Proof christianity is "evolving" to accept evolution as FACT!

[40sTheme]

Luthien, I was having a good talk in the other Christianity thread, but it really disappoints me to see that you are taking attacks on people now... such as "BigJ you are such a silly twit." How is that going to prove your point? People won't listen to YOUR ideas if you start insulting people. Just a suggestion... I don't want to see things get out of hand and this thread becoming nothing but people fussing at each other. And yes ^ that quote Sqube took from you shows your ignorance of Catholicism and your clear and apparent want to attack Christianity. Please don't say any Christians are bigots (such as in the other thread, where you tried to prove your point in a more respectable manner) until you examine your own motives.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: sao123

Only man would assume that they can know more than God.

One does not need to know more than God to know with certainty that the earth is much older than 10,000 years and that biological organisms are interrelated through common ancestry.

On several occasions throughout the bible, that the persuit of "knowledge" is not something to be desired.
And that God would shame those who think they are wise.

No comment on the patent absurdity in your earlier post? Is the whole Bible literal or did Jesus speak in parables?

and what if the opposite were true? Suppose hundreds of years of accepted science were untrue because God created the earth 6000 years ago?

Let me rephrase... when 2 information sources contradict, one coming from a group of men who often make mistakes and have to change theirnentire way of thinking roughly every 50 years or so... or a religious book which has remained basically unaltered since it was written, and its words have not been unable to be proven false...


I felt no need to respond to the comment because parables are stories with commentary on a particular subject, they are not deceptions, nor lies...
In fact there are no lies or deception in the bible whatsoever, though passages may be cryptic and difficult to understand, and the only contradictions there-in stem from disbelief & non-understanding.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Luthien
Concerning evolutionary creationism versus biblical creationism. Wrong it does because it says 55% of all americans believe we were created as we are today. If 55% believe that and 71.7% all americans are christians it is very easy to see that the vast majority of those that believe we were created as we are today are christians hence the reason why I mentioned the 55% of all americans to begin with way way back.

I did miss that, you're right. However, the poll itself from CBS is rather severely flawed in the manner in which the sample is selected.

You did look at the method that CBS uses to conduct their polls, correct? The sample is not truly random. The system used first chooses an area code at random, and then an exchange within that area code at random, and then polls random numbers within that exchange by phone. The entire poll is taken from within a single exhange.

If the random first area code is somewhere in Mississippi, the results of the poll are immediately an irrevocably skewed. For example, even though the number are "random" if the area code and exchange happen to be those of Bob Jones University, the overall poll is not representative.

Even though the specific exchange is chosen randomly, the selection process fails to account for the fact that which exchange is selected will heavily bias the results of the poll even though the numbers appear to be random. In order for the poll to be truly random, the entire phone number, not just the last four digits, would need to be selected randomly before each call to include people from everywhere in the country. As it is, the poll is only valid within a 10-30 mile radius of the particular telephone exchange that was chosen.

Originally posted by: Luthien
Here is my link which says 17.2% in 2001 baptists, lol. I believe that poll is a year newer than yours? LINK

You will need to scroll down a bit.

Oh, and another point! My survey sampled 50,000 while yours sampled 13,000...

The 2001 ARIS survey gave a result of 16.3% Baptist, not 17.2%. The Wiki page is wrong. (If you look at the link to the ARIS page on the Wiki article, you'll find that the ARIS site lists the correct 16.3% figure for the 2001 poll.)

The Harris poll also only polled eligible voters, while the ARIS has no restriction and therefore includes people below the age of 18 who are less likely to have formulated their own belief system yet and more likely to simply parrot what their parents believe, which would slightly inflate the numbers for the more conservative/fundamentalist religions. (This would further be exaggerated by the tendency of the more fundamentalist sects encouraging larger families.)

