Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Jesus used the Scriptures as the final authority on matters, and quoted from them frequently in his teachings. There simply is no basis, in my opinion, to claim that Jesus was speaking metaphorically.
Can a Christian believe in Evolution, or does Christianity require the Christian to believe in the account in Genesis?
Silver
Jesus used the Scriptures as the final authority on matters, and quoted from them frequently in his teachings. There simply is no basis, in my opinion, to claim that Jesus was speaking metaphorically. If Adam and Eve never existed, how would it lend any weight to marital fidelity to cite the account of man's creation?
Pertinent is this quote from the Bible handbook Reasoning from the Scriptures, p.28: If the first man Adam was simply allegorical, what about the last Adam, Jesus Christ?
1 Cor. 15:45, 47: It is even so written: The first man Adam became a living soul. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. The first man is out of the earth and made of dust; the second man is out of heaven. (Thus denial that Adam was a real person who sinned against God implies doubt as to the identity of Jesus Christ. Such denial leads to rejection of the reason it was necessary for Jesus to give his life for mankind. Rejection of that means repudiation of the Christian faith.)
I don't see such rejection as repudiation of Christianity. How do we know that Jesus' death and resurrection aren't simply metaphorical? There is no indication, anywhere, to suggest that a literal understanding of the events is the only right one, or even a good one at that. I much more inclined to believe that a mystical, spiritual, and metaphorical reading are much more spiritual and holy than a literal understanding of the text. A metaphorical/spiritual/mystical understanding of this does not repudiate the Christian faith, in my mind, it upholds it more than a literal viewpoint.
o.0 Sure. You just gotta have Jesus as your moral teacher and you are a christian on my book.
Or well, at least try to be. I lot of things done in his name are not the kind of things I think he´d approve.
Can a Christian believe in Evolution, or does Christianity require the Christian to believe in the account in Genesis?
Silver
Christianity allows for whatever justification of whatever beliefs one wishes to entertain. I remember when the bible/God was used to justify why it's a sin for a white person to marry a black person. My grandparents remembered when it was used to show left handedness is "of the devil".
The bible and so ambiguous in its "meat" that, as society evolves, anything can be justified.
So yes, a Christian can believe in evolution if they want to and not change their "God" at all.
Quite convenient and sad IMO
What did Christ himself teach in particular that couldn't be reconciled with evolution?
Can a Christian believe in Evolution, or does Christianity require the Christian to believe in the account in Genesis?
Silver
I see evolution as mostly irrelevant when it comes to faith. It doesn't interfere with any tenants of the faith (speaking from a Christian perspective). In fact, I find it mostly irrelevant to most of my life, because it is so ambiguous and so distant from anything that would have an impact on how I choose to live my life.Can a Christian believe in Evolution, or does Christianity require the Christian to believe in the account in Genesis?
Silver
Yes he can, and Genesis depending on how you interpret it does allow for evolution. There is a very respected and large Christian web site that discusses in detail how evolution and the Bible are compatable. However the Bible seems to restrict evolution to within a kind. What is a kind?. I am not sure but it is most surely sub species level. I do not believe evolution turned one kind of animal into another nor do I believe life developed by chance. I do not believe those things for scientific reasons not Biblical ones.Can a Christian believe in Evolution, or does Christianity require the Christian to believe in the account in Genesis?
Silver
Jesus taught that God created the first man and woman. (Matthew 19:4) He also taught that because of Adam's sin, mankind needed a ransom. (Matthew 20:28)
1 Corinthians 15:45 speaks of Jesus as the "last Adam" after mentioning the first man: "It is even so written: “The first man Adam became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit."
If man evolved, then Adam did not exist, nor does sin. Jesus did not need to provide a ransom, and is also proven a false witness, if evolution were true. If evolution were true, then Jesus lied when he said:"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)
If evolution were true, there would be no resurrection. Yet, Jesus said: "Do not marvel at this, because the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice and come out." (John 5:28,29)
These are but a few reasons of many that neither Jesus teachings, nor any of the rest of the Scriptures, can be reconciled with the ToE.
Why would you presume the scriptures were intended to be literal rather than allegorical? Does being a "true christian" require acceding to a literal interpretation of scripture? Don't you think it's most likely that the ancient, ignorant primitives who wrote the bible were incorrect in their limited knowledge and understanding of the world? Isn't it a little silly to assume they're infallible merely because they claimed to speak on god's behalf? Anyone can appoint themselves as a spokesperson of god, which is akin to using god as a sock puppet. You see, what you think is "god" is actually someone's sock that they're wearing on their hand. There could be a god, but he wouldn't be imprisoned within that silly tome.
No, Christianity and Biblical theology has spent thousands of years identifying which are literal and which are not. They have very effective methods of determining this.Why would you presume the scriptures were intended to be literal rather than allegorical? Does being a "true christian" require acceding to a literal interpretation of scripture?
I think it more likely that since they are accurate in every case where absolute claims can be verified by proper methods then they were given an accurate representation of what happened that could be understood by them. It is miraculously accurate in it's descriptions. For example the characteristics given to God are an exact description of what 4000 years later philosophers have determined the uncaused first cause of the universe must be like. Another is their understanding of germ theory (sanitation) and medical precepts that even thousands of years later were not being followed and thereby thousand were killed. For example bleeding of people that were sick, or not washing surgical instruments between operations. Even in the 19th century our "science" was still behind what was revealed 4000 years earlier.Don't you think it's most likely that the ancient, ignorant primitives who wrote the bible were incorrect in their limited knowledge and understanding of the world?
That can be determined by the fact that they made no claims (beyond scribal error in later translation) that is in fact faulty. As it is what they claimed is virtually supernaturaly accurate even to the detrement of man's most leaned scholars at times. There are over 25,000 historical corroberations with the Bible and 0 false claims.Isn't it a little silly to assume they're infallible merely because they claimed to speak on god's behalf?
The accuracy of their claims, the demonstration of supernatural power, and the accuracy of 2,500 propphecies bears witness to the Bibles authors.Anyone can appoint themselves as a spokesperson of god, which is akin to using god as a sock puppet.
Until a sock puts together 750,000 words in the most scrutinsed and cherished book in human history even 2000 years after it was written, I do not think we are in danger of worshiping foot wear. Calling the most profound book in human history silly says more about you than it. Even your fellow critics dissagree:You see, what you think is "god" is actually someone's sock that they're wearing on their hand. There could be a god, but he wouldn't be imprisoned within that silly tome.