Confused

Hi Falkram. I don't think a belief in evolution automatically means you can't be a Christian. I like to think I can reconcile the two of them. As a research scientist I have a reasonably sound idea of what constitutes scientific evidence and I find it hard to deny the existence of plenty of evidence which supports the theory of evolution. I have yet to find any solid evidence of creation as described by Genesis. As a Christian and a Roman Catholic I believe that God sent his Son to die for my sins. Whether he created everything in six days is a moot point when you consider that. Additionally, Genesis was written by a MAN, trying to explain where he came from. Now whether he made it up, or misinterpreted what God was saying to him, I don't know. All I know is that being a man, the writer was therefore fallible. The Roman Catholic Churh accepts evolution of living bodies as acceptable to their faith, but not the evolution of the soul or spirit. At the end of it all, I only have to reconcile the two positions in a way that I can work with, my faith and relationship with God are personal, not based on church ideology or what the Pope says, but on what I feel comfortable with.If people choose to judge your faith on a single item which bears very little relation to the whole crux of Christianity, then let them judge - it's their problem not yours. What was it that was said "Judge not lest ye be judged"? In my humble opinion if certain Christians stopped commenting on everyone else's faith or lack thereof and started concentrating on their own, the world might just be a happier place.The decision has to be your own, but you must base that decision on as much sound evidence as you can gather. Don't base your decision on opinions which are never backed up. God gave every one of us, including scientists, a brain with which to wonder and puzzle and theorise and discover and invent. It's our responsibility to use that brain as wizely as we can, for His sake.Am I making any sense here???

Yes. Which is why the creationists will tell you you're going to hell.

hello! new to this forum so pardon my lack of protocol. grace2u--your passion is commendable, but purely subjective to your situation in life. science is the objective attaining of knowledge about the natural universe. the only reason science works is because it is objective to the natural world. if your religion helps you find comfort and warmth in an unsympathetic and relentlessly changing world, i am happy you have found solace in something. just make sure your savior doesn't make a martyr of your intellect, however flawed it may be. confused, if you want to believe that there is a creator that set things in motion the way we see them today and throughout the 12 or so billion years of the universe's history that is wonderful! however, be aware that hovind is doing what he thinks is right--breaking a commandment that he professes to follow in order to save what he thinks is his salvation. the tortured logic, outright lies, and lies by ommision are standard fare for creationists and intelligent design-ers. keep looking into real science while looking into the history of the viewpoints presented.

Falkram,

quote:

---

As a Christian and a Roman Catholic I believe that God sent his Son to die for my sins. Whether he created everything in six days is a moot point when you consider that.

---

This post from Trixie hits the nail right on the head.Do not let your belief/disbelief in evolution affect your relationship with Christ. If you believe that God sent his Son to die for our sins, then continue to believe that regardless of what you believe about evolution.Evolution is a heavily tested theory supported by many facts. Does this mean it is true? Not necessarily. It is up to you, personally, to decide, if you must. I suggest you decide only after having done research for yourself.If you decide to research for yourself, then do not visit only evolution websites or only creation websites (or read only books on evolution. . .). While many of them contain truth, facts, or evidence supporting either side, they are often biased and give the impression that THIS is the truth. So visit evolutionist and creationist websites alike, read both creation and evolution books (or any other explanations you might want to look into), and form your own opinions.

phil and trixieif you believe christ came to die for our sins, then you have to admit that we have sinned. if christ is here for the newly baptized baby's sins or for the sins of the newborns not baptized yet, then how did these children receive their sins? if you say it came down from adam and eve as original sin, then you are keeping part of a story (origin of sin from genesis) while throwing out the parts of the story with which you don't agree (six day creation and so forth). if adam and eve would not have sinned then christ would not have been necessary, so that then makes christianity moot! what is it that you actually believe? if i say the grass is green, it is a correct statement. if i say grass is green because of chlorophyll, then that is also a true statement. but no matter how much i believe, i cannot honestly say that the unadulterated grass is purple or blue. some things are true which make other statements false. you cannot decide to "believe in" evolution, or to correctly state it, the theories that support evolution. if evolution were subjective, it would not be scientific. one of the reasons evolution is such a polarizing issue is that the theories supporting it are so objective that it allows no room for anything else. every living thing on earth shares the same four nucleotides for dna and the same four nucleotides for rna. from the lowliest bacteria to you. can i test whether a god made us that way? of course not. that is not science. that is subjective "you can believe it or not, decide for yourselves". the fact of common descent, that is objective. whether you believe it or not. your belief for or against a fact is of no consequence. you can believe the grass is blue and the sky is green, but that doesn't make it so.

quote:

---

Furthermore, given our ability to usually get the facts wrongs, why should we worship our own rational thought over a supposed perfect in quality/nature God, that many would agree logic simply demands must exist.

