Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why evolution and Christianity cannot logically mesh
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 46 of 75 (351685)
09-23-2006 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by iano
09-23-2006 5:25 PM


immortality =/= spiritual life/eternal life
SIS!! I wanted Robin to say why he thought it was illogical not for you to prompt him with answers. Now I don't believe in Evolution for a minute but its fun to argue it.
OK, sorry for sticking my nose in. But I think all I said, bro, was basically what Robin himself has said about the illogic.
For your sins..You know that "surely die" means a spiritual death (according to traditional christianity). And that spiritual death also means the physcial death of Adam and the rest of us fallen creatures. What is incorrect with the view that in blowing Gods own life into Adam God also blew his immortality into a creature who up to that point was mortal. The gift of spiritual immortality given a particular creature who happened to be walking by ( Adam) is huge - that he be given physical immortality at that point was a necessity
Well, I think "surely die" meant death in both senses, the physical simply taking longer to come about, but it too no doubt started immediately with some sort of physical disease process at some level. Yes, humans died spiritually at the Fall and animals have a different life than humans do, but I think it's clear that they didn't die either -- physically in their case, including vulnerability to diseases -- until God laid the curse on them for our sake, and I do believe they suffer, no, not like us, but they suffer in the simplest sense, in that they feel pain, and scripture counsels kindness toward them too you know.
I don't think immortality is the same as spiritual life, Ian. After all God withheld the tree of life from Adam and Eve because they had sinned, and they could have had immortality in that condition, as the fallen angels do, but it would ultimately be a living death as hell must be, and the ultimate fate of Satan and his demons will be. Or maybe worse, because it would be a perpetual decaying of the body without death that sheds the body. Or something like that. Spiritual life, or eternal life, or the life in Christ, is real life, but that doesn't mean that they won't be sentient in hell.
{Edit: I think that all needs some ironing out, but bottom line is I don't see any justification for thinking animals died before the Fall.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by iano, posted 09-23-2006 5:25 PM iano has not replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 47 of 75 (351693)
09-23-2006 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by robinrohan
09-21-2006 11:26 PM


Robin writes:
Man came late in the evolutionary process. For billions of years before that, life forms battled each other on a killing field in the pre-Fall world. This was so because life was set up in such way that the only way creatures could survive was by feeding off other life forms. What manner of God would produce such a system?
There have been other answers.
Prayer to a Deer Slain by a Hunter
Excerpted from Ojibway Heritage
By Basil Johnston
I have sundered your spirit from its wordly frame.
No more will you run in freedom
Because of my need.
I had need.
You have in life served your kind in goodness.
By your life, I will serve my brothers.
Without you I hunger and grow weak.
Without you I am helpless, nothing.
I had need.
Give me your flesh for strength.
Give me your casement for protection.
Give me your bones for my labours,
And I shall not want.
Also, you say:
One might counter that our morality is subjective, so our moral judgment against God is no evidence of cruelty. But if our moral judgments are subjective, then the concept of sin is meaningless. Hence, evolution and Christianity (of the traditional sort) do not mix.
If God defines sin, and God is objective, then the subjective nature of our moral judgment is irrelevant. But it seems to me that the actual meaning of "subjective" is that things appear uniquely to each observer, so God would be just as subjective as the rest of us.
Of course God would think everyone is out of stop but Johnny--who doesn't?

God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, ”Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It’s yours.’
--Ann Coulter, Fox-TV: Hannity & Colmes, 20 Jun 01
Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by robinrohan, posted 09-21-2006 11:26 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by robinrohan, posted 09-24-2006 7:11 AM Omnivorous has not replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 48 of 75 (351699)
09-23-2006 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by robinrohan
09-21-2006 11:26 PM


For whatever it's worth to you I just finished Francis Collins' new book "The Language of God". Now I'm no expert but he is. He has no problem with meshing Christianity and evolution and actually thinks that they compliment one another.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by robinrohan, posted 09-21-2006 11:26 PM robinrohan has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 75 (351743)
09-24-2006 7:11 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Omnivorous
09-23-2006 10:29 PM


