Religion AND Evolution say WHAT?!?!

I think it is ridiculous when an atheist OR a religious person tells me religion and evoluton can't co-exist. After all it is MY faith, and I believe science is a tool to help us understan everything around and inside us. What is your stance ?

I think at the very least things like evolution help to make the existence of god unnecessary.

I also think there are real problems reconciling the bible with evolution. It leads to some shaky theology in my view.

I accept both. Why would God give us a brain if He wanted us to not use it? :P

I accept both. Why would God give us a brain if He wanted us to not use it? :P

dracula_16

Evoloution is not something you believe, it is something you understand. Before and during the copernican revoloution heliocentrism was something people believed in until the evidence was strong enough for the majority to get the point. And the was around 400 years ago. The theroy of natural secection is still young at around 100 years. It will still take some time for it to be considered common fact.

I think at the very least things like evolution help to make the existence of god unnecessary.

I also think there are real problems reconciling the bible with evolution. It leads to some shaky theology in my view.

-Sun_Tzu-

Another question to people who consider evoloution something you believe in. Things that are belived in usually don't have any major uses where the law of natural/artifical selection is used in animal and plant breeding, and developing better treatments as bacteria evolves.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

I think at the very least things like evolution help to make the existence of god unnecessary.

I also think there are real problems reconciling the bible with evolution. It leads to some shaky theology in my view.

ChampionoChumps

Since evolution posits nothing about God or religion, I don't see why they would interfere at all.

I think they can co-exist. Why couldnt they?

Saying they couldnt is being really narrow minded.

I Believe in god, not the bible. At least not most of it.

So in my view, yea, they could easily exist together.

I'm religious, and believe in evolution.

Hell, the 2 biggest contributers had a religious background

Darwin, studied theology

And Mendel was a friar

The Catholic Church has been embracing evolution for many years. Not only that many scientific breakthrough like the Big Bang Theory (introduced by a Catholic Priest) were developed by Christian thinkers. The Anti-Science argument against religion is pretty pathetic.

[QUOTE="ChampionoChumps"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

I think at the very least things like evolution help to make the existence of god unnecessary.

I also think there are real problems reconciling the bible with evolution. It leads to some shaky theology in my view.

-Sun_Tzu-

Humans were inspired by God to write the BIble, God Himself did not write the Bible is what I meant.

Just something I found, don't know if it's all true but

Going to a Catholic school they teach evolution as the only theory for human existence as well, and growing up in a mainline protestant church that is also what they taught. It always annoys me when OT says that theories surrounding evolution and the fundemental properties of the universe somehow are denied by every religion, when most encourage the searching of these things.

I believes it's a conspiracies and the libral scientists is out to get us.

Just something I found, don't know if it's all true but

Going to a Catholic school they teach evolution as the only theory for human existence as well, and growing up in a mainline protestant church that is also what they taught. It always annoys me when OT says that theories surrounding evolution and the fundemental properties of the universe somehow are denied by every religion, when most encourage the searching of these things.

Iownyou2121

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="ChampionoChumps"] Unnecessary? Why? If you think about it, everything existence and actions can be described by a mathematical formula, why can't the progression of life be given another formula? The Bible is divinely inspired, not divinely written, therefore theories that humans theorized about God's Creation couldn't have been in the Bible since they hadn't been theorized yet.ChampionoChumps

Humans were inspired by God to write the BIble, God Himself did not write the Bible is what I meant.

[QUOTE="ice144"][QUOTE="chaoscougar1"] You can be Christian and believe in Evolution. Not all Christians (Not that many actually) believe in the Creationist theorychaoscougar1

Exactly.

[QUOTE="ChampionoChumps"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] It's unnecessary because you don't need God in the equation to account for our existence. And you're going to have to elaborate on what you mean by the distinction between divine inspiration and divine authorship. -Sun_Tzu-

Humans were inspired by God to write the BIble, God Himself did not write the Bible is what I meant.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="ChampionoChumps"] Personally I can understand how one imagines that nothing started everything that we know of, but I could never accept it. I don't believe that nothing can create something (hey that's one of our scientific laws too). So the argument against that is"What or whom created God?" but since God exists outside of the fabric of space and time (His Creation), we can never know the properties of His dimension therefore we cannot know the reason of His existence.

Humans were inspired by God to write the BIble, God Himself did not write the Bible is what I meant.

CaveJohnson1

People are free to believe what they want. And they can consider themselves a christian whether or not the cathoic church says fits the criteria.

Heck, im Chragnostic. my own religion. Partly christian, mostly i dont know and really dont care just gonne be a good person. :)

Nothing Darwin or the church can do about it!!

[QUOTE="chaoscougar1"][QUOTE="ice144"] But...how? "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." What do the non-creationists say? Do they just bend the verse around to meet their belief?DeathnoteSz

What will happen if he does? Its his/her belief. Theres nothing wrong with it. We all have a right to believe in something the way we see fit.