---

Well, once we took "Godidit" out of the quest for understanding of Nature and the Universe, we started to get much better and more accurate results from our studies.So, IOW, because we leave the supernatural out of science, we have been acquiring knowledge and understanding at an ever-increasing and ever-more accurate rate.Quite the opposite to your claim of humans tendency to "get the facts wrong", wouldn't you say?

quote:

---

He supports this position in that He has demsonstrated His compassion for me by giving me morals

---

Morals don't come from God. Morality is a human social construct and is often conveyed to people through religious instruction. However, it does not logically follow that people would be amoral if they did not believe in God. If that were true, the prisons would be full of Atheists, and we all know that this is not at all the case.

quote:

---

In searching for ways to explain this truth, I(and many theists on this site) have encountered adequate amounts of evidence that could allow a rational person to have a reason to believe. The sad reality however, is that ultimately no amount of evidence will ever be sufficient for many.

---

I think you are not using the term "rational evidence" in the same way that most science-minded people use it. "Rational evidence", to me, means "scientific (repeatable, falsifiable, observable-by-all) evidence". How do you mean it?

quote:

---

I have lived life on the other side, and know what the world has to offer. Selfishness, pride, hurt and ultimately a lonely death.

---

Funny, I have had exactly the same experience, except that I shed all of those same feelings when I stopped believing.This is easily seen by examining the ultimate end of a life without Christ. Uncertainty and death are all that remain.[/quote]Funny, all of those millions of Hindus, Muslims, and Buddhists around the world, who combined outnumber Christians by quite a lot, probably are quite certain of their eternal reward.Grace, your religious tunnel vision is showing.

quote:

---

In my opinion, this is a cold view of the world, is self destructive and is even irrational.

---

Luckily, your opinion has little to do with reality.Do you have any actual survey results or published studies which show that non-Christians or non-Theists lead morose, dismal, self-destructive, lonely lives?If education levels, divorce statistics, and general hapiness levels are to be believed, non-Christians and/or non-Theists do better than Christians.

quote:

---

While they that posses this outlook many times appear to have reached a true knowledge and have a solid grasp on reality, upon closer inspection, it becomes quite apparent that their worldview can not explain the observed realities this world exhibits(truth,morality, evil, good, love,justice, etc).

---

I would strongly disagree! All of these things can be and are explained in terms of human nature and social constructs. The explanations may not be comforting or reassuring to you, but they are explanations, nonetheless.

quote:

---

So why leave the light and enter darkness...

---

Now I'm begining to become insulted.I do not consider myself to be in "darkness" in the slightest! My life is filled with wonder and joy and delight and laughter and love and fun! I experience deep feelings and profound insights.I lead a fulfilled life, all without belief.(As an aside, I can't help but notice that all of the non-Christians in this thread respect Falkram enough to simply give him information and also to let him know that he does not need to let others dictate how he should or should not believe. You, Grace, OTOH, jump right in and begin with the scare tactics about "darkness" and "loneliness" and "death" if he leaves Christianity. This speaks more about the insecurity and basic fearfulness of Christians than it does for the usefulness or validity of the religion.)

You know, I agree completely with Shraf in the prior post. The atheists and theistic evos on this board seem to want the poster to be able to continue with their faith. The creationists, on the other hand, seem to have this need to tell others that the way they believe is WRONG.It seems that the REAL purpose of organized religion is to drive people away from belief. When you tie up your religion on the basis of negating scientific theory, what happens when more and more is demonstrated? What happens as more and more facts are found that backup scientific theory? You are quickly leaving the only option to be giving up belief.

---

Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

Hitchy, let me get it clear please, you're actually saying if any part at all of Genesis is wrong then "that make Christianity moot"?So if us nasty old athiests, most of whom will agree that you "can't disprove God", ever manage to show that anything in Genesis is wrong then we win? Oh boy! Thank you very much. You actually want to set it up so that, in the end, we can "disprove God"! Wow!Would you actually be willing to travel the country "preaching" this message to the unsure or unconverted? If I actual had some need to see Christianity reduced this is the best I could ask of you.Now since there are several parts of Genesis that the majority of people are easily convinced are wrong what exactly have you done with this? I'd say you've earned your place in the afterlife you believe in. But it isn't in the clouds.On the other hand maybe you should rethink your interpretation of Genisis. Maybe the "fall" isn't what you think it is. In the evolutionary scenario, the last things before true humans were "beasts" and therefore "innocent". Maybe the whole Eden thing is really not a fall but an uplift. But we carry the old ways from our ancestors, that is the "original" sin which we need to be saved from.

