They Sold Their Souls

[Cope]

The Catholic church believing in evolution officially is absolutely not the same thing as "evolution being integrated into Christian reasoning for decades", because it's not true. The majority of Christian groups absolutely do not acknowledge the legitimacy of evolution - nor do you personally, if I recall.

https://protestia.com/2020/12/12/pew...-in-evolution/

Christian reasoning covers a broad spectrum of beliefs. As per the the Pew data, a majority of Christians in every country polled (with the exception of Malaysia) say "humans have evolved over time". This illustrates that YEC is considered outdated theology, even if it continues to be believed. The Papal acknowledgment of evolution matters, because the the Roman church is the largest religious institution in the world.

Christians, especially in America, are far more likely to not believe in evolution compared to non-religious persons.

40% of American's don't believe in Evolution at all.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/261680/...eationism.aspx

It is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest there is any sort of consensus amongst the Christian community regarding the truth of evolution.

I didn't claim that there was a consensus among Christians on the question, only that it has been integrated into Christian reasoning for decades.

That just ignores the huge portion of believers who believe the bible is literally true.

31% of Americans for example believe the bible to be literally true, while even more believe it to be the inspired word of god.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/148427/...literally.aspx

The Bible contains 66 books and covers a variety of genres and literary styles. Parts of the texts are "literally true". Others are allegorical, poetic/lyrical, descriptive etc. or a combination thereof. It isn't useful to perceive the Bible solely in the binary terms of literal truth and objective fallacy (even if fundamentalists and anti-theists alike insist on doing so).

[Alexander78]

There are at least 7 theories of the origin of our universe. Choose according to your taste. But do not forget that you are not choosing the truth, but one of the theories. We still cannot predict what kind of weather awaits us tomorrow, but with great enthusiasm we embark on disputes in matters about which we have not the slightest idea. These issues are interesting and they need to be discussed, but there is no need to try to dominate.

We are still too young a civilization. To divide into believers and non-believers and with a brave cry to rush into the attack at each other, so far, this is our level as unfortunately. As a believer, I do not claim that the explanation of the creation of the world in the Holy Scriptures removes all questions. I just want to say that erroneous opinion and radicalism work both ways. This is how our world works. And who arranged it and how, let everyone decide for himself. Maybe someday we will get clear and understandable answers satisfying everyone.

[Lord Thesaurian]

If I recall correctly, the Roman church acknowledged its legitimacy seventy years ago. Welcome to the debate.

The theory of evolution wasn’t considered a problem to most Christians initially. It wasn’t until the 20th century that believers began to fear its implications for obvious reasons. Afaik it boils down to the concession that the Bible is “just an allegory” and not historical in any way, and therefore people believe just to believe. I don’t see what the debate is, unless you mean the debate between Christians about how to make reality fit the Biblical account, which would be a matter of confirmation bias, regardless of who is “right.” If that means I lack faith then it is what it is unfortunately. If the God of the Bible is who caused the primordial soup to evolve life over incomprehensible periods of time, then one must ask why an allegory that fundamentally contradicts that idea is how he chose to illustrate the beginning of all life on Earth to us.

You don’t have to look far to see that the genealogy of Jesus back to the first human, as stated precisely in the Bible, for example, is almost certainly untrue. And comparisons of this nature already assume the Biblical account is even feasible or at least consistent with real history in the first place. I’m unaware of any evidence there ever was a “first human” or “first human couple” that poofed rather than reproduced into existence sometime in the past, mated, and thereby made all humans since in a nice, linear fashion. In fact the odds of this “fixed species” concept being accurate are something like 1:58800000000………. based on DNA evidence. The evidence that all living things are biologically related is, by contrast overwhelming by any comparison. I simply wasn’t taught about it and never cared to look.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Even the philosophical importance of this realization is simple imo. Would you live your life differently if you realize there is no scenario in which you live forever, and there’s no ultimate truth or ultimate deity whose will you must try to discern? The answer is unique to each person, but it’s an answer each of us must surely seek for himself. What’s beautiful about science and the rules of evidence is I can see it and understand it, easily dispelling any contradictory notions on my part, rather than having to suspend disbelief entirely and try to make the evidence fit those notions. It brings an immense sense of peace that I’m just stupid, not crazy, and the world can actually make sense, which is ironic since that is precisely what religion purports to offer. Humans are just really ing cool and god or gods had nothing to do with it. Perhaps we should all be kinder to one another given our existence is an ultimately irrelevant flash in the pan.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[ggggtotalwarrior]

We still cannot predict what kind of weather awaits us tomorrow, but with great enthusiasm we embark on disputes in matters about which we have not the slightest idea.

