Is the Theory of Evolution Harmless to Religion?

[Quiddity]

This is an instructive example of how some reconcile religion with science.

Deut. read James response. It is a good example of your lame claim that "religion is trying to reconcile with science" does not mesh with early Church writings.

~Victor

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Deut. read James response. It is a good example of your lame claim that "religion is trying to reconcile with science" does not mesh with early Church writings.

I'm sorry, but where did I say that "religion is trying to reconcile with science"?

 

[michel]

I seriously doubt it.

You did, you know. But let's forget this.

 

[Quiddity]

I'm sorry, but where did I say that "religion is trying to reconcile with science"?

Here:

This is an instructive example of how some reconcile religion with science.

The quotes were inproper for me to have used since you did not say that word for word. The meaning of the quote is what I was trying to convey.

~Victor

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Deut. read James response. It is a good example of your lame claim that "religion is trying to reconcile with science" does not mesh with early Church writings.I'm sorry, but where did I say that "religion is trying to reconcile with science"?

Here:

This is an instructive example of how some reconcile religion with science.

The quotes were inproper for me to have used since you did not say that word for word. The meaning of the quote is what I was trying to convey.

And you've failed miserably. Learn to distinguish between "how some reconcile religion with science" and "religion is trying to reconcile with science."

 

[Quiddity]

And you've failed miserably. Learn to distinguish between "how some reconcile religion with science" and "religion is trying to reconcile with science."

You are a master at pointing out failures. How about you take the title of this forum serious and educate and poor soul like me and tell me the difference.

``Victor

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You are a master at pointing out failures.

Drop the pitiful ad hominem.

How about you take the title of this forum serious and educate and poor soul like me and tell me the difference.

You're kidding, right? Are you honestly incapable of distinguishing between the intent of an individual and the intent of religion?

 

[YmirGF]

Isnt it getting a bit above oneself to state that they understand the intent of a religion? Who is to say that one is correct?

 

[Quiddity]

Nevermind. Apparently you have managed to slither your way out of this one by using the word "some" and not generalizing, while ignoring your approval of the Evolution and Creationism reconciled? thread. And by starting the Bible, evolution NOT perfectly compatible, despite Jesuit apologetics thread. Nice job...:clap .

But you aint fooling me... .

``Victor

 

[Quiddity]

Isnt it getting a bit above oneself to state that they understand the intent of a religion? Who is to say that one is correct?

Deut. above himself? Noooooooooooo not possible.. :biglaugh:
He completely understands the intent....

~Victor

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Victor, I fail to see how the following (in reference to your evasive answer to his question regarding the emergence of birds with respect to other animals)

"This is an instructive example of how some reconcile religion with science."

is equivalent to "religion is trying to reconcile with science" and therefore by extension that all early Church writings were aimed at (or even concerned with) reconciling religion and science. Nor do I see how the fact that many early Church writings were not intended to/aimed at reconciling religion with science conflicts with the position that the Genesis story and evolution are incompatible.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Again,

y'all are failing to see the whole point of Genesis was NOT to indicate which came first: the chicken or the egg. It was designed to bring faith to early man. No more and certainly no less.

Those that are using the Genesis account to try and discredit Judaic teachings are only fooling themselves. They have agendas that are apparent to all, and are using a sophomoric device to impugn anyone "foolish" enough to believe the Tanakh. God said it best (as he usually does):

I Corinthians 1: 20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength. NIV

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Again,

y'all are failing to see the whole point of Genesis was NOT to indicate which came first: the chicken or the egg. It was designed to bring faith to early man. No more and certainly no less.

No, you're failing to see that the "whole point" of Genesis was to preserve in written form a folklore which was originally transmitted orally. It's purpose was to explain what was (at that time) unexplainable--the origins of humankind, life, the Earth, the universe. This was the same purpose for the creation stories of Babylon, the Creek, the Egyptians, and countless others. The Judeo-Christian creation story is no different in purpose from the Hindu, Zoroastrian, or Native American creation stories. I encourage anyone who hasn't to follow the links and read the many many other creation stories that various nations/religions have produced.

Those that are using the Genesis account to try and discredit Judaic teachings are only fooling themselves. They have agendas that are apparent to all, and are using a sophomoric device to impugn anyone "foolish" enough to believe the Tanakh. God said it best (as he usually does):

I Corinthians 1: 20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength. NIV

Okay, so God's foolishness is wiser than man's wisdom. God's "foolish" interpretation of Genesis trumps man's "wise" interpretation. The question, then, is why should anyone believe NetDoc's interpretation of Genesis comes from God rather than from NetDoc?

 

[Scuba Pete]

No, you're failing to see that the "whole point" of Genesis was to preserve in written form a folklore which was originally transmitted orally.

In your haste to disagree with me, you have re-stated my premise. Emboldening is mine. BTW, I will gladly cede these points since they are my own as well.

The question, then, is why should anyone believe NetDoc's interpretation of Genesis comes from God rather than from NetDoc?

No one should. Read the book for yourself and draw your own conclusions. I am not taking the responsibilities or the consequences for YOUR conclusions and neither am I pointing a gun to your head or demanding that you see things MY WAY. Of course, if my counterpoint is too exasperating for you, please let me know: I can find another thread.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

In your haste to disagree with me, you have re-stated my premise. Emboldening is mine. BTW, I will gladly cede these points since they are my own as well.

I'm sorry, I must have misunderstood what you were saying. I thought you were saying that Genesis was not intended as a literal explanation of how Earth, the universe, and life came to be; I'm saying that Genesis wasintended as a literal explanation of those things by the people who wrote the story(stories) down. If you agree with that, then I apologize for the misunderstanding.

No one should. Read the book for yourself and draw your own conclusions. I am not taking the responsibilities or the consequences for YOUR conclusions and neither am I pointing a gun to your head or demanding that you see things MY WAY.

So what, if anything, was the relevance of scripture you quoted earlier to this discussion? Was it simply empty rhetoric?

 

[Bishka]

I believe it is harmless. If you don't believe in it, then it shouldn't bother you. Simple as that.

 

[Apex]

I dont see how eveolution is harmful to religion. Also creation and evolution, they dont talk about the same issues. Creation is the begining of life, evolution is how life progresses after it has started, not how it began.

 

[michel]

I dont see how eveolution is harmful to religion. Also creation and evolution, they dont talk about the same issues. Creation is the begining of life, evolution is how life progresses after it has started, not how it began.

BRAVO!!!! :clap Fruballworthy.........

 

[Scuba Pete]

I'm sorry, I must have misunderstood what you were saying.

You understood it PERFECTLY... it is folklore (your words) handed down from generation to generation and finally written down after many, many years. It is remarkable that they got it this close, but it was never meant as a science text. Those who treat it as such, have an agenda to "debunk" religion and that's a shame. If you don't believe it, then fine, but why the evangelistic zeal to disprove it? Perhaps you are merely trying to convince yourself??? Not an accusation here, just a thought.

So what, if anything, was the relevance of scripture you quoted earlier to this discussion? Was it simply empty rhetoric?

My, my... only YOU can determine the relevance of the Scripture as it applies to you. It's amazing that you would refer to the Tanakh as "empty rhetoric". Not very respectful of the basis of many people's beliefs, now are we?

Peace!

 

[michel]

seconds out! Next round................................