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

It think it is also time to define the term "literally" and "literal".I suppose it best, for me anyway, is to simply say that these terms mean that we interpret a poem in the bible as a poem, an historical account as an historical account, and analogy as an anology, metaphor as metaphor and so on.Considering this, I believe it right to say that, when Jesus referenced or quoted the OT, we must automatically assume he was doing so literally, thereby rendering any arguement that Jesus did not take the bible literally, as useless.Thus when Jesus said things like: "Destroy this temple and I will rebuild it in three days" he used to anology of the body being like a temple of the Holy Spirit. Although, the jews he was speaking to at the time thought he was refering to the temple that King Solomon had built. The did NOT interpret what he said literally, according to the definition I have just posited, but instead interpreted what he said incorrectly as pros, instead of as an anology. So, as a course, "literally" or "literal" refere to the just exact intentions of the author. Which we come about through various and sundry ways.Another example is Jesus saying: "As Jonah was in the belly of a great fish for three days and three nights, so shall the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights" This quite clearly shows that Jesus believed the scriptures, refering to Jonah, to be an actual historical account, and he interpreted them as such.

Please list these supposed stances as they are worded by each church denomination that you present.And, I might add, support of teaching the TOE and supporting the TOE are two different positions.

Yes, many people take that position. But if you examine the Talmudic Tradition you'll find that is a completely erroneous assumption.What You quote: What is there in that statement to show he considered it to be true as opposed to an example?This message has been edited by jar, 06-10-2005 01:01 PM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I'm not sure I understand your question.He used a story in the OT to illustrate what was going to happen, because He knew that the people he was speaking to knew the story.

But I am a theist and not a creationist. I also accept that evolution occurred. Therefore even if evolution opposes and contradicts the Christian religion (which I don't think it does, but that's irrelevant), it is not atheism, it does not explicitly contradict the divine.

quote:

---

These two beliefs are contrary to one another, thus making theism contrary to naturalism.

---

I'd like to expand on that though. First - I don't believe that has to be the case at all - whilst it seems contradictory there are theistic naturalists out there. But that's beside the point. This thread isn't whether naturalism is atheistic, but whether the theory of evolution is. Since I am a theist and an 'evolutionist', I stand as evidence that this is not the case.This stemmed from: Evolutionary theory does not deny the existence of a supernatural cause in general. It simply doesn't include one, the same way other modern scientific theories don't. I don't see the problem with a theory that doesn't end in "but ultimately, God is the first cause of all".

Be happy to. You can find links to their positions and those of many other organizations here.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

So if I said, like the tortoise beat the hare, I shall defeat the competition, though it seems to outclass me...does that mean I believe there really was a race.If a small business manages to make a monopoly give way to it - I might say "Like David and Goliath". Does that mean I believe the story to be literally true?

Correct. He used a familar folktale. There is nothing to show that he considered it a true story. It is like a parent using the tale of what happened to Hemelin.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well, if that scripture is not strong enough for you, then I refer you again to Matthew 19:3-8.This is clear to me that Jesus hold the Genesis account of creation to be a historically accurate telling of the origin of the universe, life and humans.And I would like to point out, that to be a theist is to believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirt of the bible and to believe in these three of the bible is to believe the bible and to believe any philosophy contrary to the bible is to doubt the bible against this philosphy which would cast doubt on the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, there by rendering one not theistic. Yes? I believe so.

That is exactly what I'm saying, evolutionary theory does not allow for the literal interpretation of the Genesis account.

No!

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yes!

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This is not a good way to discuss a subject. You have already said it was a political fight and not based on scripture. I have given you a link showing that it was, it can be, and it still is a debate about scripture.I even provided you with a quote from a leader within the church at the time discussing the ramifications of heliocentrism on biblical reading.Your simply repeating your premise in the face of contrary evidence is really bad form. Please deal with the evidence provided. This is remarkable, either in its disingenuity or in its display of ignorance regarding the text of the Bible. Yes, let us look at Job 9:6... That clearly suggests the nature of earth is to be immobile. It has a place from which it can be shaken, and which causes the pillars to tremble.If taken literally, that would make astronomic descriptions of earth to be contrary to scripture. Not "according to me". I gave you a quote from a Xian involved with the issue at the time and provided a link which discusses modern geocentrism and the claims made by those Xians today. I am taking them at their word.Unless you are going to start rambling on about them not being Xians or something, by the fact that they disagree with your convenient interpretation, you need to deal with the reality that literal readings of scripture certainly do support a geocentrist view, regardless of Aristotle. Evolutionary belief held by a Xian would not be contradictory. It would only be contradictory to those Xian who believe in a literal interpretation of the creation story. That kind of literalness is not necessary for becoming a Xian, just as you and most other Xians have reject literal interpretation regarding geocentric wording in the Bible.

---

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

I think the fact that this board, and others like it, exist speak of the self-evidence of that. However, the topic title stands.Evolution != Athiesm

Mathew 19:3-8 (NRSV) That Jesus quoted Genesis is not disputed, but these passages do not actually state that Jesus believed in their literal truth. I am an atheist and accept the theory of evolution, but even I have quoted the creation story, the flood story, and even the Tower of Babel to emphasise a point that I am making.