We actually very much can and do predict the weather on a daily basis

[Prodromos]

The Bible says when God first made the world he called it "very good" and that death came as a result of Adam's sin. How do evolutionary theists reconcile this with the view that there was suffering and death for millions of years before Adam? That would seem to entail that death is normal and good, yet for the Christian death is the enemy and the one Christ came to defeat.

[Alexander78]

We actually very much can and do predict the weather on a daily basis

It's hard to argue with this. Only the result is not always correct. It was an ironic allegory about the weather.

[razerbelkin]

Hm, as we are off topic anyways, maybe one of the non-believers can answer me an easy question:

How come, that so many people with a near-death experience (people who were clinically dead) claim to have seen Jesus?

I´ve never heard of a muslim claiming to have seen Allah for example, or any other religion for that matter. Reports on the afterlife are exclusively christian, or am I wrong?

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

@Lord Thesaurian: You see it from the wrong angle. You may have been stupid in the past, but now, now you have declared publicly, that you have been wrong about evolution and science in the past. Thats a sign of being an adult not denying of making mistakes. And you are 28 years now and have a world of scientific wonders to discover. See and be amazed.

[Alexander78]

Hm, as we are off topic anyways, maybe one of the non-believers can answer me an easy question:

How come, that so many people with a near-death experience (people who were clinically dead) claim to have seen Jesus?

I´ve never heard of a muslim claiming to have seen Allah for example, or any other religion for that matter. Reports on the afterlife are exclusively christian, or am I wrong?

There are many testimonies of Muslims about the afterlife. You probably didn't communicate with them much. For some reason, they talk mainly about hell, the underworld.

But for me personally, the most convincing in this was the story of my mother, who survived clinical death. For me, there is no doubt that after death something else awaits us that we cannot understand and realize while we are alive. I can't say what it is. But there is a surprise waiting for us beyond the line. For someone good, for someone not so. We are not created for oblivion, I have clearly understood this for myself.

[razerbelkin]

Thanks Alexander,
I have to confess I have close to zero contact to muslims. Also I have no clue about islamic heaven/ hell, just what I picked up in the wiki I cross-read due to this thread ^^. The question about reports on the afterlife arose out of this thread, as I am not that knowledgeable in terms of the scriptures, I tried a different approach. There´s many experts on the bible for example in these forums and I learn a lot. I enjoy reading Basics to name one.
On the afterlife-part we are in full agreement. There´s definately something afterwards!

[Lord Thesaurian]

@Lord Thesaurian: You see it from the wrong angle. You may have been stupid in the past, but now, now you have declared publicly, that you have been wrong about evolution and science in the past. Thats a sign of being an adult not denying of making mistakes. And you are 28 years now and have a world of scientific wonders to discover. See and be amazed.

Bizarre how humans got further away from reality somehow, at least in this case. Life’s ironic that way I guess.

[Cyclops]

Belief in Jesus and YHWH is not inconsistent with acceptance of the scientific method. I'd hate for someone to lose their relationship with the divine because they accept the validity of the scientific method.

At least Hendrix confessed to practice whitchcraft, he believed to be possessed by some spirit, I quote Fayne Pridgeon: "he used to always talk about some devil, or something was in him, and he didn´t have any control over it" and I take her word for it. You dont, thats your choice.

We agree your OP is a bust and Hendrix said nothing about selling his soul, and neither did his girlfriend. He may have held quaint ideas about mental illness, and his girlfriend may have shared them.

I will post some more vids during the continuation of the thread, but I have a real life too. Heres what Bob Dylan had to say, whats your opinion?

My opinion is he's speaking figuratively. He won a Nobel Prize for poetry so he's got form. The clue here is the way he laughs in the face of the interviewer. Satanic? Or a jeering arrogant rich man?

I thinks its childish (and I believe its heretical according to most Christian orthodoxies, but I'm no expert) to believe Satan has the power to grant wishes like a genie in a children's film.

I think this superstitious nonsense is promoted as part of a brainlet "Satanic Panic" and related movements to startle people into hating new things. Such tactics were also used to persecute Jews and midwives. Often it has a political or financial basis. Of course I'm not saying you're promoting mindless hate as part of a plot to make money or persuade people to vote for a particular political candidate.

The Bible says when God first made the world he called it "very good" and that death came as a result of Adam's sin. How do evolutionary theists reconcile this with the view that there was suffering and death for millions of years before Adam? That would seem to entail that death is normal and good, yet for the Christian death is the enemy and the one Christ came to defeat.

But Ecclesiastes 7:1 says the day of death is better than the day of birth. The Bible does not tell one plain story, it has a great deal of wisdom for us to consider.

