How can you accept evolution and still have a spiritual reality, and/or a God faith

[rrobs]

To be fair, the whole exercise is terribly assymetrical in nature.

Still, the end result is still that research and findings support evolution, while there is only dogma to attempt to support its denial.

It is terribly asymmetrical all right. But that's fine. It doesn't bother me. It's pretty interesting.

There is such a thing as researching the Bible in a logical and methodical manner. It is not necessarily just dogma.

I suspect the majority of your scriptural knowledge comes from second hand sources, namely church doctrine which is not always scriptural. They rely a whole lot on tradition. The Bible says tradition goes against the truth. Bottom line is, assuming my first statement to be true about the source of your biblical knowledge, most of what you know is actually tradition and not necessarily scriptural, thus making your knowledge of the Bible limited at best.

I have taken 2 years of college biology. Of course, evolution played a major role in my study. I know what it says. I also know what the Bible says from my own research quite apart from church tradition. It would seem that for somebody to come to a conclusion on a matter, they ought to know both sides of the story. I have the feeling that most of the "scientists" here are in the same boat as you in that the knowledge they have of the Bible is really knowledge of tradition. I wonder how many have poured over the Bible for themselves with anywhere near the same intensity as they've presumably spent pouring over the science books. I've done both which I would think ought to give me more authority than those who've only done half the research.

 

[Jose Fly]

I've done both which I would think ought to give me more authority than those who've only done half the research.

So what exactly is your position on evolution/creationism?

 

[metis]

The Bible says tradition goes against the truth.

1Cor.11[2] I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.

2Thes.2[15] So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

2Thes.3[6] Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.

 

[LuisDantas]

Rude? That bad, huh? I would think that's being a bit over sensitive, but if you feel it's rude, I wouldn't want to take it away from you. I understand everybody has different tolerance levels.

To be fair, "rude" is probably not the best word to use here. I do however hope and expect people to attempt to express what they think in their own words. I think that to be productive and healthy for various reasons.

Why in the world would you would intimate that I am not a thinking human being? It actually intimates you don't think, which I know is not really true. I'm sure you do think and come up with many good ideas. But you leave yourself open to criticism by making such sweeping and unfounded claims.

I'm not sure of where you are coming from, but I was addressing the preference for quotes from scripture over expressing things on one's own words.

Getting to the point, the original post is entitled Evolution vs Creationism. If I can't quote from the book that defines creationism, wouldn't it be fair that evolutionist couldn't use their science books?

I am not seeing it. There is really no direct comparison between the two natures of texts. One is dogmatic, the other is informative and explanatory.

In any case, what I dislike is not nearly so much the act of quoting scripture as the choice to rely on it.

Would you get into the boxing ring with both hands tied behind your back? Would that classify as a thinking human being in your book? If so, I'd be super glad to go a few rounds (actually a few seconds) with you for the prize money. I don't really think about fighting anybody, just illustrating how lopsided your thinking really is in this matter.

Lopsided this is indeed. It is really weird to participate in Evolution vs Creationism discussions, since there is such a deep asymmetry that it is so often ignored. There is only so much that can be done with such a situation.

 

[rrobs]

Nope, I can't bathe into a private conversation. That is what PM 's are for.

I was talking about something else. I answered the wrong person. Anyway, like I said it was just a joke anyway.

And abusing the Bible is an incorrect action even for a Christian.

No science quote as pay back for my Bible quote? Go ahead. Send me one. I can take it.

That's another joke. I guess I'm not taking all of this too seriously any more. If I can't use scripture, I tend to revert to comedy. That's just me. Maybe it's best I go away. Perhaps we'll debate something else down the road. Take care...

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is terribly asymmetrical all right. But that's fine. It doesn't bother me. It's pretty interesting.

There is such a thing as researching the Bible in a logical and methodical manner. It is not necessarily just dogma.

I suspect the majority of your scriptural knowledge comes from second hand sources, namely church doctrine which is not always scriptural. They rely a whole lot on tradition. The Bible says tradition goes against the truth. Bottom line is, assuming my first statement to be true about the source of your biblical knowledge, most of what you know is actually tradition and not necessarily scriptural, thus making your knowledge of the Bible limited at best.

