PDA

View Full Version : Is Belief in Evolution Compatible with the Christian Teachings?



Dagna
Sunday, June 28th, 2009, 11:37 PM
What would you say? There are several opinions. Some Christians believe that the theory of evolution does not contradict the existence of the Christian god and the theory that he created the world.

However, I am skeptical about that. What about the theory about human evolving from primates? That would contradict the belief that human was created by God himself from scratch.

Bärin
Sunday, June 28th, 2009, 11:42 PM
Doesn't the Bible say that the world is only a thousand years old or something like that? Then there you go. Of course it's incompatible.

Stormraaf
Monday, June 29th, 2009, 10:32 AM
In terms of the theory of evolution alone, I'd say it's only incompatible with a literal interpretation of the Bible, and not mainstream Christian teachings. The fact that we see so many evolution denial on the Internet and media is probably because breakaway Christian deviants tend to complain the loudest and their preachers are more hungry for attention, not because they're particularly numerous.

However, while I think it's unnecessary for Christians to bar themselves from the study of evolution because of religious interpretations, I do believe an understanding of evolution and a science-centric approach is correct in being hostile to the Christian world view. As Dawkins said:


The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.

(Originally a Darwin quote? :chinrub)


Doesn't the Bible say that the world is only a thousand years old or something like that?

IIRC from my time as a Christian youth, the notion that the Earth is only a couple of thousand years old was because of one papal proclamation which was later disproved by other theologists, so that particular literal interpretation is not even correct according to other biblical scholars, not to mention an embarrassment to most modern-day Christians. Because the "young Earth theory" is in conflict with stratigraphy, and therefor also with geography, physics and mathematics, the notion is right up their with the sun revolving around the Earth. That's not Christianity, that's idiocy.

velvet
Monday, June 29th, 2009, 12:24 PM
That's not Christianity, that's idiocy.

*lol* :thumbup

But that the sun revolves around the earth was only removed from the dogma in the 1980s, after the pope had travelled around the world several times and there just was no way to stick to that anymore ;)

In general I think evolution and the bible cannot coexist, god painted the stars and the sun and the moon onto some sort of fabric that he hang (and moves) over the earth to create the impression of a sky.
God made man from clay and because the trick only worked once he cut out the women from the man's rip.
According to the bible the earth was created shortly before the two were thrown out of paradise, that make approx maybe 2500-3000 years ago.
Funnily, god also created the jewish folks, although he was quite sick about the fact that Eve ate the apple and stopped communicating with humans altogether.
The Deluge that is referred to in the bible was about 6000 years ago, prior to the creation of the folks (and also Adam and Eve), so not even the bible is consistent in itself, whether one wants to interprete that literal or not. It just doesnt make sense at all.

To sum it up: Christianity is idiocy :D

No, honestly, how can one believe such bs? It might have been good for christianity (and I guess it was the intention behind) that people couldnt read the stuff themselves, and if they could, they were part of the organisation, and a loyal follower doesnt question (hence: god's ways are inscrutable).

I remember when I visited the preparation lectures for confirmation (I was 13 or something) and the phreak wanted to sell me the stuff above as truth and I started to ask him some questions. He wasnt very happy and once he left the room crying (!). Obviously I've hit some sensitive points :D

Nachtengel
Monday, June 29th, 2009, 12:59 PM
Christianity generally rejects science. Christianity taught people a lot of senseless superstitions, to keep them under control. Example, the earth is flat, don't try to adventure yourself too far or you might fall.

Siebenbürgerin
Monday, June 29th, 2009, 04:10 PM
I don't think it's incompatible. The way God created the world corresponds with the way science says (the light, the dark, the oceans, the terrestrial ground and so on). But of course Christian theologists who said the world was a thousand years old made the calculations wrong, but in that period we didn't have the means to date rocks the way we can nowadays. We also don't know what was meant by years, if a classic year with 365 days or in a metaphorical sense.

Science explains the evolution, but it doesn't explain where the universe came from. It had to come from something, and that something is our God.

Chlodovech
Monday, June 29th, 2009, 04:52 PM
Christianity generally rejects science. Christianity taught people a lot of senseless superstitions, to keep them under control. Example, the earth is flat, don't try to adventure yourself too far or you might fall.