As for death, its is made possible by life in that death is defined as the cessation of life. Metaphorically its used to describe the absence of life eg "dead planet" "dead air". Scientifically/rationally I don't think death is assigned a moral value as good or bad. As humans we usually struggle to live, but i know of suicides and self-sacrifices, and elderly and sick people who welcomed death.

Surely God is more complicated than a simple narrative? I don't know as I am not a believer. Life is terrible complex, well beyond my frail belief and frailer reason.

Hm, as we are off topic anyways, maybe one of the non-believers can answer me an easy question:

How come, that so many people with a near-death experience (people who were clinically dead) claim to have seen Jesus?

I´ve never heard of a muslim claiming to have seen Allah for example, or any other religion for that matter. Reports on the afterlife are exclusively christian, or am I wrong?

I think you're wrong. I mean you could just google it.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7737831/

[Cope]

The theory of evolution wasn’t considered a problem to most Christians initially. It wasn’t until the 20th century that believers began to fear its implications for obvious reasons. Afaik it boils down to the concession that the Bible is “just an allegory” and not historical in any way, and therefore people believe just to believe.

Even the most aggressive anti-theist would not dare claim that Scripture is “not historical in any way” supposing they valued their reputation among critical scholars.

See Also:

The Bible contains 66 books and covers a variety of genres and literary styles. Parts of the texts are "literally true". Others are allegorical, poetic/lyrical, descriptive etc. or a combination thereof. It isn't useful to perceive the Bible solely in the binary terms of literal truth and objective fallacy (even if fundamentalists and anti-theists alike insist on doing so).

I don’t see what the debate is, unless you mean the debate between Christians about how to make reality fit the Biblical account, which would be a matter of confirmation bias, regardless of who is “right.” If that means I lack faith then it is what it is unfortunately. If the God of the Bible is who caused the primordial soup to evolve life over incomprehensible periods of time, then one must ask why an allegory that fundamentally contradicts that idea is how he chose to illustrate the beginning of all life on Earth to us.

The insistence, from a position of atheism, that evolution is irreconcilable with Scripture is itself evidence that the debate extends beyond intra-Christian disagreement. It should further be noted that old fashioned fundamentalists and anti-theists agree on the alleged incompatibility for the same reasons.

For my part, and as mentioned, the primeval history makes more sense with evolution than without. Every entity that solely moves through, or exists within, time changes, or evolves. Hence, man was not snapped into being, but was “formed of the dust” (i.e., he had a prior form). God alone is constant.

As to the broader ontological point, Lewis put it this way:

Again, for the scientist Evolution is a purely biological theorem. It takes over organic life on this planet as a going concern and tries to explain certain changes within that field. It makes no cosmic statements, no metaphysical statements, no eschatological statements. Granted that we now have minds we can trust, granted that organic life came to exist, it tries to explain, say, how a species that once had wings came to lose them. It explains this by the negative effect of environment operating on small variations. It does not in itself explain the origin of organic life, nor of the variations, nor does it discuss the origin and validity of reason. It may well tell you how the brain, through which reason now operates, arose, but that is a different matter. Still less does it even attempt to tell you how the universe as a whole arose, or what it is, or whither it is tending.

C. S. Lewis Essay Collection: Faith, Christianity and the Church.

You don’t have to look far to see that the genealogy of Jesus back to the first human, as stated precisely in the Bible, for example, is almost certainly untrue. And comparisons of this nature already assume the Biblical account is even feasible or at least consistent with real history in the first place.

As above, the Bible shouldn’t be treated as an historical account, although it includes texts - esp. the Gospels – which are. The specifics of the genealogy (which should not be assumed to be biological) have been debated/disputed since the time of the church fathers. I can’t say I have any knowledge on the finer points of Judean ancestral record keeping, though.

I’m unaware of any evidence there ever was a “first human” or “first human couple” that poofed rather than reproduced into existence sometime in the past, mated, and thereby made all humans since in a nice, linear fashion. In fact the odds of this “fixed species” concept being accurate are something like 1:58800000000………. based on DNA evidence. The evidence that all living things are biologically related is, by contrast overwhelming by any comparison. I simply wasn’t taught about it and never cared to look.

As shown above, a majority of Christians, even in the US, do not believe in YEC. Discovering that one was taught outdated theology is not a fatal proof against Christianity, only, at best, a particular teaching of it.

