, which it does. God does not lie, everything spoken is reported accurately, there are some unimportant translation errors, the narration(things that are not said by anyone other than the author) is true.

I thought that micro-evolution was based also on factors of your surroundings as in climate, location, etc? Those aspects can affect your height, eye color, skin color etc. Or am I mistaken?

Micro-evolution has to do with genetic variance within a species, the difference between a chihuahua and a german shepherd, they are both still dogs, in fact they are both still sexually compatible(technically speaking their genes could combine properly, it may not be practical) but they are different, and you can create another chihuahua by breeding two chihuahua's reliably. But trying to get a very specific looking dog outside of a few traits is more difficult as some traits are not genetic(such as eye colour) non-genetic traits aren't affected by micro-evolution. Micro-evolution is generally characterised by shared genetic flaws.

That sounds ridiculous to me. Of course the first humans with perfect genetics were the epitome of beautiful. We are talking about God's first release, untainted by sin and the curse.

My point was they would look attractive for their standards, not necessarily ours. And their genes would be very similar to ours, however, any or all of our dormant genetic traits could be activated.

 

[RyanB]

I said the Bible wasn't true, it was accurate, it's semantics, but an important bit of it. If the Bible was true it would contain no lies(as such it wouldn't even report them) if it was accurate, which it is, it would give a true account of what happened, which it does. God does not lie, everything spoken is reported accurately, there are some unimportant translation errors, the narration(things that are not said by anyone other than the author) is true.

If Satan says a lie X, and the bible says, "Satan said X"...how is that not true? The bible isn't telling the lie...it's simply reporting what was said.

Seems true enough to me to say, "So and so said this".