In any case, the Harris poll was chosen because, unlike the ARIS, it separates Baptists from Southern Baptists, which is an important distinction. There are some large denominational differences between Southern Baptist and more generic Baptists in general and it's simply not correct to lump the Baptists who do not identify with the Southern Baptist Convention in with the Southern Baptists. We can extrapolate from the Harris poll that roughly 55% of "Baptists" are actually "Southern Baptist", which would yield a result of approximately 9% of the US total population being Southern Baptist. Not a significant difference from the Harris poll numbers speaking from a statistical standpoint. As far as the sample size argument, once a statistically-significant sample size is reached, there is no meaningful accuracy gain from even large increases in sample size. There's no statistical accuracy difference between a sample of 13,000 and a sample of 50,000. Though it is apt to appear that way to those unfamiliar with the workings of statistical analysis.

ZV

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: sao123
parables are stories with commentary on a particular subject, they are not deceptions, nor lies...

So you admit that believing the Creation stories to be allegory is not calling them lies. We agree then.

ZV

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: Garth

and what if the opposite were true? Suppose hundreds of years of accepted science were untrue because God created the earth 6000 years ago?

That would make God a liar, because he created the earth such that it appears convincingly to have existed for much longer.

Let me rephrase... when 2 information sources contradict, one coming from a group of men who often make mistakes and have to change theirnentire way of thinking roughly every 50 years or so... or a religious book which has remained basically unaltered since it was written, and its words have not been unable to be proven false...

You can't be serious. You can't seriously believe that is it better to dogmatically adhere to a literal interpretation of a bunch of ancient writings than to rely on a mode of knowledge acquisition that constantly refines and improves its knowledge in light of additional experience.

That's of course aside from the myriad of simple errors in fact that are featured in the Bible, and aside from the fact that your claim that the book "has remained basically unaltered" is patently false. The current canon wasn't assembled until long after the original writings were penned. For that matter, there are several alternate canons and despite what you may believe you don't have a patent on the one True(tm) canon or interpretation.

I felt no need to respond to the comment because parables are stories with commentary on a particular subject, they are not deceptions, nor lies...

Do you take them literally? Or when you said you take the whole Bible literally, did you not really mean it?

In fact there are no lies or deception in the bible whatsoever, though passages may be cryptic and difficult to understand, and the only contradictions there-in stem from disbelief & non-understanding.

Apparently you have difficulty apprehending even the simplest details. I did not make any of the claims you are attempting to rebut. Nice well-poisoning, though.

 

[hans030390]

I've not heard of this. Besides, there are some scientists that can just as easily use the evidence for evolution and apply it to the "flood" world of Christianity (Noah, ark, etc). Considering neither is actual fact, and considering the evidence can point easily towards creationism/flood, I'll stick with my beliefs.

 

[Luthien]

Originally posted by: Sqube
Luthien, your trolling was looking pretty good at first. But when you refer to Catholics as, and I quote, idolotry worshiping mary rectal spelunking evolution believing fundament... you really make it obvious what your plan was.

As long as you remained disingenuous, you really had people going. But once you took it to ad hominem... you failed. Good going for a while though.

Sqube; Look he started it with spelling errors and attacking my intelligence. Yeah I should have taken the moral high ground lol.

 

[Luthien]

Originally posted by: 40sTheme
Luthien, I was having a good talk in the other Christianity thread, but it really disappoints me to see that you are taking attacks on people now... such as "BigJ you are such a silly twit." How is that going to prove your point? People won't listen to YOUR ideas if you start insulting people. Just a suggestion... I don't want to see things get out of hand and this thread becoming nothing but people fussing at each other. And yes ^ that quote Sqube took from you shows your ignorance of Catholicism and your clear and apparent want to attack Christianity. Please don't say any Christians are bigots (such as in the other thread, where you tried to prove your point in a more respectable manner) until you examine your own motives.

40sTheme he attacked me first. end.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Luthien
Look he started it with spelling errors and attacking my intelligence. Yeah I should have taken the moral high ground lol.