Even the philosophical importance of this realization is simple imo. Would you live your life differently if you realize there is no scenario in which you live forever, and there’s no ultimate truth or ultimate deity whose will you must try to discern? The answer is unique to each person, but it’s an answer each of us must surely seek for himself. What’s beautiful about science and the rules of evidence is I can see it and understand it, easily dispelling any contradictory notions on my part, rather than having to suspend disbelief entirely and try to make the evidence fit those notions. It brings an immense sense of peace that I’m just stupid, not crazy, and the world can actually make sense, which is ironic since that is precisely what religion purports to offer. Humans are just really cool and god or gods had nothing to do with it. Perhaps we should all be kinder to one another given our existence is an ultimately irrelevant flash in the pan.

Christianity was always a choice. No one said it was easy.

We [Christians] construct a belief which helps us to discover, in so far as it is possible, what it is we ought to do, and how it is we ought to live in the belief that there is justice, that there is hope that death is not the end, that our actions have significance beyond what we immediately do. If you do not what this, you can simply turn with raillery and badinage and mock the beliefs of others.

Peter Hitchens.

[Prodromos]

But Ecclesiastes 7:1 says the day of death is better than the day of birth. The Bible does not tell one plain story, it has a great deal of wisdom for us to consider.

As for death, its is made possible by life in that death is defined as the cessation of life. Metaphorically its used to describe the absence of life eg "dead planet" "dead air". Scientifically/rationally I don't think death is assigned a moral value as good or bad. As humans we usually struggle to live, but i know of suicides and self-sacrifices, and elderly and sick people who welcomed death.

Surely God is more complicated than a simple narrative? I don't know as I am not a believer. Life is terrible complex, well beyond my frail belief and frailer reason.

Thanks, but my question was aimed at evolutionary theists, specifically Christians like Cope and others here. Do evolutionary theists agree that belief in evolution requires accepting that Scripture is false and self-contradictory?

[Lord Thesaurian]

I think the fundamental point is that there’s no evidence any complex living organism, man or beast, was ever snapped into being; that the evidence points inexorably to the conclusion life evolved slowly over time and all living things are biologically related. I don’t think I meant to suggest Biblical historicism is immune to critical scholarship - quite the opposite.

[Prodromos]

I think the fundamental point is that there’s no evidence any complex living organism, man or beast, was ever snapped into being; that the evidence points inexorably to the conclusion life evolved slowly over time and all living things are biologically related. I don’t think I meant to suggest Biblical historicism is immune to critical scholarship - quite the opposite.

Right. I don't know if you were joking or not, but earlier you seemed to suggest that your belief in evolution has led you to reject the Bible as false and unreliable. But for Christians who uphold the Bible as their highest authority, how do they reconcile their belief in evolution with the evidence against it from the Bible?

[Akar]

There is no evidence against evolution in the bible unless you view it from a literalist perspective, in which case I would say they reconcile it in much the same way that a paranoid schizophrenic reconciles with their delusions.

evolutionary theists, specifically Christians like Cope

As far as I remember from my discussions with Cope, he does not himself acknowledge evolution. I'd be happy to hear otherwise, though.

[basics]

Akar,

If creation as described in the Bible is not literal and meant to be taken literally then Moses through God is lying. On the first day of creation He created the heaven and the earth. It was called the " beginning " because there was nothing there before it that resembled anything like that which He just did on that day. By that I mean that where God is there is no darkness and so space as we know it came into being the moment He spoke it into existence. Why it was created was for His story to unfold as has been given us in the Bible, a story in which He is at the centre. There is no point in anyone declaring themselves a Christian if they do not believe what is written.

[Cope]

Thanks, but my question was aimed at evolutionary theists, specifically Christians like Cope and others here. Do evolutionary theists agree that belief in evolution requires accepting that Scripture is false and self-contradictory?

As explained:

The story of Adam makes more sense in the context of evolution, not less. It follows man's coming of age, with the tree of knowledge symbolizing the development of agency and an awareness of the inevitability of mortality (which, among earthly creatures, is unique to humanity). Genesis concerns the beginning, which necessitates time and therefore change. Only God was ever immutable.

For my part, and as mentioned, the primeval history makes more sense with evolution than without. Every entity that solely moves through, or exists within, time changes, or evolves. Hence, man was not snapped into being, but was “formed of the dust” (i.e., he had a prior form). God alone is constant.

It should be added that, even though the issue is interesting in its own right, I don't view it as fundamental. Disbelieving in evolution is unlikely to lead one away from Christ.

[Mithradates]

The Catholic church believing in evolution officially is absolutely not the same thing as "evolution being integrated into Christian reasoning for decades", because it's not true. The majority of Christian groups absolutely do not acknowledge the legitimacy of evolution

highly religious people may feel conflicted about saying that humans have evolved over time unless they are able to clarify their views about the role of God in these processes
How highly religious Americans view evolution depends on how they’re asked about it