Evolution != Atheism (re: the Rejection of Theism in Evolution)

First, let me make clear by what I mean when I say "literal interpretation"When someone writes: Your teeth are like pearls.
When someone writes: Your teeth are pearls.You would interpret both of those statements literally, because they are literature. Anything that is written, must, because it is written, be interpreted literally, because that is how you decode a written piece of information.Therefore, you would literally interpret the two statements above, but come to two different understandings. The first is obviously a metaphor. It is not saying that the teeth ARE pearls, which is exactly what the the second statement is saying. So you see that both are interpreted literally, but two diferent conclusions are invovled.Second, as far as your link is concerned, this short paragraph would pretty much sum-up my perspective:However, many modern biblical scholars, even those who tend to a literal interpretation on other issues, believe that the above passages do not support a universe centered on an immobile Earth, but are instead simply natural descriptions made from the perspective of the author. Much like the use of the present-day use of the words sunrise or sunset, such descriptions can (in their view) be considered to reflect the most convenient choice of a local coordinate system rather than an endorsement geocentrism. Some claim that the description of the Earth as a footstool in Isaiah is considered by most to be a metaphorical description of God's power, rather than an indication that God literally rests his feet on the Earth. It is argued that the context of the passages provides no reason to believe that the author intended them to be dogmatic statements regarding the location of the Earth in the universe, that any such implications are therefore indirect rather than reflecting the intended purpose of the author, and that drawing indirect implications from the text is improper, because it is often due more to the bias of the interpretor than the meaning of the text. Statements from the pope are not accepted as authoritative either because the doctrine of papal infallibility is rejected, or because it is believed that geocentrism is not such an issue of faith or morals and the pope is only infallible when he speaks on such issuesAnd I have a quote to offer you: The primary problem was that Aristotle's science was going out of style; but the church was still attached to him. It could not make a distinction between Aristotle and Christian teachings; and in that era, there was no distinguishment or separation of science from philosophy. For the Church, if Aristotle was wrong, Christianity was wrong.Galileo was a debout man, but he offended some in the hurch,not all, but some, I've already answered why it was a political fight earlier, you can go back and read that. So we'll move on from that.And finally, as for the topic: No, you don't automatically become an athiest by accepting evolution, but you do, by default, contradict theism in general, and the correct literal interpretation of the creation account in Genesis.I think it's enough about creation, because as many have already pointed out, evolution does not deal specifically with creation of the world and the universe, but origin of life and humans. Which very cleary denies the personal, caring, loving and purposeful God that you find in scripture. Because if death occured before sin (survival of the fittest), then sin is not the cause of death and there was no need to for Jesus to die and be resurrected.

The question was about a specific event that, as the Jews asking Him believed, occured in the past, namely, that Moses gave a command about divorce. Jesus answers in a way that makes it quite clear He believed that Moses actual did this thing, it took place on earth, in the past and was a factual, actual historical event.He doesn't talk as if it was simply a story given to make a point, it was a discussion about what actually happened and why. They were asking Him a legal question, and His answered was based on the scripture, which are synonymous with the Law. If the creation account cannot be taken as an actual historical occurence, then the very basis of marriage looses its foundation.Here is another explanation for how we can know whether or not Jesus interpreted scripture literally accurate (which He could do no other way, being that a written document can only be interpreted literally, as I've already discussed AND He was God in the flash, who could not have incorrectly interpreted scripture)Here too is a web page that gives a general outline for interpreting scripture: http://www.carm.org/bible/interpret.htmThis is how I basically interpret scripture. Which, as I've said before, contradicts basic evolutionary theory, because it makes the Genesis account, and thereby the rest of the bible, irrelevant. That is why I would say that the evolutionary theory as we have it today, is incomplete and incorrect. So, yes evolution infatically rejects theism.

No.The first is a simile - note the word "like".The second is a metaphor. We know that the subject's teeth are not literally pearls. They are like pearls. Leave out the word "like" and a simile becomes a metaphor. It does not change the meaning of the sentence.If you take "Your teeth are pearls" literally, you are talking about an unusual kind of dentures. Although they come from the same root, "literal" and "literature" are not the same thing.The Lord of the Rings is literature, but it is not literally true. Watership Down is literature, but it is not literally true. The Bible is literature, but all of it doesn't have to be literally true either.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

quote:

---

If the creation account cannot be taken as an actual historical occurence, then the very basis of marriage looses its foundation.

