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

[Subduction Zone]

Very well said!

I've been loosing patience with some of the people here and have not been as nice as you. Your voice is more aligned with my normal temperament, so thanks for saying it all.

I am sorry, but nothing that @Deeje posts is "well said". Perhaps instead of getting frustrated you should try to learn why we know that you are wrong. You tipped your hand that you were not exactly forthcoming about your biology education, or you were beyond being dishonest when you tried to describe evolution earlier. You may have had very poor teachers, or you may have been a very poor student. It is rather obvious that you never understood a rather simple theory.

Your first step should be to realize that "change of kind" is a creationist strawman. There is no change of kind in evolution. Like it or not you are still an ape.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Simple to answer that.
Any scientist can admit, if shoved hard enough, that there is a reason why our Universe initiated........... The Reason is just another name for God.

No speculation required, thankyou.

If you want to call an amoral event "God" that is a pretty vague redefinition of God.

 

[rrobs]

What a strange question! It doesn't appear to have anything to do with my question about the serpent, and I don't know enough about moral philosophy to be able to answer it.

However, since you have raised the issue, perhaps you can help me with a problem about the meaning of free will. The way that I was taught it in the Baptist church seemed to be that there were only two choices on any subject (however trivial), namely God's way and the wrong way, and that the wrong way would inevitably lead to punishment. In these terms, 'free will' was an illusion; it was no more free than a 'free vote' in Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia or Maoist China, or 'freedom of religion' in an Islamic republic. In this interpretation, saying that 'free will' is or is not very good seems to me to be as pointless as arguing about whether the crock of gold at the end of a rainbow is very good.

Alternatively, 'free will' might mean that one has a choice between good things; for example one might be free to choose what to wear or what to eat, what career to follow, whether to get married or to stay single, where to live and where go on holiday, but not free to disobey God or to go against His will. In this interpretation, I think that 'free will' is real and that it is a good thing.

As I said, I don't know enough about moral philosophy to be able to answer your question, and I may have been writing nonsense throughout this post. Also, I have probably not understood your question, and therefore this post is not really an answer to it. However, for what it is worth, I submit it for your consideration. Now can you please answer my question about the serpent?

The serpent, like the rest of us, had free will. God thought it good to give him free will as opposed to making him, and us, robotic. In other words, free will is a good. It's like the story of letting a bird go free. If it loves you it will return on it's own.

By the way, the Bible, like most literature, uses figures of speech. Figures of speech are precise usages of words that are not true to fact, but emphasize the point being made by the writer. Normally when someone says, "that guy is a real snake in the grass" it doesn't literately that the guy is a real snake. We all know what it means because we all know it is a figure of speech and not meant to be taken word for word. A figure of speech is used to catch the reader's attention and make them thing about what was said.

I used the example of a snake in the grass. That should give you a clue as to the real nature of the serpent. For one thing, snakes don't talk. I think some non-Christians use that verse to show how stupid God is for making a snake talk. Well, God understands figures of speech. It's the naysayers who lack understanding. There are other places in the Bible that clearly show who the serpent was. It just takes a bit of honest research to ferret it out.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The serpent, like the rest of us, had free will. God thought it good to give him free will as opposed to making him, and us, robotic. In other words, free will is a good. It's like the story of letting a bird go free. If it loves you it will return on it's own.

By the way, the Bible, like most literature, uses figures of speech. Figures of speech are precise usages of words that are not true to fact, but emphasize the point being made by the writer. Normally when someone says, "that guy is a real snake in the grass" it doesn't literately that the guy is a real snake. We all know what it means because we all know it is a figure of speech and not meant to be taken word for word. A figure of speech is used to catch the reader's attention and make them thing about what was said.

I used the example of a snake in the grass. That should give you a clue as to the real nature of the serpent. For one thing, snakes don't talk. I think some non-Christians use that verse to show how stupid God is for making a snake talk. Well, God understands figures of speech. It's the naysayers who lack understanding. There are other places in the Bible that clearly show who the serpent was. It just takes a bit of honest research to ferret it out.

And the Bible uses other literary tools.

Why can't Genesis merely be a series of morality tales? If you understood the evidence you would understand that you are claiming that God lied. Morality tales and fables are not lying. That gives you an out. Your God would still be honest.

 

[rrobs]

I am sorry, but nothing that @Deeje posts is "well said".

That's an absolute, written in the stars or something?

Perhaps instead of getting frustrated you should try to learn why we know that you are wrong

You know nothing, and you won't until you come to the knowledge of the truth in God's word.

You tipped your hand that you were not exactly forthcoming about your biology education, or you were beyond being dishonest when you tried to describe evolution earlier.

I lied about college biology? What are you, some kind of seer?

You may have had very poor teachers, or you may have been a very poor student. It is rather obvious that you never understood a rather simple theory.

Sweeping statement with no validity.