I have taken 2 years of college biology. Of course, evolution played a major role in my study. I know what it says. I also know what the Bible says from my own research quite apart from church tradition. It would seem that for somebody to come to a conclusion on a matter, they ought to know both sides of the story. I have the feeling that most of the "scientists" here are in the same boat as you in that the knowledge they have of the Bible is really knowledge of tradition. I wonder how many have poured over the Bible for themselves with anywhere near the same intensity as they've presumably spent pouring over the science books. I've done both which I would think ought to give me more authority than those who've only done half the research.

This may be a healthy approach to the Bible. It is clear that the people of that time would not have been able to understand the concept of evolution. It is best to look at Genesis as morality tales and not literal events. A literal interpretation of the Bible only ends up making the God of the Old Testament looking like an evil incompetent monster.

 

[rrobs]

1Cor.11[2] I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.

2Thes.2[15] So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

2Thes.3[6] Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.

Tradition of Paul if fine. All the verses you quoted are referring to the tradition Paul gave Christianity. But Paul also said everybody had turned against him before he even died, so the tradition he taught went by the wayside. RC and most other church tradition is quite at odds with Paul's. That's what I was referring to.

 

[Audie]

It is terribly asymmetrical all right. But that's fine. It doesn't bother me. It's pretty interesting.

There is such a thing as researching the Bible in a logical and methodical manner. It is not necessarily just dogma.

I suspect the majority of your scriptural knowledge comes from second hand sources, namely church doctrine which is not always scriptural. They rely a whole lot on tradition. The Bible says tradition goes against the truth. Bottom line is, assuming my first statement to be true about the source of your biblical knowledge, most of what you know is actually tradition and not necessarily scriptural, thus making your knowledge of the Bible limited at best.

I have taken 2 years of college biology. Of course, evolution played a major role in my study. I know what it says. I also know what the Bible says from my own research quite apart from church tradition. It would seem that for somebody to come to a conclusion on a matter, they ought to know both sides of the story. I have the feeling that most of the "scientists" here are in the same boat as you in that the knowledge they have of the Bible is really knowledge of tradition. I wonder how many have poured over the Bible for themselves with anywhere near the same intensity as they've presumably spent pouring over the science books. I've done both which I would think ought to give me more authority than those who've only done half the research.

Welllll.... no.

For one, you have definitely not done "half" the research. If you want to do creation, you will need
to do all the creation stories, from every culture.
How do you know your chosen one is right? You dont.

Another way it is not half. I have five years of
University biology, part of a double major. I could go
on but proof is id the pudding. I could say I am
an English major but if I dont write well, it looks fishy.

Here is another way that you have a false equivalence.

The Bible just tells a story. Maybe true maybe
false, maybe it says this and maybe it says that.

It is necessary sometimes to look to outside sources
to see what the facts are, or to bring understanding
in line with what is written.

It says Egypt-great, we can find Egypt. Locusts?
Yep.

Pi=3? Lets check. Oh, that is an approximation.

Flood? Hmm. A lot of magic involved there.
Plus, absolutely no evidence that it really happened.
A lot of sign that it did not. Must be just a story,
maybe an allegory? Maybe something that \should have been left out.

Sic day poof v evolution and deep time?

There is no balance- balance, fifty-fifty there.

 

[Audie]

Tradition of Paul if fine. All the verses you quoted are referring to the tradition Paul gave Christianity. But Paul also said everybody had turned against him before he even died, so the tradition he taught went by the wayside. RC and most other church tradition is quite at odds with Paul's. That's what I was referring to.

Makes sense, Paul seems to me a usurper and a fraud.

 

[rrobs]

This may be a healthy approach to the Bible. It is clear that the people of that time would not have been able to understand the concept of evolution. It is best to look at Genesis as morality tales and not literal events. A literal interpretation of the Bible only ends up making the God of the Old Testament looking like an evil incompetent monster.

You sound like you have some definite ideas on what the scriptures say.

Just curious. How much time have you spent in your own research of the Bible? Do you have any Greek and Hebrew dictionaries? How many concordances do you have? Which books on ancient Near East culture have you read? Do you use an interlinear Bible in your studies? Which one? Have you ever tried a reverse interlinear? Have you studied numerology in the Bible? Have you spent any time in textual criticism? Have you made a study of the figures of speech used in the Bible?

Like I said, I took 2 years of biology including 2 quarters of Evolution. I looked at both sides in some depth and decided on the Bible. What made you decide on the science of evolution?

 

[rrobs]

Welllll.... no.

