Are Evolution and Christianity Completely Incompatible?

[robvalue]

OK, I got one.

If you are interpreting the bible so liberally that it is compatible with evolution, you are essentially making up your own arbitrary narrative very loosely based on the bible. This is an observation, not a criticism. I would actually love you to do so.

I'd much rather any given Christian accepted evolution, no matter how weird their reasons for doing so. Or even for no particular reason. Just like I'd rather they reject all the immoral parts of the bible, no matter how they justify this to themselves.

So by all means, make your own narrative! As far as interpretation goes, there is no right answer, so there is no wrong answer either.

[ignoramus]

Could've sworn the apologists have been doing that in some way/shape/form for 2000 years!

[Pyrrho]

The thing is, once one gives up on it being all correct, why regard it as at all special?  There are plenty of stories that have meaning, like Aesop's fables, and they make a whole lot more sense than the stories in the Bible.  Why not be an Aesopist instead of a Christian?  Why call oneself a "Christian" if the basis of Christianity is nothing special at all?

My own take on this is that many modern Christians have basically rejected the foundation of their religion, but keep their religion anyway.  And that is very irrational.

The foundation of Christianity is the belief in the resurrection and divinity of Jesus, so as long as you believe in that, you're as Christian as anyone else. Just my opinion. I don't want to approach a different variation of the no true scotsman fallacy and say some people are not really Christians

Fine, but the reason people believe that is because it appears in old writings that we now call the "Bible."  Without the writings, no one would have such beliefs.  So by rejecting the writings as anything special, the foundation for such beliefs is no longer present.  Yet many still retain the beliefs that are based on the writings.

Does that make my point clearer?

To use a metaphor, it is like building a house and then tearing out the foundation while expecting the house above it to remain, suspended in air.

Or to be closer to being literal, it is like regarding homosexuality as bad only because it is written in the Bible, and then rejecting the Bible, and then continuing to regard homosexuality as bad.  The basis for the belief is gone, but the belief remains.  Continuing such beliefs is irrational, as the reason for it no longer exists.

[Dystopia]

I agree, but who said anything about rejecting foundations? The way I see it (and from my personal experience with Catholic schools) most of them think creationism is false and the tale of Genesis is an allegory, so you're not exactly rejecting that the bible is special - Not to mention perfect doesn't equal special, and something can be imperfect and special.

[Drich]

Drich, as per your observation, at which point of the speciation of man was man/monkey forbidden from eating the fruit, and at which point did man get kicked out? And how does your observations account for the several branches of homosapiens?

Man was made in the image of God/Adam and Eve and their off spring.

Monkey man/evolved man is what was found outside the garden/was allowed to evolve, and never did the two meet till the fall.

My account seperates the creation account by pointing out that everything in Genesis/creation seems to be from a central garden POV. Everything outside of that garden (which was made to resemble evolved earth at the time of the fall to ease the transition from the garden to the natural world)

So basically everything the bible points to happens in the Garden world (which again is about 2/3 of the size of North America according to some speculations) and evolution would have occoured outside the garden however you like.

[TubbyTubby]

Drich, as per your observation, at which point of the speciation of man was man/monkey forbidden from eating the fruit, and at which point did man get kicked out? And how does your observations account for the several branches of homosapiens?

Man was made in the image of God/Adam and Eve and their off spring.

Monkey man/evolved man is what was found outside the garden/was allowed to evolve, and never did the two meet till the fall.

My account seperates the creation account by pointing out that everything in Genesis/creation seems to be from a central garden POV. Everything outside of that garden (which was made to resemble evolved earth at the time of the fall to ease the transition from the garden to the natural world)

So basically everything the bible points to happens in the Garden world (which again is about 2/3 of the size of North America according to some speculations) and evolution would have occoured outside the garden however you like.

Exactly how was this boundary between the two areas constructed?

[Drich]

Man was made in the image of God/Adam and Eve and their off spring.

Monkey man/evolved man is what was found outside the garden/was allowed to evolve, and never did the two meet till the fall.

My account seperates the creation account by pointing out that everything in Genesis/creation seems to be from a central garden POV. Everything outside of that garden (which was made to resemble evolved earth at the time of the fall to ease the transition from the garden to the natural world)

So basically everything the bible points to happens in the Garden world (which again is about 2/3 of the size of North America according to some speculations) and evolution would have occoured outside the garden however you like.

Exactly how was this boundary between the two areas constructed?

4 rivers flowed from the garden and defined it according to genesis. We also have a description of armed angelic gaurds keeping everyone out after the fall.

Or if you prefer God's Will is the boundry.

[Huggy Bear]

If the Bible is translated literally: No chance for compatibility whatsoever.

If the Bible is translated metaphorically: maybe. To be honest, I'm not sure (but I'm very curious as to what the talking snake and the Garden of Eden are supposed to represent in that case). The only problem with metaphorical translation is that it provides thousands of possible interpretations, creating a shitload of potential disagreement within the Christian/Catholic community. So really, there'd be no way of knowing if the interpretation you're looking at is the right one. There's be no way of knowing if anyone got it right. :/

You're close...

I'll just say this because I really don't have time to do a lengthy explanation.

The story of the garden of Eden is told using symbolism. There was an deliberate act that occurred, but eating fruit wasn't it. The purpose of it being told in this manner is because it illustrates what took place in Eden and what was to take place in the future simultaneously (hint: Jesus Christ is symbolized in the garden of Eden).

Also the serpent was not a snake, after he beguiled Eve, God cursed the serpent to crawl on it's belly .... which makes no sense if he was a snake.

[Redbeard The Pink]

So is that what happened to dinosaurs? All the ones with arms and legs died instantly and they were replaced with snakes?

Dinosaurs are responsible for the fall of man, everyone. It was true in Jurassic Park, it was true in Jurassic World, and it's true in the Bible. Hallelujah.

[Huggy Bear]

Not even close.