Isn't that actually a good thing in the context of ethnic preservationism? :D

While there were renaissance scientists who understood that the flat Earth theory was wrong, in fact, the bible itself states the Earth is round, their very own theories were flawed too. Galileo, for instance, who was right about the Earth revolving around the Sun, but couldn't prove it because a complete theory of mechanics was lacking, which led him to formulating a wrong theory on the tides.

From "The politically incorrect guide to Western civilization" (Anthony Esolen): "...It turns out the Church never denied Earth could move around the sun, but insisted Galileo didn't have enough evidence to teach it as a settled fact."

On topic: The Vatican launched an official statement in february, claiming that the theory of evolution is compatible with the Catholic faith.

I'd say that point of view is heretical, and the reformist Mgr. Angelo Roncalli has a great deal to do with it; an initiate of a Turkish lodge, a freemason - and a writer of prophecies - who became pope himself (John XXIII) after the winner of the vote of the conclave in 1958 was pressured to withdraw, namely the traditionalist cardinal Giuseppe_Siri, according to the FBI.

And jesuits - among others - like Pierre Teillard de Chardin, also played a role in undermining the Church from inside, promoting New Age thought over traditional ideas.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v335/prezhorusin04/bluehoney91.jpg

Now antipopes govern the Church, like this pope here, with his stylish inverted cross on the back of his seat, while participating in a mass for the youth.

For me Pope Pius IX settled the theory of evolution matter for once and for all.

From the First Vatican Council in 1869-70, that had a section on "Faith and Reason":

9. "Hence all faithful Christians are forbidden to defend as the legitimate conclusions of science those opinions which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of faith, particularly if they have been condemned by the Church; and furthermore they are absolutely bound to hold them to be errors which wear the deceptive appearance of truth."

10. "Not only can faith and reason never be at odds with one another but they mutually support each other, for on the one hand right reason established the foundations of the faith and, illuminated by its light, develops the science of divine things; on the other hand, faith delivers reason from errors and protects it and furnishes it with knowledge of many kinds."


Christianity taught people a lot of senseless superstitions

Looking at it from my perspective, it is science that creates the most eleborate and inconceivable theories - the validation of the theory of evolution doesn't only require a belief in miracles - to rescue the theory of Darwin - the modern evolutionist line of thought proposes the existence of parallel universes, like slices of bread, next to each other - and every time two of these universes collide, a new one is "born" with a big bang...

If one wants to believe that, fine, but it's nothing more than a belief - yet questioning this belief places one on the fringe of our "free" society, where freedom of religion usually means that you're not allowed to mention religion at all. It seems only racism and pedophilia are viewed as bigger evils than intelligent design in Europe.

I'd say modern Western thought regarding the roots of men is a reflection of mystery religions, not in the least the Sumerian one. And when applicated definitely not less dogmatic than the Catholic church.

While everybody is free to believe in the theory of evolution, to me, it's a disgrace that the catholic school system totally lost its independence, and is now teaching students either just the theory of evolution, or the theory of evolution combined with creationism - with emphasis on the former.

velvet
Monday, June 29th, 2009, 05:49 PM
Galileo, for instance, who was right about the Earth revolving around the Sun, but couldn't prove it because a complete theory of mechanics was lacking.

From "The politically incorrect guide to Western civilization" (Anthony Esolen): "...It turns out the Church never denied Earth could move around the sun, but insisted Galileo didn't have enough evidence to teach it as a settled fact."

Kepler and Galileo were in big trouble for their research, and only their influential families saved them from the stake. Other scientist werent so lucky and were killed, not for a lack of proof, but for a dangerous set of proofs which shaked the walls of the 'holy doctrine'.


after the winner of the vote of the conclave in 1958 was pressured to withdraw, namely the traditionalist cardinal Giuseppe_Siri, according to the FBI.

Wasnt that the guy who died 'mysteriously'?


For me Pope Pius IX settled the theory of evolution matter for once and for all.

From the First Vatican Council in 1869-70, that had a section on "Faith and Reason":

9. "Hence all faithful Christians are forbidden to defend as the legitimate conclusions of science those opinions which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of faith, particularly if they have been condemned by the Church; and furthermore they are absolutely bound to hold them to be errors which wear the deceptive appearance of truth."