Im glad people question parts of the bible. Expressing different viewpoints is essential to learning in my opinion.

[QUOTE="ChampionoChumps"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] It's unnecessary because you don't need God in the equation to account for our existence. And you're going to have to elaborate on what you mean by the distinction between divine inspiration and divine authorship. -Sun_Tzu-

Humans were inspired by God to write the BIble, God Himself did not write the Bible is what I meant.

The two creation stories in the BIble were passed down for many generations and then written 5,000 years ago by Moses. They are just that, stories. They have a moral purpose but who knows where they even came from.

[QUOTE="DeathnoteSz"][QUOTE="chaoscougar1"] So your saying to be a Christian we have to take a 2000 year old book word for word, verse for verse? Yeah. Thats a good idea :roll:imetamonster

What will happen if he does? Its his/her belief. Theres nothing wrong with it. We all have a right to believe in something the way we see fit.

Im glad people question parts of the bible. Expressing different viewpoints is essential to learning in my opinion.

That's one of my main problems with religion, well specifically christianity. Picking and choosing the verses to keep and to change to fit your logic.ice144

The only falsehoods being the creation story? The two creation stories in the BIble were passed down for many generations and then written 5,000 years ago by Moses. They are just that, stories. They have a moral purpose but who knows where they even came from.ChampionoChumps

There's a lot more falsehoods than just the creation story. But I'm curious as to what the moral purpose is of the Biblical creation story. Is it that knowledge is corrupting? Is it that women cannot be trusted?

I frequently hear this claim that the bible is a sort of "moral guide" that reveals itself through its stories. But what are these morals? No where in the bible is slavery prohibited. No where in the bible is rape prohibited. It's actually the exact opposite. The bible sanctions slavery. It sanctions rape. Hell, the bible commands its followers to burn down the cities of idolaters. And that's barely scratching the surface. Why is this the book that so many people choose to derive their morality from?

[QUOTE="imetamonster"]

[QUOTE="DeathnoteSz"] Isnt that the whole point of the bible????? WHAT THE EFF. or do u just wanna twist every single word in the bible to ur liking?chaoscougar1

What will happen if he does? Its his/her belief. Theres nothing wrong with it. We all have a right to believe in something the way we see fit.

Im glad people question parts of the bible. Expressing different viewpoints is essential to learning in my opinion.

[QUOTE="chaoscougar1"][QUOTE="imetamonster"]

What will happen if he does? Its his/her belief. Theres nothing wrong with it. We all have a right to believe in something the way we see fit.

Im glad people question parts of the bible. Expressing different viewpoints is essential to learning in my opinion.

fl4tlined

Exaclty...

When many studies suggest homosexuals do not choose sexual orientation.

Thats one of the bigger flaws i see.

And of course stoning your child.

And eye for an eye.

[QUOTE="ChampionoChumps"]The only falsehoods being the creation story? The two creation stories in the BIble were passed down for many generations and then written 5,000 years ago by Moses. They are just that, stories. They have a moral purpose but who knows where they even came from.-Sun_Tzu-

There's a lot more falsehoods than just the creation story. But I'm curious as to what the moral purpose is of the Biblical creation story. Is it that knowledge is corrupting? Is it that women cannot be trusted?

I frequently hear this claim that the bible is a sort of "moral guide" that reveals itself through its stories. But what are these morals? No where in the bible is slavery prohibited. No where in the bible is rape prohibited. It's actually the exact opposite. The bible sanctions slavery. It sanctions rape. Hell, the bible commands its followers to burn down the cities of idolaters. And that's barely scratching the surface. Why is this the book that so many people choose to derive their morality from?

[QUOTE="ice144"] That's one of my main problems with religion, well specifically christianity. Picking and choosing the verses to keep and to change to fit your logic.limpbizkit818

[QUOTE="limpbizkit818"]

[QUOTE="ice144"] That's one of my main problems with religion, well specifically christianity. Picking and choosing the verses to keep and to change to fit your logic.-Sun_Tzu-

The law of Moses, not the law of Leviticus; there's a pretty big difference lol.ChampionoChumps

Jesus even mocks some of the Old Testament's laws.ChampionoChumps

You're right, and that in part proves that Jesus was a false prophet by God's very own standards.

Religion can co-exist with any scientific theory, because science and religion have nothing to do with each other. One is a matter of fact, another is a matter of (often blind) faith.

The best evidence a Christian will ever be able to produce supporting the existence of God is a personal "experience". The problem with this is that most atheists consider these experiences delusions.

Still, I am a practicing Christian, and I am sure that evolution is a reality, much like any rational human being should be. In the realm of science God can and will never be proven or disproven as he exists outside of the laws governing our universe.