For one, you have definitely not done "half" the research. If you want to do creation, you will need
to do all the creation stories, from every culture.
How do you know your chosen one is right? You dont.

Another way it is not half. I have five years of
University biology, part of a double major. I could go
on but proof is id the pudding. I could say I am
an English major but if I dont write well, it looks fishy.

Here is another way that you have a false equivalence.

The Bible just tells a story. Maybe true maybe
false, maybe it says this and maybe it says that.

It is necessary sometimes to look to outside sources
to see what the facts are, or to bring understanding
in line with what is written.

It says Egypt-great, we can find Egypt. Locusts?
Yep.

Pi=3? Lets check. Oh, that is an approximation.

Flood? Hmm. A lot of magic involved there.
Plus, absolutely no evidence that it really happened.
A lot of sign that it did not. Must be just a story,
maybe an allegory? Maybe something that \should have been left out.

Sic day poof v evolution and deep time?

There is no balance- balance, fifty-fifty there.

I'm going to give the same answer to you that I gave to Subduction Zone. I hope that is OK. It seems appropriate to me.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You sound like you have some definite ideas on what the scriptures say.

Just curious. How much time have you spent in your own research of the Bible? Do you have any Greek and Hebrew dictionaries? How many concordances do you have? Which books on ancient Near East culture have you read? Do you use an interlinear Bible in your studies? Which one? Have you ever tried a reverse interlinear? Have you studied numerology in the Bible? Have you spent any time in textual criticism? Have you made a study of the figures of speech used in the Bible?

Like I said, I took 2 years of biology including 2 quarters of Evolution (albeit not as much as yourself). I looked at both sides in some depth and decided on the Bible. What made you decide on the science of evolution?

 

[rrobs]

Makes sense, Paul seems to me a usurper and a fraud.

Well, he was certainly a usurper in that he upset Old Testament teaching. But why should that be surprising. After all, Paul came after some guy was killed and rose from the dead. That kinda changed the ballgame.

Fraud? What makes you say that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You sound like you have some definite ideas on what the scriptures say.

Just curious. How much time have you spent in your own research of the Bible? Do you have any Greek and Hebrew dictionaries? How many concordances do you have? Which books on ancient Near East culture have you read? Do you use an interlinear Bible in your studies? Which one? Have you ever tried a reverse interlinear? Have you studied numerology in the Bible? Have you spent any time in textual criticism? Have you made a study of the figures of speech used in the Bible?

Like I said, I took 2 years of biology including 2 quarters of Evolution. I looked at both sides in some depth and decided on the Bible. What made you decide on the science of evolution?

People that did into the original Greek and Hebrew are usually merely desperate to defend the errors of the Bible. Regardless of translation it fails when read literally. What is rather amazing to me is that you supposedly took two years of biology and yet cannot understand the fact that all of the scientific evidence out there supports evolution and only evolution. The evidence is so clear for evolution that one has to believe in a lying God to explain it, not to mention the other myths in the Bible.

Since I am not desperate to defend the Bible I do not own any concordances etc. and I will tend to trust translations of experts over those of amateurs no matter how many of those books they have. Vaguely written texts are open to multiple translations but from my experience all of them fail when read literally.

If your version of God cannot lie, and that is how most Christians feel, then surely you know that there was no flood of Noah. That myth portrays a wicked God that indiscriminately killed the wicked along with the innocent. And to no purpose since all of the woes that existed before existed very soon after that event. If your answer is that God cannot lie then Genesis cannot be true. By the way, at no point does the Bible even claim to be either the "word of God" nor does it claim to be literally true. Why have such a belief? It seems rather blasphemous to me.

 

[Audie]

You sound like you have some definite ideas on what the scriptures say.

Just curious. How much time have you spent in your own research of the Bible? Do you have any Greek and Hebrew dictionaries? How many concordances do you have? Which books on ancient Near East culture have you read? Do you use an interlinear Bible in your studies? Which one? Have you ever tried a reverse interlinear? Have you studied numerology in the Bible? Have you spent any time in textual criticism? Have you made a study of the figures of speech used in the Bible?

Like I said, I took 2 years of biology including 2 quarters of Evolution. I looked at both sides in some depth and decided on the Bible. What made you decide on the science of evolution?

Did you study other creation stories? What made you decide on that one?

i read the bible through twice. It describes a 6 day poof.
Everyone has his own version of what that really means.