So truth must fit into the written word? :-O
Sounds to me like they would love to burn scientists on the stakes...


Looking at it from my perspective

Well, it wasnt me who wrote that, but anyway ;)


it is science that creates the most eleborate and inconceivable theories - the validation of the theory of evolution doesn't only require a belief in miracles - to rescue the theory of Darwin - the modern evolutionist line of thought proposes the existence of parallel universes, like slices of bread, next to each other - and every time two of these universes collide, a new one is "born" with a big bang...

The thing with theories is (contrary to a 'belief and its written word') that it is scrutinable, expandable and rejectable ;)
Darwin's theorie of evolution has big holes and is partly inconsistent in itself, well, and? Hundreds of scientist have added, altered, removed and rewritten parts of it and the most have brought it nearer to reality.
It is a theory in evolution itself, wonderful progressive, dont you think? ;)

If you would engage with quantum mechanics for a while you'd notice that there is a whole new world, nah universe of possibilities :D
In the practical application of quantum mechanics to the real world it is just a fact that the world does consist of more than four dimensions, scientists still argue if that are eight, eleven or twenty four. However, whether that opens the possibility of big-banging new universes in a row (like the mentioned theory), is quite something very different.


If one wants to believe that, fine, but it's nothing more than a belief - yet questioning this belief places one on the fringe of our "free" society, where freedom of religion usually means that you're not allowed to mention religion at all. It seems only racism and pedophilia are viewed as bigger evils than intelligent design in Europe.

Well, it is just that all given facts go against the belief that the world is only a few thousand years old, whether you subscribe to the evolution theory as given by Darwin or not.
And rejecting facts, prooven facts, places you rightfully at the fringe of society, because in the most cases people who do that are fanatists in one way or another and in their fanatism considered dangerous to the stability of society or its members.

And I wonder how a so-called highly intelligent religion like christianity could just go against everything that was known already.
The Hindus describe very detailed and beside that quite accurate the evolution and big bang theory in their writings, which are what, 2500 years old? The time frame (of several quadrillion years), the predicted death of the sun and the universe itself, they knew it all. The Maya knew it, the ancient Greek knew it and Stonehenge could be taken as evidence that the culture that built it (by the way almost 8000 years ago, which would exceed the timeframe of god's creation or any intelligent design/creationism theory) knew it too (although that is open to interpretation, because there are no more information about them, only this very detailed star map, built with almost unmovable stone monsters...).

So how came they to the idea to throw the complete set of ancient knowledge overboard to create this story about the birth of the earth and man?

exit
Tuesday, June 30th, 2009, 02:18 AM
Many people have been claiming that ancient doctrines/mystery traditions taught evolution. This is completely false, and arrived at only from a modern misinterpretation of doctrine based on modern scientific/materialistic prejudices. Even Aquinas, who was more Hermetic than Christian, believed that human life is a product of the spirit enclosed in the soul which is in (and thus "informs") the semen. As far as I am aware, evolutionary theory has never made mention of a soul or spirit (the latter as Plato's soul of the soul or immortal soul). Evolution is a completely material theory which has nothing whatsoever to do with traditional doctrines.

prodeutsch
Tuesday, June 30th, 2009, 02:17 PM
Well I am a Christian and I don't have any problem with real science. The only science I have a hard time with is "social science!" Who decided that I need to "respect" deviant behavior, race mixing, the world is flat theory (jewish reporter from the NY Slimes), that I should not want more children (global warming B.S.) because I am selfish, that by repecting myself and my race that I am a racist, etc... Science, no problem, social science forget it!

Aeternitas
Tuesday, June 30th, 2009, 09:24 PM
It is incompatible. Even if one accepts the theory that "God" is the creator of the universe, if one also accepts the theory of evolution, it cannot be the Christian god, it does not correspond to Biblical (Christian) teaching.

example 1: The order presented in the Genesis, in which God allegedly created everything, does not correspond with the evolutionary order. In Genesis, it's said that God created the earth before the sun, water before land, fruit-bearing trees before fish, birds before insects and reptiles, etc.

example 2: The creation of man. According to evolutionary theory, man and ape evolved from an apelike ancestor. Christianity says that man was created distinctly in God's image, from dust, not that it was the result of some reproductive process.