---

This is your opinion, but not necessarily Jesus' opinion.

Then why would Jesus use this as the basis of His answer to an historical question?And, this is the basis of marriage as we know it. One obvious fact that you are missing is that the Holy Spirit that wrote the bible is the same person as Jesus himself and God the father. So of course they are all of the same mind. It's obvious that all the rest of the bible has it's foundation in Genesis, if any of that is untrue, then the rest of bible crumbles!Again, I point you to proper biblical interpretation:
http://www.carm.org/bible/interpret.htmFollow these steps and you will come to the proper understanding of the authority Jesus gave to the OT.By the way, I thought we were here to present and support opinions, so of course that is my opinion, but I also believe it to be True and Correct. Your reply is the equivelent to saying: Na ah.

Saying that Genesis is not literally true is the correct Christian thing to do and say. To teach that Genesis is literally true is simply teaching ignorance.While someone may believe Genesis is true and accurate, that is simply wrong. That is the fact!

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

If you do not believe that what is written in Genesis is true, you are not, I repeat not, a Christian!

So you say, but as I have shown you, most Christian Churches disagree with you. A literal interpretation of Genesis is blasphemy, a direct insult to GOD's gifts.If you do believe that what is written in Genesis is true, you are not, I repeat not, a Christian.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

That the universe is about 13 billion years old is not in any way controversial. Neither is it really a question that the earth is four and a half billion years old, and the history of life extends back to three and a half billion years old. You may not believe it, but there it is.So the question is whether Jesus believed in a literal Genesis story. A literal belief in the Genesis story is not necessary to believe in the Law. Most observant contemporary Jews do not believe in a literal Genesis yet have no trouble using it to explicate the Law.So, the question is whether 1st century Jews believed in a literal Genesis. I do not know the answer to that question. If they did not, and since the Gospels do not tell of Jesus criticizing them for this, one can then assume that Jesus did not and was using Genesis metaphorically to explicate the Law.But let us assume, then, that 1st century Jews believed that Genesis was literal history. What does this say about the nature of Christ (assuming that the Gospels themselves are accurate history, which they are not).Now we know that Genesis is not literal history. You may not agree to that, but there it is. If Jesus was omniscient then he must have known that Genesis was not literal history. In that case, the only explanation for the passage in the Gospels is that Jesus was explaining the Law in terms that the Jews of that time could understand.But maybe Jesus' divinity did not extend to omniscience while he was on earth. It could be that Jesus himself believed that Genesis was literal. Then what of the passage? Assuming that he was speaking under divine inspiration, he was explaining the Law in terms that he and his fellow Jews could understand it.I don't know what more to say. Fortunately, I am not a Christian, I do not believe in the divinity of Jesus (in fact, I am not even certain he even existed), so I have no stake in whether he knew or did not know the correct history of the earth. But Christians who accept that the earth is several billions of years old, Christians who do not believe that God would fill the universe with misleading evidence, do have reconcile this somehow. Not that they should care what I think, but I feel that this particular point can be resolve logically and consistent with the facts as we know them.

Yes, and sadly you gave a list of mainline churches that are now ordaining gay bishops and ministers. So what does that tell you?Genesis is the foundation of every biblical doctrine: creation, man in the image of God, sin, the promise of a Savior, world-widecatastrophies presaging God ability and right to judge, the creation of the Hebrew Jewish people, and their place in the world.Saying you believe Jesus to be the Christ, but not believing the books that tell the coming of the Christ, is like having your feet firmly planted in mid-air.Again, the fact remains, a person that does not accept a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account, is not a disciple of Christ, a christian!