Your first step should be to realize that "change of kind" is a creationist strawman. There is no change of kind in evolution.

You still don't understand what I said.

Like it or not you are still an ape.

Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me.

 

[rrobs]

And the Bible uses other literary tools.

Why can't Genesis merely be a series of morality tales? If you understood the evidence you would understand that you are claiming that God lied. Morality tales and fables are not lying. That gives you an out. Your God would still be honest.

I wasn't born with the knowledge of God's word. Somebody had to tell me.

When I was taught about the scriptures I spent hour after hour, sometimes years, researching the things I was told. Given that you spent a couple of minutes looking at what I said, I'd say I'm way more qualified to judge whether God lied or not. As little as you are sure I know about science, you don't even know .00000000001% of that about the Bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's an absolute, written in the stars or something?

A statement from experience.

You know nothing, and you won't until you come to the knowledge of the truth in God's word.

Please, just because you may lack knowledge, that does not mean that others do.

I lied about college biology? What are you, some kind of seer?

Wow! Talk about not paying attention. Your own posts betrayed you, or were you simply being dishonest in your posts?

Sweeping statement with no validity.

You really have no clue on how to use logical fallacies. The validation is in the post. If you did not rudely break it up excessively you would have seen it.

You still don't understand what I said.

Yes, I did.

Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me.

I did not call you names. That you are an ape is a fact. Just as you are a primate. And a mammal. And a tetrapod. And a vertebrate. And a Chordate. And a eukaryote. Oddly enough you will probably only deny two of these.

If telling you that you are an ape is "name calling" then by definition calling you a human being is "name calling" too.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I wasn't born with the knowledge of God's word. Somebody had to tell me.

When I was taught about the scriptures I spent hour after hour, sometimes years, researching the things I was told. Given that you spent a couple of minutes looking at what I said, I'd say I'm way more qualified to judge whether God lied or not. As little as you are sure I know about science, you don't even know .00000000001% of that about the Bible.

That knowledge is still lacking. And no, since you are the one that claims that God lied you are hardly in a position to judge. You simply do not understand how you made that statement. You are too ignorant of the science that you hate to do so.

You, like many amateurs, rely far too much on confirmation bias when it comes to the scriptures. You need to look outside of the narrow window of the Bible if you want to claim that it is anything more than a book of myths. If there is any truth in the Bible it has to apply to the real world. You do not seem to like the real world.

 

[rrobs]

@rrobs why do you automatically jump to the assumption that others are calling you an idiot? The reason that I specifically mentioned your conscience is because that part of your psyche is associated with the knowledge of right and wrong. My implication was that your conscience knows that you are wrong.

Oh good! I'm not an idiot. I'm merely wrong. Thanks for your astute observations. I need someone to tell me what I think.

 

[rrobs]

Wow! Talk about not paying attention. Your own posts betrayed you, or were you simply being dishonest in your posts?

What are you talking about?

 

[rrobs]

That knowledge is still lacking. And no, since you are the one that claims that God lied you are hardly in a position to judge. You simply do not understand how you made that statement. You are too ignorant of the science that you hate to do so.

You, like many amateurs, rely far too much on confirmation bias when it comes to the scriptures. You need to look outside of the narrow window of the Bible if you want to claim that it is anything more than a book of myths. If there is any truth in the Bible it has to apply to the real world. You do not seem to like the real world.

Again, while you think you know what the Bible says, you really don't. You may know what other people say about the Bible, but you don't know the Bible from your own study. So why do you keep talking like you did do your own study and came up with your own conclusions about it? You a just parroting pretty much what all non-believers say. As such, your opinion carries no weight at all.

Pretty much all Christians started out like yourself. But God is able to work with the most stubborn individuals and make them into wonderful children of God. You could be next. That is my prayer for you in any case.

I apologize for any nasty things I've said to you. I don't have the patience of Job, so I sometimes go off when I shouldn't. You should have known me when I was younger. Talk about a temper! I've come a long way. A knowledge of scripture tames even the worst temper anybody could ever have. It does much more than that.

 

[exchemist]

You are right about the Bible not saying by what process God make all the animals other than they came from the earth. To me that means I don't know the process in detail. That's all. If it were important to know the exact process God would have told us. The Bible says it contains all things that pertain to life and godliness. So if it's not in the Bible it is apparently not necessary to know.

He created everything after it's kind (genus). The feline genus has experienced evolution within the feline genus. Some species in the feline genus have disappeared, some new ones have appeared on the scene. So, yes, cats of today are different than the original cat God created, but they are still all cats of the genus feline.

According to the Bible, an oak seed may over time produce different species of oak trees, but it never made a pine tree. A pine tree, in all it's variety (species) comes only from a pine tree seed.