Nachtengel
Tuesday, June 30th, 2009, 09:36 PM
In terms of the theory of evolution alone, I'd say it's only incompatible with a literal interpretation of the Bible, and not mainstream Christian teachings.
But isn't the Bible supposed to be believed literally? Don't Christians believe that Jesus really died crucified for their sins, or is that just an allegorical fairy tale? If they do, they take the Bible literally. Or are we supposed to take only some passages literally and others not? Then which? Doesn't make sense to me.

Ossi
Tuesday, June 30th, 2009, 11:43 PM
It is incompatible. Even if one accepts the theory that "God" is the creator of the universe, if one also accepts the theory of evolution, it cannot be the Christian god, it does not correspond to Biblical (Christian) teaching.

example 1: The order presented in the Genesis, in which God allegedly created everything, does not correspond with the evolutionary order. In Genesis, it's said that God created the earth before the sun, water before land, fruit-bearing trees before fish, birds before insects and reptiles, etc.

example 2: The creation of man. According to evolutionary theory, man and ape evolved from an apelike ancestor. Christianity says that man was created distinctly in God's image, from dust, not that it was the result of some reproductive process.
You forgot the most ridiculous one:

example 3: God created everything in 6 days.

:D

exit
Wednesday, July 1st, 2009, 01:12 AM
But isn't the Bible supposed to be believed literally?

Not according to Christ, Maimonides, Philo, Ambrose, Origen, Augustine, Aquinas, etc., who all pointed to symbolic meanings. Literal interpretations were strictly done by degenerate Pharisees against Christ's advice (as in John). In the Christian sense, literal meant moral interpretation rather than word for word literal.

The symbolic creation in Genesis is obviously based on the Kabbalah.

Löwenherz
Wednesday, July 1st, 2009, 07:56 PM
I don't anything about Kabbalah, but I agree in principle with the rest of exit's post.

"Christianity" is a big word that means different things to different people, and therefore means... well, not much.

What "Christianity" ought to mean is "the entire association of people who are Christians", and "Christian" ought to mean "someone who is devoted to following the actual teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, sometimes known as 'the Christ'".

"Fundamentalist Christianity" might be identified as a social movement in the West dating back a couple of hundred years, and you might find there the roots of the modern anti-evolutionary, six-literal-day-creation doctrine (as in, "you're not really a Christian unless you believe in a literal six day creation featuring God, Adam, Eve, and a snake"). Otherwise, I'd say most of the people today that claim to be Christians are not married to that idea, or at least open to the possibility that "followers of Christ" can have different opinions about the significance of the writings known as "the book of Genesis".

[N.B. My idea of "most of the people today that claim to be Christians" is based on my experiences over the past thirty years extrapolated out into the culture. Always dangerous, but in my case I've had a fair sample of what several different Christian denominations, some inter-denominational or non-denominational churches, and a fair number of "unchurched" people who self-identify as "Christians" believe. Take it for what it's worth.]

Having said all that, now I can say that Genesis looks to me like the written embodiment of an oral tradition that had already been passed down for awhile before it got recorded on parchment. It tells a story that serves a purpose. It purports to answer "who are we?" and "why are we here?" and "why am I like this?" type questions. There is nothing in the actual Bible that requires that the Genesis creation account be accepted at face value as a literal, historical description of events that actually happened in space-time. (Somebody show me the verse that says "if you don't believe in a literal six-day creation you're going to hell"....)

What was taught at some length by Jesus and his messengers had more to do with love, unity, and freedom, including freedom of conscience, than arguments over theories of origins. Therefore, there shouldn't be any basic incompatibility between "Christianity" (that is, being one of the followers of the teachings of the Christ) and any particular theory of origins.

Nachtengel
Wednesday, July 1st, 2009, 08:26 PM
I thought the Bible was the word of god and not an oral tradition? If it's just a folklore oral creation, then it's not the word of god, and the existence of god and his validity is as believable as Grimm's fairy tales.
If the creation has no literal value, then what proof is there at all, that the world and the humans in it were the product of god?
Adam wasn't created by god, and Eve wasn't created from his rib? Christians are supposed to believe that's a fake? If then, the whole "word of god" is a fake too, and Jesus wasn't crucified either, and he didn't die for anybody's sins, because the Bible is just a symbolic oral tradition. Hey, maybe Jesus didn't exist at all, and he's just symbolic.
I don't know about you, but every single Christian I've met takes the Bible as the word of god, and believes literally that there was a god who created the universe, a Jesus who was born of Mary the virgin, and who died crucified for everyone's sins.