If God defines sin, and God is objective, then the subjective nature of our moral judgment is irrelevant.
It's not irrelevant to the idea of sin. Sin requires an objective morality and it also requires our knowledge of that morality. There has to be an objective morality, and we have to know what it is. Then, if we violate that morality, we have sinned.
If morals are subjective, then what I think is wrong might very well be different from what you think is wrong, and neither of us can be said to be either correct or incorrect. It's just a matter of personal preference, like tastes in food. So if I dislike green beans, and you eat them and like them, I can say you sinned. That's what it amounts to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Omnivorous, posted 09-23-2006 10:29 PM Omnivorous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by iano, posted 09-24-2006 7:33 AM robinrohan has replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 50 of 75 (351746)
09-24-2006 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by robinrohan
09-24-2006 7:11 AM


It's not irrelevant to the idea of sin. Sin requires an objective morality and it also requires our knowledge of that morality. There has to be an objective morality, and we have to know what it is. Then, if we violate that morality, we have sinned.
I think I see where you are going awry w.r.t. sin Robin. According to the model you are running you are logically correct. If fallen and our morality skewed (subjective) then how can we be held legally guilty by the objective morality. There would be 2nd rate barristers at the day of Judgment plea bargaining on the basis of that loophole: if my morality was rendered subjective through no fault of mine then how can I be condemned for applying it?
Is that about it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by robinrohan, posted 09-24-2006 7:11 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by robinrohan, posted 09-24-2006 7:44 AM iano has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 75 (351747)
09-24-2006 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by iano
09-24-2006 7:33 AM


If fallen and our morality skewed (subjective) then how can we be held legally guilty by the objective morality. There would be 2nd rate barristers at the day of Judgment plea bargaining on the basis of that loophole: if my morality was rendered subjective through no fault of mine then how can I be condemned for applying it?
Is that about it?
Yes, it would be like a plea of insanity. However, if our conscience bothers us, that would be a sign that we do at bottom have knowledge of the true morality. If so, our knowledge is objective, and we are culpable. Also, we can form moral judgments about the actions of others that are valid.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by iano, posted 09-24-2006 7:33 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by iano, posted 09-24-2006 7:54 AM robinrohan has not replied
 Message 53 by iano, posted 09-24-2006 8:14 AM robinrohan has not replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 52 of 75 (351748)
09-24-2006 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by robinrohan
09-24-2006 7:44 AM


If we had no conscience it would mean that God wasn't active. In that case we would act according to our nature - just like animals do. There could be no punishment for that. We could be just thrown in the scrap as a failed project. Destroyed
But God does act. We have our conscience telling us truth so when we disobey it we are actively and willfully sinning. We have our sinful nature pushing us in that direction but we didn't have to go there. This can be rightfully punished. And will be
That is the model. The other aspect is that God uses the fact that we disobey conscience to draw us. He knows that we will hear him through conscience and that we will very often deny it. In his foresight he institued the law. Beccause he knew by doing so we would break that law. Now conscience has a tool - our law breaking. It uses the fact we break the law to press down on us. It attempts to remind us of that fact. We feel guilt and shame. And in denying conscience we wriggle around denying that we have done so. In the measure we succeed in suppressing this truth we pull away from God. In the measure we don't suppress we are drawn nearer. All without God having to reveal himself to us. Smart huh?.
That is a way to see it. Not some middle ground subjective. Rather a fight between extreme opposites. Sinful depravity (our nature) vs Pure goodness (conscience - or rather, his Holy Spirit working on us to convince us of our sin)
The fact that there are so many moral views simply represents the state of the battle between the two. Folk are at different points on the continuum. At one end of that continuum you have salvation. At the other you have death/God ceases calling whilst still alive
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by robinrohan, posted 09-24-2006 7:44 AM robinrohan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by nator, posted 09-24-2006 9:54 AM iano has not replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 53 of 75 (351750)
09-24-2006 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by robinrohan
09-24-2006 7:44 AM


The end of Romans 7 describes what goes through the mind of a man who has reached the salvation end of the continuum. He is not saved yet but has been drawn to the edge of the cliff and is about to be drawn over the edge into salvation. The section illustrates a mans conscience screaming at him. He is under total conviction of his sin at this point
15I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good.
When we feel guilt and shame for wrongdoing what is actually happening is that we are acknowledging that Gods law (even though we might not realise it as Gods law - if we are further down the continuum, further away from the cliff of salvation) is good. Thats what shame is. A conviction that we have sinned against God.
Now a person might not be in the turmoil of this man where they are so tossed as he is. Furhter down the continuum there might only be shame - not the questioning of it. There might well be repression* of it instead
*Or rather 'suppression' Paul uses that word. "Suppression of truth". Our consciences tell us truth about ourselves and we suppress that truth
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by robinrohan, posted 09-24-2006 7:44 AM robinrohan has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 54 of 75 (351754)
09-24-2006 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by iano
09-22-2006 6:12 AM


quote:
Firsly let me say that I do not believe in TOEvolution as commonly understood. My own reading of scripture disallows that notion and no science is going to change the fact. This is not so much close mindedness as it is placing what I believe scripture to say above what I believe man can say.
The term you are looking for is "willful ignorance".

"Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!"
- Ned Flanders
"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." - Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by iano, posted 09-22-2006 6:12 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by iano, posted 09-24-2006 8:37 AM nator has replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 55 of 75 (351755)
09-24-2006 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by nator
09-24-2006 8:23 AM


For placing Gods word above fallen mans? hmmm
Hey Robin - see what I mean about position along the continuum?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by nator, posted 09-24-2006 8:23 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by nator, posted 09-24-2006 9:17 AM iano has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 56 of 75 (351762)
09-24-2006 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by iano
09-24-2006 8:37 AM


quote:
For placing Gods word above fallen mans? hmmm
Doesn't "fallen man" interpret the word of God?
AbE: And yes, rejecting evidence from the real world, no matter how much there is nor how compelling, in favor of your preconceived notions is the very essence of willful ignorance.
You wish to remain ignorant of any facts if it contradicts your interpretation of the Bible.
Willful ignorance.
Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

"Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!"
- Ned Flanders
"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." - Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by iano, posted 09-24-2006 8:37 AM iano has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 57 of 75 (351765)
09-24-2006 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by iano
09-24-2006 7:54 AM


quote:
If we had no conscience it would mean that God wasn't active.
So why, then, do so many people come to different conclusions about what is right or wrong depending upon the culture they grow up in, the laws of their land, the religion they were raised in, the era they live in, the books they read and the experiences they have?
I mean, look at moral vegetarians. They do not eat meat because their conscience doesn't allow it.
My conscience allows me to eat meat with certain caveats.
Other people have no caveats at all regarding meat eating.
In which one of these examples is God "active"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by iano, posted 09-24-2006 7:54 AM iano has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 58 of 75 (351805)
09-24-2006 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by iano
09-23-2006 7:36 AM


quote:
The reasoning for post-fall suffering is as clear as day and is not a problem at all. Gods wrath poured out on sin is what is going on.
I don't agree. Even allowing for your view that animals don't suffer - itself highly questionable - there's the whole question of why the Fall happened at all. If God's so perfect it wouldn't happen unless He wanted it to happen.
quote:
Now a person could say that that seems somewhat extreme a reaction but they would wouldn't they - they are fallen. Or to put it in a less smartass fashion - without knowing the extremity of the significance of sin one is not in a position to say the reaction is extreme.
Even the "less smartass" version amounts to "if you don't know I'm right you're in no position to say I'm wrong". But the idea that - say - leaving the cap off the toothpaste is sufficient to justify the punishment of not only the guilty party but many others as well is a pretty obvious overreaction. So you really do need to make a serious case for what you're claiming.
quote:
If God says sin is that bad then it is. If this is unacceptable is it only because you say so. We have Gods view vs your view. Thus we either believe you or we believe God. Then we must ask why should we believe you over God.
Of course that isn't what I'm saying at all. It is generally accepted that "sins" are bad (although it might certainly be questioned if some supposed "sins" really are sinful - or bad). The question is does the sin justify suffering ? It clearly isn't the case that the worst sinners endure the worst suffering or that the righteous are spared (is that not the point of Job ?). So simply claiming that "sin" is a justification for even post-fall suffering is far from clear - even if God did not intend or desire the Fall.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by iano, posted 09-23-2006 7:36 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by iano, posted 09-24-2006 5:52 PM PaulK has replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 59 of 75 (351855)
09-24-2006 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by PaulK
09-24-2006 1:40 PM