[QUOTE="limpbizkit818"]

[QUOTE="ice144"] That's one of my main problems with religion, well specifically christianity. Picking and choosing the verses to keep and to change to fit your logic.-Sun_Tzu-

I think you may have misread that section.

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished."

All is accomplished when Jesus dies. Jesus has fulfilled the old laws and has expanded or even replaced them (a Chrisitan can argueeither one I suppose, but I prefer the latter). This is essential to his teachings and echoed over and over in the NT. This is why Christians do not accept sacrifices to make up for sins as the OT prescribes. Jesus forgave adulterers, he did not stone them. I could go on and on and it has been the view of the Church since it's inception that the word of Jesus is the word of God and is to be followed. It takes precedence over the OT laws because they were made for a time before the messiah. I don't believe that you are going to argue that the Church has it's own theology wrong.

We also see in the Epistle to the Hebrews the mosaic law renounced and it is claimed "the law made nothing perfect".

Your last sentence left me scratching my head. A rather odd argument for someone to run unless they are Jewish or believe in word of the OT. Do you? I am assuming you are playing an extreme devil's advocate with this one. Nonetheless this statement is false seeing as God's new covenant is spoken about numerous times in the OT. In fact there is a section in Jeremiah titled "The New Covenant". Do you have some quotes?

So, I do not see the contradiction. He is rather clear about the new law, ot atleast that it exists..

[QUOTE="chaoscougar1"][QUOTE="imetamonster"]

What will happen if he does? Its his/her belief. Theres nothing wrong with it. We all have a right to believe in something the way we see fit.

Im glad people question parts of the bible. Expressing different viewpoints is essential to learning in my opinion.

fl4tlined

i mean god says to put homosexuals to death and to stone your child if they act out of line...i mean i dont get it at all.. if you dont follow it all then whats the point of following it i mean i personally think thats just as dumb as this..

How would it be blasphemous? THE BOOK IS 2000 YEARS OLD! We use to have slaves, rape use to go unpunished because women had little to no rights, homosexuals were no doubt killed for their sexual orientation. That is apart of the human race, we change and adapt with times. Why should Christianity (which is a creation of the human race) be any different?

Send me to hell for not killing homosexuals? Yeah, thats a good line of thought :roll: Why is it that people who don't believe seem to be part of the few who think that the Bible should be taken literally and still have complete relevance today...Atheists and fanatics, funny how that works

Also, why do some Atheists seem to be annoyed that Christians leave out the barbaric parts? Shouldn't they be happy that Christian Churches generally try and stick to the parts that make them a better member of society? (Charity, love for thy neighbour, forgiveness etc.) It's feels like sometimes they are annoyed we don't have witchhunts and crusades anymore

There's always the idea that the 7 Days of creation were really billions of years, but that kind of takes away the magic of it all doesn't it?

The way I look at it is this: we can have science without God, but we can't have God without science.

[QUOTE="fl4tlined"][QUOTE="chaoscougar1"] Thankyou monster. And why am I not allowed to update the Bible to suit the time period I am in? Wouldn't it be quite foolish to act and think the exact same way people did 2000 years ago? The Bible is not there to define ones life, merely to guide itchaoscougar1

i mean god says to put homosexuals to death and to stone your child if they act out of line...i mean i dont get it at all.. if you dont follow it all then whats the point of following it i mean i personally think thats just as dumb as this..

How would it be blasphemous? THE BOOK IS 2000 YEARS OLD! We use to have slaves, rape use to go unpunished because women had little to no rights, homosexuals were no doubt killed for their sexual orientation. That is apart of the human race, we change and adapt with times. Why should Christianity (which is a creation of the human race) be any different?

Send me to hell for not killing homosexuals? Yeah, thats a good line of thought :roll: Why is it that people who don't believe seem to be part of the few who think that the Bible should be taken literally and still have complete relevance today...Atheists and fanatics, funny how that works

Also, why do some Atheists seem to be annoyed that Christians leave out the barbaric parts? Shouldn't they be happy that Christian Churches generally try and stick to the parts that make them a better member of society? (Charity, love for thy neighbour, forgiveness etc.) It's feels like sometimes they are annoyed we don't have witchhunts and crusades anymore

i love you.

seriously people go and meet some realChristians instead ofkeeping track ofthe Westboro Baptist Church and basing all your judgements on Christians from them :)

of all the Christians i know in real life, only one is a zealot or fanatic or whatever you want to call him. the rest are very nice people :)

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="limpbizkit818"] Seeing as Jesus spoke out against parts of the Hebrew Bible (of which the Old Testament is derived from) I don't necessarily see the problem with modern Christians doing the same. Jesus does not speak of the creation of the world in detail (I don't believe he ever really talks about it outside of saying that God is responsible), and I see no need for the OT. Maybe some knowledgeable Christians can help me out? Why not just follow the New Covenant and be done with the OT?

limpbizkit818

I think you may have misread that section.