Siebenbürgerin
Wednesday, July 1st, 2009, 08:35 PM
That God created the world and Jesus died for the sins of humanity is a literal fact, it's undisputed by a true Christian. That's what we're taught in religious classes too. But the details are another thing. The thousand years old world and six day creation, we've to wonder if "year" and "day" have same meaning as today. The calendar was a creation of humans, and it changed over the history. We've also to observe some other cultures, like the Jewish and Muslim ones, date differently. For them, it's not the year 2009 now.

Löwenherz
Thursday, July 9th, 2009, 08:53 AM
I thought the Bible was the word of god and not an oral tradition? If it's just a folklore oral creation, then it's not the word of god, and the existence of god and his validity is as believable as Grimm's fairy tales.
If the creation has no literal value, then what proof is there at all, that the world and the humans in it were the product of god?
Adam wasn't created by god, and Eve wasn't created from his rib? Christians are supposed to believe that's a fake? If then, the whole "word of god" is a fake too, and Jesus wasn't crucified either, and he didn't die for anybody's sins, because the Bible is just a symbolic oral tradition. Hey, maybe Jesus didn't exist at all, and he's just symbolic.
I don't know about you, but every single Christian I've met takes the Bible as the word of god, and believes literally that there was a god who created the universe, a Jesus who was born of Mary the virgin, and who died crucified for everyone's sins.
The ideas that the bible is the "word of God" and that it is to be understood "literally" and as an "infallible" authority are all from fundamentalist Christianity (or maybe we should just call it "Fundamentalism"). Looks like you and I have somewhat different social circles, but I can tell you that there are many Christians that have different opinions about the significance of Genesis. And the many different writings that are collated in "the bible" have different authors, orientations, and purposes. Genesis could be a traditional story about the origin of the human race intended to teach certain relational truth without necessarily being accepted as literal, historical data, and the Gospel according to Luke could still be a reasonably accurate historical account of the life of Jesus of Nazareth (but then so could the gospel according to John, who appears to have had an entirely different purpose in writing from Luke), while the apocalypse (or 'Revelation') of John or the Song of Solomon could be something else altogether.

Just curious: What are you, an atheist, doing sticking up for fundamentalism and "wooden headed literalism"? I mean no offense; I'm honestly intrigued.

Nachtengel
Thursday, July 9th, 2009, 12:11 PM
The ideas that the bible is the "word of God" and that it is to be understood "literally" and as an "infallible" authority are all from fundamentalist Christianity (or maybe we should just call it "Fundamentalism"). Looks like you and I have somewhat different social circles, but I can tell you that there are many Christians that have different opinions about the significance of Genesis. And the many different writings that are collated in "the bible" have different authors, orientations, and purposes. Genesis could be a traditional story about the origin of the human race intended to teach certain relational truth without necessarily being accepted as literal, historical data, and the Gospel according to Luke could still be a reasonably accurate historical account of the life of Jesus of Nazareth (but then so could the gospel according to John, who appears to have had an entirely different purpose in writing from Luke), while the apocalypse (or 'Revelation') of John or the Song of Solomon could be something else altogether.

Just curious: What are you, an atheist, doing sticking up for fundamentalism and "wooden headed literalism"? I mean no offense; I'm honestly intrigued.
Every religion or political ideology has a fundament, a doctrine, a dogma, or whatever you wish to name it. Some ideas which it centers around. NS centers around race. Without race, it can't be called NS anymore.
If every Christian believes what he wants, it's not the same religion they follow. Christianity is an organized religion. You know, opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. But to adhere to a religion or politics, you have to follow its ideology.

Patrioten
Thursday, July 9th, 2009, 03:58 PM
The ideas that the bible is the "word of God" and that it is to be understood "literally" and as an "infallible" authority are all from fundamentalist Christianity (or maybe we should just call it "Fundamentalism"). Looks like you and I have somewhat different social circles, but I can tell you that there are many Christians that have different opinions about the significance of Genesis. And the many different writings that are collated in "the bible" have different authors, orientations, and purposes.