I can empathise with that reaction as well as anyone, my own temper tends to be very much "hair trigger" as well. However, that's still not justification, no matter how much I wish it were sometimes.

ZV

 

[Luthien]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Luthien
Concerning evolutionary creationism versus biblical creationism. Wrong it does because it says 55% of all americans believe we were created as we are today. If 55% believe that and 71.7% all americans are christians it is very easy to see that the vast majority of those that believe we were created as we are today are christians hence the reason why I mentioned the 55% of all americans to begin with way way back.

I did miss that, you're right. However, the poll itself from CBS is rather severely flawed in the manner in which the sample is selected.

You did look at the method that CBS uses to conduct their polls, correct? The sample is not truly random. The system used first chooses an area code at random, and then an exchange within that area code at random, and then polls random numbers within that exchange by phone. The entire poll is taken from within a single exhange.

If the random first area code is somewhere in Mississippi, the results of the poll are immediately an irrevocably skewed. For example, even though the number are "random" if the area code and exchange happen to be those of Bob Jones University, the overall poll is not representative.

Even though the specific exchange is chosen randomly, the selection process fails to account for the fact that which exchange is selected will heavily bias the results of the poll even though the numbers appear to be random. In order for the poll to be truly random, the entire phone number, not just the last four digits, would need to be selected randomly before each call to include people from everywhere in the country. As it is, the poll is only valid within a 10-30 mile radius of the particular telephone exchange that was chosen.

Originally posted by: Luthien
Here is my link which says 17.2% in 2001 baptists, lol. I believe that poll is a year newer than yours? LINK

You will need to scroll down a bit.

Oh, and another point! My survey sampled 50,000 while yours sampled 13,000...

The 2001 ARIS survey gave a result of 16.3% Baptist, not 17.2%. The Wiki page is wrong. (If you look at the link to the ARIS page on the Wiki article, you'll find that the ARIS site lists the correct 16.3% figure for the 2001 poll.)

The Harris poll also only polled eligible voters, while the ARIS has no restriction and therefore includes people below the age of 18 who are less likely to have formulated their own belief system yet and more likely to simply parrot what their parents believe, which would slightly inflate the numbers for the more conservative/fundamentalist religions. (This would further be exaggerated by the tendency of the more fundamentalist sects encouraging larger families.)

In any case, the Harris poll was chosen because, unlike the ARIS, it separates Baptists from Southern Baptists, which is an important distinction. There are some large denominational differences between Southern Baptist and more generic Baptists in general and it's simply not correct to lump the Baptists who do not identify with the Southern Baptist Convention in with the Southern Baptists. We can extrapolate from the Harris poll that roughly 55% of "Baptists" are actually "Southern Baptist", which would yield a result of approximately 9% of the US total population being Southern Baptist. Not a significant difference from the Harris poll numbers speaking from a statistical standpoint. As far as the sample size argument, once a statistically-significant sample size is reached, there is no meaningful accuracy gain from even large increases in sample size. There's no statistical accuracy difference between a sample of 13,000 and a sample of 50,000. Though it is apt to appear that way to those unfamiliar with the workings of statistical analysis.

ZV

 

[40sTheme]

Originally posted by: Luthien

Originally posted by: 40sTheme
Luthien, I was having a good talk in the other Christianity thread, but it really disappoints me to see that you are taking attacks on people now... such as "BigJ you are such a silly twit." How is that going to prove your point? People won't listen to YOUR ideas if you start insulting people. Just a suggestion... I don't want to see things get out of hand and this thread becoming nothing but people fussing at each other. And yes ^ that quote Sqube took from you shows your ignorance of Catholicism and your clear and apparent want to attack Christianity. Please don't say any Christians are bigots (such as in the other thread, where you tried to prove your point in a more respectable manner) until you examine your own motives.

40sTheme he attacked me first. end.

Turn the other cheek.






