Evolution and Christianity and Salvation

[Yonadav]

No evidence necessary. I wasn't trying to prove anything or convince anyone that what I said is true.

Oh man, if you are going to take  a position, own it. 

From a human rights standpoint, nobody is forcing you to prove anything. Nobody is going to have you arrested or murdered for having a position we don't find is credible.

But what you don't see, that I do, with theists of every label, having been online debating since 2001 almost every day since, that everyone pulls this.

The issue is not your human rights. The issue is your position, your logic, your evidence.

If you hold a position, and truly believe it, DEFEND IT, don't back off it. Don't use this doge.

Nobody is going to kill you if you cant prove it. But please do not insult us by pretending you don't have a position you wish more would hold.

If for example, I had a new invention, I knew would help the world, why hide from it, why hold it back, why not defend it? 

If you take a position, OWN IT. I have more value for those who disagree with me, even if I think they are full of crap, than I do for those who try to doge their positions.

After that, if you find yourself keep hitting walls, not getting your point across, not convincing others, then the next thing is to consider, that maybe you got it wrong, and maybe those objecting to your logic have a better way for you to see things.

When I describe a mountain to you, I don't have to prove that the mountain exists. I described a perspective. I didn't try to convince anyone to share the perspective. Not everything is an argument. You should never argue against an argument that no one has made, because it proves that you aren't very good at it.

[The Grand Nudger]

But then, you have no evidence of it being there. Business as usual.

No evidence necessary. I wasn't trying to prove anything or convince anyone that what I said is true.

You may not be, but the transparent ambulations of others are only onerous insomuch as they're completely transparent.  Most lies have an audience of precisely one - the teller, not the receiver.

[Drich]

ironically that's kinda the whole amazing thing i am pointing out. the bible can be small and easy to understand and things made simple and it jives well enough to remain accurate, or like in this case the simple small understand can give way to a much more inclusive understand that incorporates real world verified knowledge without changing anything beside the archaic perception that the bible has to be this small easy to understand. As I pointed out in my reading nothing changes in the bible itself only our understanding of how to read the story. once we do this then everything else that once was opposed to scripture can now fit in with scripture.

Allowing room from faith in God and in whatever science has to offer.

The bible can be "small"..... Um no, depending on version it is still around a little over 1,000 pages. And a "book" that took over 1,000 years to complete with over 40 authors and books left out. 

"Easy to understand"....... <--- "Easy to cherry pick to suit ones own desires".

No, easy to swallow sure, but most humans of every religion in our species history get sold their mythology at birth, prior to formulating adult critical thinking skills. So, no, it is not just you, and not just your religion.

And the argument that science matches a religion, is one made by apologists of EVERY religion. If you stupidly think Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, Hindus don't try to square modern science with old mythology, you have not debated very many people of varies backgrounds of the world. I have.

glob..

The bible can be small. as in there are condensed versions and even illustrated version that hit all the major stories and points. My first bible was a children's that was beautifully illustrated 

this bible is just as legit as the one I use now for those who need a small bible a small world view. there was this one which did the ot and one that did the nt.

[Jehanne]

Pope Pius XII was quite clear that Darwinian evolution and Christian (Catholic) doctrine were not compatible:

When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which through generation is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12] (Humani Generis, 12)

Humani Generis

Ergo, traditional Catholic belief has been falsified.

[Drich]

Pope Pius XII was quite clear that Darwinian evolution and Christian (Catholic) doctrine were not compatible:

When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which through generation is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12] (Humani Generis, 12)

Humani Generis

Ergo, traditional Catholic belief has been falsified.

oh noes!! what will we do... oh, you said catholic belief.. yeah that's kinda been falsified when they put a pope over the church and told us he alone speaks for God. that whole precept is in trouble because it is the exact opposite of what Christ himself taught. Christ said we would need no teacher that no man would come between us each individual believer and God himself. The pope is such a man the bishops are such men the priests you must confess to are such men, the whole system is very unbiblical. There is nothing new in your statement as Catholicism has never aligned itself with scripture fully.

[Jehanne]

Pope Pius XII was quite clear that Darwinian evolution and Christian (Catholic) doctrine were not compatible:



Humani Generis

Ergo, traditional Catholic belief has been falsified.

oh noes!! what will we do... oh, you said catholic belief.. yeah that's kinda been falsified when they put a pope over the church and told us he alone speaks for God. that whole precept is in trouble because it is the exact opposite of what Christ himself taught. Christ said we would need no teacher that no man would come between us each individual believer and God himself. The pope is such a man the bishops are such men the priests you must confess to are such men, the whole system is very unbiblical. There is nothing new in your statement as Catholicism has never aligned itself with scripture fully.