Every religion or political ideology has a fundament, a doctrine, a dogma, or whatever you wish to name it. Some ideas which it centers around. NS centers around race. Without race, it can't be called NS anymore.
If every Christian believes what he wants, it's not the same religion they follow. Christianity is an organized religion. You know, opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. But to adhere to a religion or politics, you have to follow its ideology.


There might be a slight difference here between Protestants and Catholics (and other branches of Christianity) on this matter but if you were to ask the average Protestant a hundred years ago if the Bible and everything in it is supposed to be interpreted literaly, then the answer, I dare claim, would be a resounding yes. The kind of wishy washy uncertainty and doubt that is common today among Christians is something new I think it is fair to say, and is in my opinion an attempt by Christians to try and reconcile Christian teachings (and their own faith) with those parts of modern day science which they think disprove or cast doubt on certain Christian teachings (which is mostly what we are talking about here), but there are also attempts made to try and reinterpret Christian teachings by using an ideological perspective (Christians using the phrase 'love thy neighbor' as an excuse to approve of homosexual marriages and other things which they find to be acceptable today, but which has not been acceptable in the eyes of the Church for the last 2000 years or so).

That's my take on it anyway, it doesn't make any sense in my opinion to wash our hands from the established teachings of the Church and call it fundamentalism. Because if we do, are we really being honest about the faith which we adher to?

Nachtengel
Thursday, July 9th, 2009, 09:09 PM
As I've said, I never met a Christian who didn't take Christ's resurrection or the ten commandments literally.
The Christians who want to ordain female priests or accept homosexual marriage are frowned at by traditional Christians (or call them fundamentalist if you want). So Löwenherz that should be accepted as Christianity? It's a "matter of opinion" after all. What about those who say Christ wasn't a Jew, but an African? That should be accepted too? It becomes nonsensical to believe whatever you want and claim that's an ideology or religion whose fundaments had already been established thousands of years ago.
Vatican accepted evolutionism for political reasons, because it became obvious that the Christian version of the way the universe was created is absurd. But ask any Christian priest or professor if man descended from ape or was literally created after god's resemblance.

Löwenherz
Friday, July 10th, 2009, 04:11 AM
Todesengel, it is a long jump from what I'm saying (Genesis can be seen as a literal account of history or it can be seen as a story that embodies spiritual truth) to what you're saying (everybody can just make up whatever he wants to believe).

Patrioten, I was a mainstream Protestant for several decades until I started doing independent research into the history of the church. Just because some Roman politicians and bishops decided many centuries ago to replace heterodox Christianity with a unified, enforceable dogma because it was politically expedient doesn't mean I have to bow to it.

The only useful definition of "Christian" is "follower of Christ". That means follower of his teachings, not some council of bishops 500 or 1500 years later (or, if you'd rather, the Protestant reformers). Stick to the gospels and you and I will have nothing to argue about. Start adding the creeds and the councils of the Romans, and you're on your own.

Guys, throughout the history of the church there's been a running dialogue/argument/war over "what it means to be a Christian". This is nothing new.

EQ Fighter
Friday, July 10th, 2009, 06:12 AM
I would say it depends on which version of the old testament you are reading. In the English it translates the Hebrew word yom as day. Which is one of the meanings of the word, but unfortunately It could also mean ten million years as a period of time. The problem is basically the English bible when you translate any document from one language to the other you lose context.

So I would say if you are translating it literally the evolution is not a problem.

I think were evolution contradicts a biblical world view is in the fact that it attributes the Process of evolution to chance and not to an organized system, IE God.

And from that perspective it would violate an original Hebrew interpretation of the scriptures.

But I personally find it very hilarious that Pagans would criticize Germanic Christianity, because as I have said before it essentially IS Paganism. Christmas and Easter are just two examples of that fact.

Neophyte
Friday, July 10th, 2009, 05:49 PM
You forgot the most ridiculous one:

example 3: God created everything in 6 days.

:D

If he really were omnipotent he would have done that instantaneously. Thus even if that nonsense were true, God would not all that he is made out to be. :P