(silently lols)

 

[Sqube]

See, there's a little bit more of that disingenuousness again. You had to have known that the Merry/Mary thing would cause problems, but we'll leave that one alone because it's clearly something that leads to... issues.

That said, it has nothing to do with taking the moral high ground. My opinion is pretty much set on the fact that you were trolling. The comment you made towards him wasn't a unique event; you didn't apologize; and you didn't say you were wrong for doing it. I respect the fact that you were trying to make it seem like you wanted to lead a serious discussion, but at this point I'm convinced you're a troll. Any useful discussion that occurs in this thread occurs in spite of you, not because of you.

I await your attacks towards my opinion with breathless anticipation.

 

[Luthien]

Originally posted by: Luthien

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Luthien
Concerning evolutionary creationism versus biblical creationism. Wrong it does because it says 55% of all americans believe we were created as we are today. If 55% believe that and 71.7% all americans are christians it is very easy to see that the vast majority of those that believe we were created as we are today are christians hence the reason why I mentioned the 55% of all americans to begin with way way back.

I did miss that, you're right. However, the poll itself from CBS is rather severely flawed in the manner in which the sample is selected.

You did look at the method that CBS uses to conduct their polls, correct? The sample is not truly random. The system used first chooses an area code at random, and then an exchange within that area code at random, and then polls random numbers within that exchange by phone. The entire poll is taken from within a single exhange.

If the random first area code is somewhere in Mississippi, the results of the poll are immediately an irrevocably skewed. For example, even though the number are "random" if the area code and exchange happen to be those of Bob Jones University, the overall poll is not representative.

Even though the specific exchange is chosen randomly, the selection process fails to account for the fact that which exchange is selected will heavily bias the results of the poll even though the numbers appear to be random. In order for the poll to be truly random, the entire phone number, not just the last four digits, would need to be selected randomly before each call to include people from everywhere in the country. As it is, the poll is only valid within a 10-30 mile radius of the particular telephone exchange that was chosen.

Originally posted by: Luthien
Here is my link which says 17.2% in 2001 baptists, lol. I believe that poll is a year newer than yours? LINK

You will need to scroll down a bit.

Oh, and another point! My survey sampled 50,000 while yours sampled 13,000...

The 2001 ARIS survey gave a result of 16.3% Baptist, not 17.2%. The Wiki page is wrong. (If you look at the link to the ARIS page on the Wiki article, you'll find that the ARIS site lists the correct 16.3% figure for the 2001 poll.)

The Harris poll also only polled eligible voters, while the ARIS has no restriction and therefore includes people below the age of 18 who are less likely to have formulated their own belief system yet and more likely to simply parrot what their parents believe, which would slightly inflate the numbers for the more conservative/fundamentalist religions. (This would further be exaggerated by the tendency of the more fundamentalist sects encouraging larger families.)

In any case, the Harris poll was chosen because, unlike the ARIS, it separates Baptists from Southern Baptists, which is an important distinction. There are some large denominational differences between Southern Baptist and more generic Baptists in general and it's simply not correct to lump the Baptists who do not identify with the Southern Baptist Convention in with the Southern Baptists. We can extrapolate from the Harris poll that roughly 55% of "Baptists" are actually "Southern Baptist", which would yield a result of approximately 9% of the US total population being Southern Baptist. Not a significant difference from the Harris poll numbers speaking from a statistical standpoint. As far as the sample size argument, once a statistically-significant sample size is reached, there is no meaningful accuracy gain from even large increases in sample size. There's no statistical accuracy difference between a sample of 13,000 and a sample of 50,000. Though it is apt to appear that way to those unfamiliar with the workings of statistical analysis.

ZV

You did look at the method that CBS uses to conduct their polls, correct?

Okay, firstly that survey was questioned earlier because of the small sample size, but your the one that brought it back up and used it against me so I simply pointed out I was correct using that survey so you are now attacking that surveys merrits. I already won that battle best to find a new survey.