When you say you "decided on the bible", that
tells us next to nothing. Maybe less than nothing, as it gives an impression of meaning but has none. You
know?

What do you think the bible says? Yec, oec, what?

People who study it come to every different opinon
there is.

Of course, as I was not raised on any religion,
I am not likely to pick one.

However-
as ToE and deep time are really quite abundantly
evidenced, as opposed to... what?

You say two sides. What is the other side?

And-how do you managed to choose a story over
all the available data in the known universe?

 

[Audie]

Well, he was certainly a usurper in that he upset Old Testament teaching. But why should that be surprising. After all, Paul came after some guy was killed and rose from the dead. That kinda changed the ballgame.

Fraud? What makes you say that?

The story about "Jesus" coming too him is fishy;
the snake story is an obvious lie.

 

[rrobs]

Well that depends. In these debates, the reason non-Christians object when Christians quote scripture to them is because non-Christians don't recognize the Bible as a valid source of scientific information. So if you want to draw an equivalency to "evolutionists" citing science to you, that would mean that you don't recognize science books as a valid source of scientific information.

I never said people couldn't quote their science books. I understand that's all they got. Well, all creationists have is the Bible. If either side feels they can't debate because they don't recognize the other side's source of info then don't debate.

By the way, isn't this a Religious Forum? Isn't the Bible a part of religion? I would never go to a Taoist forum and wave my Bible around while telling them they can't use the Tao Te Ching to debate.

 

[rrobs]

Did you study other creation stories? What made you decide on that one?

i read the bible through twice. It describes a 6 day poof.
Everyone has his own version of what that really means.

When you say you "decided on the bible", that
tells us next to nothing. Maybe less than nothing, as it gives an impression of meaning but has none. You
know?

What do you think the bible says? Yec, oec, what?

People who study it come to every different opinon
there is.

Of course, as I was not raised on any religion,
I am not likely to pick one.

However-
as ToE and deep time are really quite abundantly
evidenced, as opposed to... what?

You say two sides. What is the other side?

And-how do you managed to choose a story over
all the available data in the known universe?

Is there anything I can say to persuade you to abandon science and believe in the Bible? I'm thinking not, but a lot of folks point out my lack of understanding, so maybe am missing something there also.

It seems intellectual standards are pretty high here and I want to make the grade. On a second thought, it doesn't matter that much to me. I'll just say what I'm inspired to say.

 

[Audie]

Is there anything I can say to persuade you to abandon science and believe in the Bible? I'm thinking not, but a lot of folks point out my lack of understanding, so maybe am missing something there also.

It seems intellectual standards are pretty high here and I want to make the grade. On a second thought, it doesn't matter that much to me. I'll just say what I'm inspired to say.

I already believe in the bible. Just not the way you do.

You did not say what version of creation you came
up with to believe, in contrast with that for which
there is actual physical evidence.

 

[Jose Fly]

I never said people couldn't quote their science books. I understand that's all they got. Well, all creationists have is the Bible. If either side feels they can't debate because they don't recognize the other side's source of info then don't debate.

IMO, that's precisely why these "debates" (I hesitate to call them that) never go anywhere. Creationists derive their views on the history of the earth from the Bible, whereas "evolutionists" get theirs from science. Those are two fundamentally different and contradictory approaches, yet interestingly few people acknowledge it.

By the way, isn't this a Religious Forum? Isn't the Bible a part of religion? I would never go to a Taoist forum and wave my Bible around while telling them they can't use the Tao Te Ching to debate.

Yep. And if creationists would just come here and say up front that their views on the history of the earth come straight from the Bible and leave it at that, there wouldn't be much left to say (and sub-forums like this wouldn't be needed). However, problems arise when those creationists try and argue against the science, even though their position is entirely theological.

 

[Audie]

I never said people couldn't quote their science books. I understand that's all they got. Well, all creationists have is the Bible. If either side feels they can't debate because they don't recognize the other side's source of info then don't debate.

By the way, isn't this a Religious Forum? Isn't the Bible a part of religion? I would never go to a Taoist forum and wave my Bible around while telling them they can't use the Tao Te Ching to debate.

The bible is a source of info.

Just, not on some things.


Kinda like science does not do
literary criticism.

I do not recognize the bible as authoritative
on things that run counter to all known
data in the universe.