For the record, there is a lot more detail on how God formed and created the animals. Please notice that I just used two different words, formed and created. They are different words that mean different things. He formed their bodies from the earth because all the things necessary to form a body were already created when God created the earth itself. Our body came from dust and that's where it will go when it's all over. Before the animals, God created just the earth which had all the material necessary to form a body. No need to recreate carbon, etc. It had already been created when He created the earth, so He just needed to form it from the dirt.

If you look closely you will see that when it says God created the animals He did so by breathing the breath of life into them (i.e. soul life), which didn't exist prior to that time. He had to create life because that didn't exist when He created the earth so He had to create something that didn't exist before.

Bottom line, God formed the body from the ground and He created the life of that body when He breathed the life into the body. People are a whole other story. God originally created man with spirit. Man's body was formed from the earth (dust), He made man a living creature when He breathed into him the same life He had created for the animals (no need to reinvent the wheel), and He created man in His own image, which the Bible says is spirit. So animals are body and soul, while man is body, soul, and spirit.

It takes a very, very careful reading of the first two chapter of Genesis and a few other verses, but that is all in there. Few take the time to see the detail that's really there. I think it is because everybody already "knows" what the Bible says without actually studying it in depth.

I don't mean to confuse you with all of this. It's like trying to teach someone calculus that is not sure about trigonometry. I can give you more on the subject if you are interested.

I realise Genesis 2:7 says God "breathed life" into Man but where does it say God breathed life into the animals? And what about plants? I don't see anything there describing the process by which these came to live. Can you direct me to a verse?

 

[rrobs]

I realise Genesis 2:7 says God "breathed life" into Man but where does it say God breathed life into the animals? And what about plants? I don't see anything there describing the process by which these came to live. Can you direct me to a verse?

I gave a quick and dirty version. Here's a link that goes into it a bit more:
The New Birth: Spirit, Soul, and Body ~ Pictures of Silver

Hope that helps. If not, let me know.

 

[exchemist]

I gave a quick and dirty version. Here's a link that goes into it a bit more:
The New Birth: Spirit, Soul, and Body ~ Pictures of Silver

Hope that helps. If not, let me know.

It doesn't. It seems to focus entirely on Man and his soul. I don't see anything about animals and plants, or the origin of life itself, here that precludes the scientific view. If you think it does, you will have to explain it to me.

 

[MonkeyFire]

Adam and Eve went to devolve.

 

[metis]

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.

Actually the RCC isn't, especially since it has an almost 2000 year history that traces back to the apostles.

All religions are not static-- they're dynamic, largely because of two reasons: 1.times change so periodic adjustments have to be made, and 2.there are things done in the early church that were not written down in the scriptures or needed to be clarified since they may be too vague. Ideas as to what Jesus was vis-a-vis God is just one sticky-wicky that the Church had to try and deal with. Needless to say, there was much more.

The Church simply is not just made up of the Bible, and it was the CC that actually selected the canon of the Bible that you use.

 

[oldbadger]

If you want to call an amoral event "God" that is a pretty vague redefinition of God.

OK..... I guess that is true, but that concept that God is the 'reason for all' sure can corner the gainsayers.

Of course, being a Deist, my concept of God is different from that of Theists.

 

[metis]

OK..... I guess that is true, but that concept that God is the 'reason for all' sure can corner the gainsayers.

Of course, being a Deist, my concept of God is different from that of Theists.

But a "Deist" is still a "theist"?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again, while you think you know what the Bible says, you really don't. You may know what other people say about the Bible, but you don't know the Bible from your own study. So why do you keep talking like you did do your own study and came up with your own conclusions about it? You a just parroting pretty much what all non-believers say. As such, your opinion carries no weight at all.

I probably understand your book of myths better than you do. You handicap yourself by demanding that obviously fictional parts be read literally. Your approach to understanding the Bible was flawed from the beginning.

Pretty much all Christians started out like yourself. But God is able to work with the most stubborn individuals and make them into wonderful children of God. You could be next. That is my prayer for you in any case.

I was a Christian, the reason that I no longer am one is at least partially due to a proper study of the Bible. You appear unable to do the same.

I apologize for any nasty things I've said to you. I don't have the patience of Job, so I sometimes go off when I shouldn't. You should have known me when I was younger. Talk about a temper! I've come a long way. A knowledge of scripture tames even the worst temper anybody could ever have. It does much more than that.

We are all imperfect. Not to worry too much.

 

[Audie]

Simple to answer that.
Any scientist can admit, if shoved hard enough, that there is a reason why our Universe initiated........... The Reason is just another name for God.

No speculation required, thankyou.

Really. You know that "any" scientist can be forced
to reluctantly confess that there is a god.

You simply made that up.
Or you are thinking of the Inquisition?

Not that your quip in any way addresses the
fact that there is not one datum point ever
detected that supports any sott of "god",
which as always, is just speculation.

As for "reason" = "god", I have seen assertions,
seen equivocation, but that is a champion.