Haris poll versus Aris polls. You do realize your trying way to hard to find numbers that fit your beliefs. You don't want to include people under the age of 18 because their beliefs are not as valid as voter age believers and you also want to separate out baptists with denominational differences to lower the statistics size. LOL

 

[cheesygoldfish]

about time

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Luthien
You did look at the method that CBS uses to conduct their polls, correct?

Okay, firstly that survey was questioned earlier because of the small sample size, but your the one that brought it back up and used it against me so I simply pointed out I was correct using that survey so you are now attacking that surveys merrits. I already won that battle best to find a new survey.

I challenge you to find any place where I criticised the CBS poll for its sample size. I also never said you were incorrect to use that survey and I admitted that I mis-read the question about creationism.

That does not resolve the issues in the choice of the sample in the poll, however. I'm not claiming it's certainly wrong, but it is highly suspect without knowing precisely which area code and exchange were used to conduct it.

A poll conducted by Pew Research, a widely-respected independant polling and research group, on 30 August, 2005 found 42% of Americans believed in strict Creation, 48% believed in evolution, and 10% were not willing to commit to an answer.

Among "Evangelicals", 70% believed in strict Creationism.

Among Mainline Protestants, only 32% believed in strict Creationism. Catholics came in at 31%.

I am prepared to fully concede the results of the poll from Pew Research. (Link here.)

Originally posted by: Luthien
Haris poll versus Aris polls. You do realize you're trying way too hard to find numbers that fit your beliefs. You don't want to include people under the age of 18 because their beliefs are not as valid as voter age believers and you also want to separate out baptists with denominational differences to lower the statistics size. LOL

The fact that you lack the requisite denominational understanding to know that there are significant theological differences between Southern Baptists and other Baptists does not change the fact that those difference exist. It's quite simply not theologically accurate to say that the beliefs of the Southern Baptists mirror the beliefs of other Baptists.

If you want to use the ARIS poll, that's fine. The numbers are not different enough to worry about in terms of overall percentages. However, for accuracy, it most certainly is necessary to separate Souther Baptists from other Baptists. I've been open about this from the beginning and haven't hidden anything. It is what it is. Even if we lump all Baptists together (which I still hold to be inaccurate) we end up with, at best, 16.3% of the US population and 21.3% of Christians. (Using the ARIS numbers and incorrectly lumping all Baptists together.) Still a small minority.

I also never said that I didn't want to include people under 18. I simply pointed out that it was a difference in the two surveys that could logically explain the slight difference in outcomes. I made no value judgement regarding whether including people under 18 was positive or negative, and I do not make such a value judgement now.

You can attempt to attribute false statements to me all you like, but I'm going to call you on it every time.

ZV

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: Garth

and what if the opposite were true? Suppose hundreds of years of accepted science were untrue because God created the earth 6000 years ago?

That would make God a liar, because he created the earth such that it appears convincingly to have existed for much longer.

Or perhaps your measuring techniques are simply flawed...

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: Garth

and what if the opposite were true? Suppose hundreds of years of accepted science were untrue because God created the earth 6000 years ago?

That would make God a liar, because he created the earth such that it appears convincingly to have existed for much longer.

Or perhaps your measuring techniques are simply flawed...

Overwhelmingly less likely than the probability that your interpretation is flawed.

No comment on the rest of my post?

 

[Luthien]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Luthien
You did look at the method that CBS uses to conduct their polls, correct?

Okay, firstly that survey was questioned earlier because of the small sample size, but your the one that brought it back up and used it against me so I simply pointed out I was correct using that survey so you are now attacking that surveys merrits. I already won that battle best to find a new survey.

I challenge you to find any place where I criticised the CBS poll for its sample size. I also never said you were incorrect to use that survey and I admitted that I mis-read the question about creationism.

That does not resolve the issues in the choice of the sample in the poll, however. I'm not claiming it's certainly wrong, but it is highly suspect without knowing precisely which area code and exchange were used to conduct it.