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished."

All is accomplished when Jesus dies. Jesus has fulfilled the old laws and has expanded or even replaced them (a Chrisitan can argueeither one I suppose, but I prefer the latter). This is essential to his teachings and echoed over and over in the NT. This is why Christians do not accept sacrifices to make up for sins as the OT prescribes. Jesus forgave adulterers, he did not stone them. I could go on and on and it has been the view of the Church since it's inception that the word of Jesus is the word of God and is to be followed. It takes precedence over the OT laws because they were made for a time before the messiah. I don't believe that you are going to argue that the Church has it's own theology wrong.

We also see in the Epistle to the Hebrews the mosaic law renounced and it is claimed "the law made nothing perfect".

Your last sentence left me scratching my head. A rather odd argument for someone to run unless they are Jewish or believe in word of the OT. Do you? I am assuming you are playing an extreme devil's advocate with this one. Nonetheless this statement is false seeing as God's new covenant is spoken about numerous times in the OT. In fact there is a section in Jeremiah titled "The New Covenant". Do you have some quotes?

So, I do not see the contradiction. He is rather clear about the new law, ot atleast that it exists..

I don't believe I've misread anything, and yes I am arguing that the Church has its own theology wrong - either that or the bible is wrong (but then again, the bible being wrong is yet another refutation of Christian theology, so either way the Church is wrong).

Firstly, if I were to grant your claim that "all is accomplished when Jesus dies", that still makes the man a hypocrit who contradicted himself. He ignores and even rewrites Judaic law before he has died - i.e. before all has been accomplished.

But Jesus set out to accomplish much more than just dying. Not all has been accomplished after Jesus dies. Nor is this the case after the resurrection. Everything won't be accomplished until the End Times. Jesus still has unfinished business to take care of. That is, after all, the whole point of the second coming, is it not? And he described what would happen in Mark 13, Matthew 24 and Luke 21.

Not only does give a description of the End Times, but he tells us when it will happen - sometime within the generation of his contemporaries.

This has huge theological implications. Not only has the world still not ended (perhaps the third time is the charm for Harold Camping this October), but Jesus made a prediction that did not come true. That is the very definition of a false prophet, per God. See Deuteronomy 18:22.

Now, I have to say I'm very confused as to what you mean by your comments on the OT. I don't see what's so odd about what I said. The OT describes the law as perfect (Psalms 19:7). The OT describes the law as everlasting a large number of times (e.g. Leviticus 16:34, and I can give you a laundry list of passages to the exact same effect) And yes, there is mention of a New Covenant in Jeremiah. This New Covenant is also described. Just as the original covenant was the circumcision of the foreskin, the new covenant is to be the circumcision of the heart. This is not a repudiation of Mosaic law but a renewal and affirmation of the law.

You know, I've no idea why people keep coming back to the idea that God made man or he made Earth. He/Her/It/TheHigherPower is insanely powerful right?

So why would said power bother making the Earth specifically? Logically it would have made the universe and left the universe do the rest as the universe is pretty much a perpetual Life and Death machine, it'll keep going, forming Solar Systems and possibly one day Life inhabited worlds, until the Big Crunch or Big Freeze or The Big Rip or whatever Doomsday and then collapse into Singularity then Big Bang all over again resulting in the process all over again. So God could have very much made Mankind through the Proxy of the Universe. Given how this Force would see all scenarios from forming the Universe it's common sense to conclude God had nothing to do with the Earth, but with the Universe itself. In which, we're back to square one as yes The Big Bang THEORY, generally accepted but none the less a Theory, could very much have come from God as much as been some insanely, if improbable random act that sparked life. I say improbable due to it's FAR easier for Life not to exist than it is to exist, so something is the root cause of life.

So Science and Religion aren't ever at odds, early man knew very little about the world around him, wrote a book and called it Divine with their knowledge pretty much being in the dark but doing the best they can to make sense of what they beheld. Science merely explains how the Universe works, Religion says from where and why. Science for all it's claim of knowing everything knows no more than Religion on just what the cause of life is or purpose.

And to the guy who keeps going on about Man coming from the grounds of the Earth, actually, it's a very correct statement, the trillions of atoms in your body have been a part of the world, very likely being a rock, grass, another human being and countless other things before becoming your body. And as far as breathing life to create the Soul, no amount of Science can yet truly explain from where Individual Consciousness stems or even why it exists given how Collective Consciousness in a Hive state would be the better choice if Life in Conscious form does not come from somewhere beyond understanding.

Pretty much Science should shut up and just be Science and stop trying to disprove Religion. Religion should just stick to trying to get people to live better lives.

religion and science are not compatible imo. science is about critical thinking where as religion is all about blind faith.