Believing in evolution skews their interpretation of the Bible.
And rejecting evolution skews their interpretation of reality.
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!
Believing in evolution skews their interpretation of the Bible.
sandy whitelinger said:Believing in evolution skews their interpretation of the Bible.
I'm saying that the Biblical world and the natural world do not seem to coincide. And, no, I do not believe the Bible speaks of a world-wide flood.Are you saying that creationism is true, and that theistic evolution is false?
Do you believe that a global flood occured?
sandy whitelinger said:I'm saying that the Biblical world and the natural world do not seem to coincide. And, no, I do not believe the Bible speaks of a world-wide flood.
You seem to miss my point but I'll answer your question as both.Do you accept creationism, or theistic evolution?
sandy whitelinger said:You seem to miss my point but I'll answer your question as both.
That was part of my answer. I answer both questions directly. You refused the answer.Since you answered my question about the global flood directly, and refused to do so regarding creationism, I will interpret your response as that you accept creationism, and the story of Adam and Eve.
The natural world points in that direction.Let me state it differently. Do you believe that humans and chimps share a common ancestor, also referred to as an example of macro evolution?
sandy whitelinger said:The natural world points in that direction.
What a silly question. It's like asking if I accept if the sun shines. I accept the natural world around me. It comes off as experiential.Yes, but do you accept that direction?
Every one seems to cling to some cherished preconcieved notion. "Rose tints my world and keeps me safe from my trouble and pain." -The Rocky Horror Picture Show
Wow, someone not only thought of this before me but it has a really funky name. That generally sums up my position in that I will not discount either version.Agnostic... I suggest you look up Gould's concept of "non-overlapping magisteria".
Non-overlapping magisteria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It should help you figure out what Sandy is telling you.
Essentially the truth of the natural world and the truth of the spiritual world are not always going to be the same. A person who is secure in their faith isn't really bothered by that.
wa:do
Now you have a funky official sounding answer you can toss out when people push you on the subject.Wow, someone not only thought of this before me but it has a really funky name. That generally sums up my position in that I will not discount either version.
I seem to prefer screwing with their heads and watching them flounder since they just can't wrap their mind around the concept of accepting the validity of both. I should probably get out more.Now you have a funky official sounding answer you can toss out when people push you on the subject.
It essentially sums up my position on the science/faith issue as well.
wa:do
I'm saying that the Biblical world and the natural world do not seem to coincide. And, no, I do not believe the Bible speaks of a world-wide flood.
Agnostic... I suggest you look up Gould's concept of "non-overlapping magisteria".
Non-overlapping magisteria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It should help you figure out what Sandy is telling you.
Essentially the truth of the natural world and the truth of the spiritual world are not always going to be the same. A person who is secure in their faith isn't really bothered by that.