A poll conducted by Pew Research, a widely-respected independant polling and research group, on 30 August, 2005 found 42% of Americans believed in strict Creation, 48% believed in evolution, and 10% were not willing to commit to an answer.

Among "Evangelicals", 70% believed in strict Creationism.

Among Mainline Protestants, only 32% believed in strict Creationism. Catholics came in at 31%.

I Zenmervolt am prepared to fully concede the results of the poll from Pew Research. (Link here.)

Originally posted by: Luthien
Haris poll versus Aris polls. You do realize you're trying way too hard to find numbers that fit your beliefs. You don't want to include people under the age of 18 because their beliefs are not as valid as voter age believers and you also want to separate out baptists with denominational differences to lower the statistics size. LOL

The fact that you lack the requisite denominational understanding to know that there are significant theological differences between Southern Baptists and other Baptists does not change the fact that those difference exist. It's quite simply not theologically accurate to say that the beliefs of the Southern Baptists mirror the beliefs of other Baptists.

If you want to use the ARIS poll, that's fine. The numbers are not different enough to worry about in terms of overall percentages. However, for accuracy, it most certainly is necessary to separate Souther Baptists from other Baptists. I've been open about this from the beginning and haven't hidden anything. It is what it is. Even if we lump all Baptists together (which I still hold to be inaccurate) we end up with, at best, 16.3% of the US population and 21.3% of Christians. (Using the ARIS numbers and incorrectly lumping all Baptists together.) Still a small minority.

I also never said that I didn't want to include people under 18. I simply pointed out that it was a difference in the two surveys that could logically explain the slight difference in outcomes. I made no value judgement regarding whether including people under 18 was positive or negative, and I do not make such a value judgement now.

You can attempt to attribute false statements to me all you like, but I'm going to call you on it every time.

ZV

"I Zenmervolt challenge you to find any place where I criticised the CBS poll for its sample size. I also never said you were incorrect to use that survey and I admitted that I mis-read the question about creationism."

I wasnt talking about you. I assumed you read everything before posting "victory is in the eye of the beholder," and debating percentages. Someone else brought up the small sample size. Hence the problem when people jump in on late posts thinking they are debating something new when it was already covered or partially so which has happened many times already between this thread and another. I simply will ignore people that repeat arguements already debated.

"I Zenmervolt am prepared to fully concede the results of the poll from Pew Research. (Link here.)"

All I looked at was the table on believers in creationism/evolution (BIBLICAL for those that want to say otherwise, lol). I can agree to that table; all it does is prove my point that others were convinced was wrong, and you too I assume, because they not me have no clue about how fundmentalists still hold far more power within christianity than they imagined. I was being told that an "extremely small percentage" of christians believe in BIBLICAL creationism. Which is FALSE. Christians that believe in evolution or that the bible is not litteral do not want to hear that fundamentalist christians think they are WRONG and that they worship false idols (Catholocism), etc. That is why I was being attacked by christians who believe falsely that an extremely small percentage of christians take the bible litterally and believe in Biblical Creationism.

"I Zenmervolt also never said that I didn't want to include people under 18. I simply pointed out that it was a difference in the two surveys that could logically explain the slight difference in outcomes. I made no value judgement regarding whether including people under 18 was positive or negative, and I do not make such a value judgement now."

I stand by my statement and anyone reading what you said can see it was your intent.

You Zenmervolt said, "The Harris poll also only polled eligible voters, while the ARIS has no restriction and therefore includes people below the age of 18 who are less likely to have formulated their own belief system yet and more likely to simply parrot what their parents believe, which would slightly inflate the numbers for the more conservative/fundamentalist religions. (This would further be exaggerated by the tendency of the more fundamentalist sects encouraging larger families.)"