That they understand the message of Christ.Someone who oppresses Gays is not a Christian but a bigot. Genesis is an attempt by people moving from Nomad to Farmer to explain the world using HOW as they imagined it to explain the Why.Those who try to treat it as a literal description of HOW are simply ignorant and promoting ignorance. Reliance on Genesis as a literal description is both bad science and lousy theology. It is simply wrong to continue pushing ignorance on helpless children and that's what so many so-called Christians are doing today.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well you can say what you mean, but you were as wrong about this as you have been about everything else. As has already been pointed out: simile, metaphor, and "literal" does not mean "read from literature". What would "figurative" mean? Read from figures? There is absolutely no question that that is a position that one can take. However you have utterly missed the point. Clearly there are Xians that have and still do believe that those passages must be taken literally (not your definition of "literal"). Thus one can find such passages that when taken literally would defy scientific theories.You have not proven that they cannot mean that when taken literally, just that they do not have to be taken literally... they are "instead simply natural descriptions made from the perspective of the author."Now let's see if you can answer my question. If this can be true of those select passages, why can this not be true of other select passages? That is what I was getting at. Was that quote from my citation, or one of your own?I am not necessarily in total disagreement with it, but that still means nothing to our ongoing discussion. TODAY, the ID MOVEMENT and CREATIONISTS appeal to a Platonic view of science and believe that if it is not accepted, then Xianity will fail. That is within ID literature and the Kansas school board just said they have an intention of changing the definition of science to move it back to that.There is still a mistake going on in not differentiating inductive science from deductive science... believing one is necessary for a religion to exist and so it must be maintained.Like the Galileo/Church fights over geocentrism, religious people need to realize that rejecting an ancient greek method of science is not necessary, and neither is a specific interpretation of scripture, specifically when evidence is accumulating that a literal interpretation and a similar scientific theory are wrong. You can't just keep reasserting your position. That is not an argument and cannot make you more right.It has already been shown to you that evolution does not contradict theism "in general". Many theists can use it. The only ones who cannot, are the ones that must have speciation occur through different means.It has also already been pointed out that you are not the arbiter of what is "correct" literal interpretation (like how you've changed back on the definition again). There are many different versions of what is correct. Yes evolution would conflict with your interpretation, that is all. No offense, but evolution does not deny the personal, caring, loving an purposeful God found in scripture... the Bible denies the personal, loving, caring, and purposeful God I keep hearing about from people like you.He is an angry and jealous God. He said so himself. His direct command is obey and worship or suffer and die. He has slaughtered children and animals en masse to make a point to a few men and women. The Bible is not a nice book. Well there are debates about that, because it also hinges on interpretation. God was angry that they defied him and ate from the tree of knowledge and then feared if they ate from the tree of life. It is stated quite clearly that only if they had eaten from the tree of life would they have lived forever.Here is the quote from Genesis: Thus death was around them anyway and eternal life was not necessarily in the cards for them. While God said that if they ate from the tree of knowledge on that day they shall surely die, it can also mean that their world would end, you know... a metaphor?That would be in keeping with his other statement about their actual longevity.Thus sin and the fall and even Christ's redemption may be about suffering and not about life and death itself.I'm not saying that is the correct interpretation or the only one (indeed I believe in a bit more lengthy version which is nontheistic) but it certainly rules out yours as the only version and thus that evolution removes Xianity from existence.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Here is a basic understanding of one aspect of proper biblical interpretation:Page not found - BoundlessThis is one aspect of properly interpreting biblical passages. If this, among other things, is not done, then erroneous interpretations occur. Such as condoning homosexuality or encouraging racism. Both of which are condemned in the bible.You see, everything written in the bible has to be taken literally, which does not mean, for example, when psalms refers to trees clapping, that trees are actually behaving like humans and clapping their branches together like humans clap their hands. You would literally interpet that according to its context to be a poetic statement.

quote:

---

You see, everything written in the bible has to be taken literally, which does not mean, for example, when psalms refers to trees clapping, that trees are actually behaving like humans and clapping their branches together like humans clap their hands. You would literally interpet that according to its context to be a poetic statement.

---

So we should interpret everything in the Bible literally.
But that doesn't mean interpreting it literally.
We must literally interpret it by interpreting it figuratively instead of literally.

Interpreting the bible literally means interpreting it AS IT IS WRITTEN!In doing so, evolution and theism are mutally exclusive.