iano writes:
The reasoning for post-fall suffering is as clear as day and is not a problem at all. Gods wrath poured out on sin is what is going on.
Paulk writes:
I don't agree. Even allowing for your view that animals don't suffer - itself highly questionable - there's the whole question of why the Fall happened at all. If God's so perfect it wouldn't happen unless He wanted it to happen.
I think the wrath of God poured out on mankind because of his wickedness is fairly well established myself. We are supposing that evolution is the case so the Fall of nature takes on a different aspect than the view which holds no evolution.
"Even allowing for my view" can work both ways. It is highly questionable that animals suffer if one has first accepted (for that is the grounds on which we must investigate the thread title) that man is a species completely apart (God did something to an existing creature which made him man rather than creature). The question of whether animals suffer is impenetrable for want of being able to look at it from the animals perspective.
I don't see any imperfection in God because of the fall of man. He allowed man a choice and allowed man to reap the consequences of that choice. He warned them there would be consequences too. God is vindicated no matter what the outcome for individuals. If in Hell his justice and wrath vent their fury against sin. If in heaven his justice and love pour out on those who have been washed clean of sin. God can't lose either way. The Fall impinges not on his perfection
Now a person could say that that seems somewhat extreme a reaction but they would wouldn't they - they are fallen. Or to put it in a less smartass fashion - without knowing the extremity of the significance of sin one is not in a position to say the reaction is extreme.
Even the "less smartass" version amounts to "if you don't know I'm right you're in no position to say I'm wrong". But the idea that - say - leaving the cap off the toothpaste is sufficient to justify the punishment of not only the guilty party but many others as well is a pretty obvious overreaction.
Overreaction on what basis? God made it that Adam would pass on that which made him man to his offspring. Like breeds like. We all got our mankindedness from him. That was the order set up. Now if Adam goes and makes a mutant of himself with his rebellion then all his offspring will be mutants. God is holy - he cannot let sin pass. It must be punished. Wrath is an aspect of who God is. Love and Justice are also aspects of God. He cannot not be God. So its not like he could chose not to be wrathful against sin. As it happens the effect of this wrath poured out is to result in man sinning more - which God in his love uses to bring back man to himself. He uses the very fact of his wrath as a means to save us while we still can be. Like if that isn't bending over backwards I do not know what is.
Nor is it that those being punished have no option but to sin. They have - they have a conscience tugging at them not to sin. Yet they chose to. So people today are not being punished for Adams sin but their own sin. We all know we chose to do wrong when we didn't have to. Our sin which attracts Gods (seriously curtailed) wrath. The full blown wrath comes later on. The level of wrath which sin actually attracts. No holds barred wrath (*shivers at the thought*)
Of course that isn't what I'm saying at all. It is generally accepted that "sins" are bad (although it might certainly be questioned if some supposed "sins" really are sinful - or bad). The question is does the sin justify suffering ? It clearly isn't the case that the worst sinners endure the worst suffering or that the righteous are spared (is that not the point of Job ?). So simply claiming that "sin" is a justification for even post-fall suffering is far from clear - even if God did not intend or desire the Fall.
The only person who can decide how bad sin is is God. We cannot. We can debate all we like but patently this is the way it is and it is fairly clear from the Bible that that is the view he takes. Any argument about it being too severe stumbles over that fact.
I know the the good die young and that the wicked prosper but we must remember that this life of ours is but a blip. It is a temporary arena where eternal destination is figured out. If Adam hadn't fallen God would have had a means to deal with that. He did, and God has a means to deal with this.
Accounts will be settled and in full measure later. There is greater and lesser in the kingdom of God. There will be some who come through as if through fire. There is good reason to suppose there will be greater and lesser in Hell too. To each according to what he has done. I wouldn't worry about injustice on this front.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by PaulK, posted 09-24-2006 1:40 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by GDR, posted 09-24-2006 7:01 PM iano has not replied
 Message 61 by Faith, posted 09-24-2006 7:15 PM iano has replied
 Message 63 by PaulK, posted 09-24-2006 7:42 PM iano has not replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 60 of 75 (351888)
09-24-2006 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by iano
09-24-2006 5:52 PM


iano writes:
I think the wrath of God poured out on mankind because of his wickedness is fairly well established myself.
Hi Ian
I would come at that from an entirely different perspective. I wouldn't agree that it has anything at all to do with God's wrath. We have been given guidelines for life which are based on loving all of our neighbours and wanting the best for them. It's like telling a 2 year old not to play in the street. If he follows the guidelines it keeps him safe, whereas if he plays in the street he is likely to get hit bay a car.
When individuals, nations or mankind in general operate outside of the guidelines things will go wrong as a natural consequence, not because of God supernaturally intervening to punish those that live outside the guidelines.
Greg

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by iano, posted 09-24-2006 5:52 PM iano has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Faith, posted 09-24-2006 7:21 PM GDR has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024