Now in conclusion debating who is specifically who and what specific denomination could possibly believe what in a specific christian denomination with over a hundred denominations (hundreds?) is in itself a testament to the failing of Christianity. Make your minds up people, lol.

JESUS is imaginary, lol I love this video! LINK

According to the fundamentalist christians a whole lot of you need to goto JESUS CAMP for reconditioning.

 

[RapidSnail]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH
Evolution and creationism are not at odds, as dennifloss alluded to.

Evolution is simply a mechanism and means for creation IMO.

The bible says absolutely nothing about how "creation" was actually accomplished... i.e. by what physical and biological phenomena did creation occur. That man evolved from lesser organisms is no less miraculous to me than if he 'poofed' out of thin air or rose up out of the dust.

Christians run into all kinds of problems when they try to literally interpret Genesis. Genesis is metaphor and poetry just like Revelations, many of Psalms, the Song of Solomon, etc.

For instance, to think God literally cast out two people named Adam and Eve out of the 'garden of Eden' for eating a piece of fruit is completely naive. Moreover, it a position which is ignorant of the position and teaching of the early church which is well documented.

The sooner we Christians as a whole gets this through our collective thick heads, the better.

And who are you to say that the account of creation, Adam and Eve, and the garden of Eden weren't literal? Why is there a problem with it?

Who are you to say it IS literal?

Because the Bible tells us that God created the heavens and the earth, the he created Adam, that he created Eve, and that he placed them in the garden of Eden. He does not provide one hint, at all, that it was a parable or allegory. The Bible also traces the lineage of Christ back to Adam, claiming him the first living man; something that cannot be denied unless you wish to place God a liar.

And The Lord of the Rings books said that Elves and Dwarfs and Humans all got along. The bible is a book, books tell stories, stories are written by people. People change things to suit their needs. Also the bible wasn't originally written in English so the bible you read and believe so much in has inaccuracies and errors in it due to translation.

Except, as I said early, the English Bible I hold in my hands is my final authority. I don't care about the Hebrew/Aramaic or Greek, I can't read those and neither can the great majority of people that turn to it. What the Bible says is above anybody else's teachings, and I believe that God kept his promise (Proverbs 30:5) to keep it perfect.

Now, can you show me intra-Biblical evidence to support the claim that the Genesis accounts are allegorical?

 

[RapidSnail]

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH
Evolution and creationism are not at odds, as dennifloss alluded to.

Evolution is simply a mechanism and means for creation IMO.

The bible says absolutely nothing about how "creation" was actually accomplished... i.e. by what physical and biological phenomena did creation occur. That man evolved from lesser organisms is no less miraculous to me than if he 'poofed' out of thin air or rose up out of the dust.

Christians run into all kinds of problems when they try to literally interpret Genesis. Genesis is metaphor and poetry just like Revelations, many of Psalms, the Song of Solomon, etc.

For instance, to think God literally cast out two people named Adam and Eve out of the 'garden of Eden' for eating a piece of fruit is completely naive. Moreover, it a position which is ignorant of the position and teaching of the early church which is well documented.

The sooner we Christians as a whole gets this through our collective thick heads, the better.

And who are you to say that the account of creation, Adam and Eve, and the garden of Eden weren't literal? Why is there a problem with it?

If you read ANY of the early church 'fathers' or saints on this topic (we are talking 200-400 AD which is before the bible, including the new testament, was deemed "the bible" at the council of carthage in 406 AD), they are very clear on this point.

mini, my ultimate authority is the Word of God; not men or science. What I meant to ask you was what internal evidence you have to believe that those events were not literal. If you can show me clearly that the Bible itself reveals that the accounts of Genesis were allegorical, I will believe you. But until then, I have no reason to believe that they are. The words of God are above the teachings of man.

Yes, they are, but on whose authority do you base your 'literal' translation of the Bible? In no way does the Creation story say how God created the heaven and the earth.