Protestants, at least for centuries, believed the exact same thing, namely, that there was a literal Adam & Eve.  When I was growing-up in a fundamentalist, evangelical Christian church, I was taught Bishop Ussher's date of 4004 BC for the creation of the World and Universe, and few today hold to that one.

[pocaracas]

Pope Pius XII was quite clear that Darwinian evolution and Christian (Catholic) doctrine were not compatible:



Humani Generis

Ergo, traditional Catholic belief has been falsified.

oh noes!! what will we do... oh, you said catholic belief.. yeah that's kinda been falsified when they put a pope over the church and told us he alone speaks for God. that whole precept is in trouble because it is the exact opposite of what Christ himself taught. Christ said we would need no teacher that no man would come between us each individual believer and God himself. The pope is such a man the bishops are such men the priests you must confess to are such men, the whole system is very unbiblical. There is nothing new in your statement as Catholicism has never aligned itself with scripture fully.

Here I though it all came from this:

Matthew 17:19
[17]Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by My Father in heaven. [18]And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. [19]I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

[Drich]

oh noes!! what will we do... oh, you said catholic belief.. yeah that's kinda been falsified when they put a pope over the church and told us he alone speaks for God. that whole precept is in trouble because it is the exact opposite of what Christ himself taught. Christ said we would need no teacher that no man would come between us each individual believer and God himself. The pope is such a man the bishops are such men the priests you must confess to are such men, the whole system is very unbiblical. There is nothing new in your statement as Catholicism has never aligned itself with scripture fully.

Protestants, at least for centuries, believed the exact same thing, namely, that there was a literal Adam & Eve.  When I was growing-up in a fundamentalist, evangelical Christian church, I was taught Bishop Ussher's date of 4004 BC for the creation of the World and Universe, and few today hold to that one.

And I have shown using the bible how there could still be a literal adam and eve and it jive with evolution without changing either account.

he is 1/2 right. that was the time of the exodus from the garden.

All of chapter 2 is a garden narrative that is sperate from chapter 1 creation of the rest of the world.

in essence in chapter 1 God the father creates the world in a rough form and it is left to evolve.

in chapter 2 Jesus is said between day 3 and 4 to have created the garden adam and eve and everything else in the garden. So because adam was created day 3 he was the first man and eve was the first woman they had souls and they were slated to live forever with God in the garden. all apart of the 7 day creation God the father made in chapter 1 where man was made on day 6, also note man outside the garden was not given a soul.

Then chapter three is the fall of man. All I poin out here is there is no time line no set time between chapter 2 and chapter 3.. This means all the time you all need for evolution to work, could have very easily have played out all the way back to 4004BC or whatever date YECs are saying now.

Do you get that man in the garden Adam was separate than man made in the world on day 6? day 6 man had to evolve while adam was created complete. and lived with God for potentially hundreds of millions of years so that the outside world caught up with the garden picture/so outside man would be compatible with man made in the garden.

So 4004bc genesis chapter 3 happens and the rest plays out like history.

[The Grand Nudger]

Protestants have been ungrateful nutballs for the last 500yrs...they're not going to stop now.

The trouble above, Drich, is that you went through the trouble to revise magic book, but it didn't get you any closer to reality.

[Jehanne]

Protestants, at least for centuries, believed the exact same thing, namely, that there was a literal Adam & Eve.  When I was growing-up in a fundamentalist, evangelical Christian church, I was taught Bishop Ussher's date of 4004 BC for the creation of the World and Universe, and few today hold to that one.

And I have shown using the bible how there could still be a literal adam and eve and it jive with evolution without changing either account.

he is 1/2 right. that was the time of the exodus from the garden.

All of chapter 2 is a garden narrative that is sperate from chapter 1 creation of the rest of the world.

in essence in chapter 1 God the father creates the world in a rough form and it is left to evolve.

in chapter 2 Jesus is said between day 3 and 4 to have created the garden adam and eve and everything else in the garden. So because adam was created day 3 he was the first man and eve was the first woman they had souls and they were slated to live forever with God in the garden. all apart of the 7 day creation God the father made in chapter 1 where man was made on day 6, also note man outside the garden was not given a soul.

Then chapter three is the fall of man. All I poin out here is there is no time line no set time between chapter 2 and chapter 3.. This means all the time you all need for evolution to work, could have very easily have played out all the way back to 4004BC or whatever date YECs are saying now.

Do you get that man in the garden Adam was separate than man made in the world on day 6? day 6 man had to evolve while adam was created complete. and lived with God for potentially hundreds of millions of years so that the outside world caught up with the garden picture/so outside man would be compatible with man made in the garden.

So 4004bc genesis chapter 3 happens and the rest plays out like history.

We did not descend from two biological humans, though; such is a genetic fact.  I assume that you accept DNA testing?