Also, if you follow the physics of the Big Bang, you can literally take the first 4 verses and coincide them to that. Also, except for some minor issues, if you follow the PreCambrian explosion to the Quaternary times, you find that creation follows in stages as well (to a loose degree).

Even St. Augustine, a modern founder of Christian philosophy and thinking warned Christians to not literally translate the Genesis story, but to focus mainly on the meaning of the story (fall of Man and redemption). By the way, St. Augustine came way before the teory of evolution even came about. The whole creationism fiasco is a consequence of modern times and of ignorant men. Does evolution somehow invalidate anything in the Bible, NO, but because of the polar nature of the argument today, it appears to do that to ignorant people.

I can still believe that G-d is powerful enough to be able to use a natural phenomena to order the world into how G-d sees fit. The Bible can still be "God breathed" and inerrent in its original form. I still fail to see why this is an issue.

Interesting. I would love to hear you explanation of the first chapter of Genesis and how it could be interpreted as evolutionary processes.

 

[RapidSnail]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: RapidSnail
This saddens me. These supposed Christians don't even get the Bible right. Shame.

<snip>

You can't escape it; there is no middle ground. Accept the Christian faith, and the Bible as its foundation; or accept modern science and its theory.

"True" and "literal" are not synonymous. For example, the parable of the mustard seed is true, but it's not literal.

We don't literally have a mustard seed inside of us that is our faith. Given that the majority of the New Testament lessons are given obliquely at clearest and are almost always hidden even further behind metaphor than simply being oblique references I fail to see how considering the Old Testament in the same way is suddenly wrong. After all, Christ is like His Father, and if Christ speaks in parables then it is reasonable to assume that The Father does as well.

I believe strongly that the creation stories (yes, plural, there are two and they are not perfectly aligning) are absolutely true. HOWEVER, I remain unconvinced that they are literal.

You are free in your opinion, but I cannot agree with you that things are quite so cut and dried.

ZV

I think you just summed up the views of theistic evolutionists. But like I asked DaShen, what Biblical grounding do you have to support that theory, that Genesis 1 is true, but symbolic?

 

[RapidSnail]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: RapidSnail
He does not provide one hint, at all, that it was a parable or allegory.

Then why is the traditional Jewish view one of an allegorical interprtation? Are you claiming that you know Genesis better than thousands and thousands of years of highly-trained and highly-educated Rabbis?

ZV

Jews do not accept that Jesus Christ was God, they do not believe that he was the Messiah. They are not Christians, by definition, and I am not going to adopt their beliefs to mine just because they are more intelligent.

 

[thehstrybean]

Originally posted by: dennilfloss
Science is the domain of the mind. Faith is the domain of the heart and soul. They are separate and complementary. One does not acquire faith through reason and deduction, one feels it from within.

As a Catholic paleontologist, I accept evolution. In fact, paleontology and biology need evolution to make sense.

Exactly. As a Presp. archaeologist, I too accept evolution. Science and religion don't HAVE to go against each other, fundys just give Christians a bad name and blow it all way out of proportion.

 

[Yoshi911]

You can dream all you like but I WILL NEVER BELIEVE EVOLUTION AS A FACT, because IT IS NOT. It is a Godamn theory, and never been anything more.

Creationist all the way.. even if my spelling sucks

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Yoshi911
You can dream all you like but I WILL NEVER BELIEVE EVOLUTION AS A FACT, because IT IS NOT. It is a Godamn theory, and never been anything more.

Creationist all the way.. even if my spelling sucks

But it is obvious that you do not understand the nature of facts and theory in science. A theory is a collection of facts, so when you agree that evolution is a valid theory, you agree that it is the proper conclusion that the facts justify.

In science, things don't ever become "more than a theory." Theory is as high as it gets. Even so-called "laws" are subordinate to theories. Take the ideal gas law, for example -- its an element of the kinetic theory of gases.

When you make these kinds of objections all you succeed in doing is demonstrating your own ignorance. Why not learn a little something before you categorically reject it?