---

Common sense isn't

"Hitchy, let me get it clear please, you're actually saying if any part at all of Genesis is wrong then "that make Christianity moot"?"actually NosyNed, i said "if adam and eve would not have sinned then christ would not have been necessary, so that then makes christianity moot!"sorry if i confused you. next time i will try to keep my mind on the argument at hand.

The story of Adam and Eve could be a metaphor to explain why Christ's sacrifice is necessary. That, I believe, it the view taken by most Christians.

I have never made a claim that we should place the super-natural in science. I am an electrical engineer(HW designer) and I love science. I love that it is predictable and that it represents order. I love applied mathematics because it demonstrates to me the created order. What you are speaking of has no relevance to what my position is. It is unfortunate that many believers appear to disdain science, probably because they do not fully understand what science is. The reality is that most of the worlds greatest scientists were Christians and many, I am sure, would agree with my points. By saying that we do not know anything, I do not mean to imply that we should ignore science and simply claim "God just did it", rather I am suggesting that all philosophies and even sciences are based on a whole slew of presuppositions such that in the end it is ultimately in conclusive on anything. Science is entirely separate from this discussion. We are all equally amoral (believers and non-believers). Christ is the only exception. You are demonstrating an extreme lack of understanding concerning the nature of this discussion, it is not physical rather metaphysical in nature. You simply do not use science to prove Christianity or any other religion for that matter. Religion should be consistent with science however it can not and never will prove Gods existence(and therefore is the wrong tool to use). How do you suppose such a thing will could ever be scientifically verified? Do you then allege that NOTHING exists if it CAN NOT be proved via scientific method? This is a silly and extremely over simplified way to attempt to answer this age old question. The question is answered and debated using philosophical resources not scientific processes(science can be used as evidence however). My theology would say then that you never truly did believe then. We all have reasons to believe(some even have passion). We all have a set of presuppositions that become apparent when faced with potential contradictions. Yours are equally apparent. Finally something we can agree on . Reality(truth) is absolute, irregardless of what we think it is. Since this is true, do you not see a problem with embracing thought as the truth? Is it not more logical to simply acknowledge that an absolute authority must exist external of our own minds? I am honestly asking here, have you ever seriously pondered the philosophical implications of atheism.To expect science to answer a question that it never could. Have I misunderstood you? I have never claimed that non-Christians LEAD such lives. In fact, I readily agree with you that they can live productive and good lives. This is an obvious reality. When I speak of darkness and light, I am speaking of spiritual things, not mere physical. This is a valid statement for someone to make that believes Christianity is correct. It is not meant to insult or degrade other non-believers and I apologize that it did. These concepts are described in this way because we believe Christ to be the "light of the world". That is, He reveals that which is hidden in darkness. For example, He has stated through the apostle Paul, that the worlds philosophy is empty and oversimplified. It does not consistently follow through what the logical implications of it's statements are. While formal academic philosophy is quite good, challenging to grasp and I enjoy it, it is still lacking, in that it's ultimate conclusion is that we simply do not know anything. Science ultimately is similar(theories not factual). Everything is contingent upon other things, finally resting on the fact that we don't know if we exist or if we are part of some matrix or if matter will change at some time and then nullify most of what was understood. Sure there are probabilities involved but ultimately it is inconclusive as is philosophy. Even still, both sides will pick and choose what they want to believe and assume to be more or less likely an explanation (myself included at times). That is one reason, why I have concluded that truth MUST exist(God). Because it is impossible for Him (from truth) to not exist. I think that this is consistent with reality given the examples I have provided in other threads concerning absolute truth and morality.Even still, given your view of "free thought" or potentially relativism(if you do maintain this position), why are you insulted that I would say such things to another believer? Is this not perfectly ok within your understanding of the world? Or are you picking and choosing what is ok and what is not, all the while assuming that something is possible to be OK or not OK. If it is possible by the way(for something to be ok or not ok), how does your worldview explain this? I do not disagree with you on this. My point is that since all good things come from Christ, He has given you everything that is good and that you find joy in. You might disagree, but that doesn't make it truthful, as I'm sure you would agree. In fact even if you can rationalize why I am wrong, that still is based on many assumptions that you will never be able to be fully confident in.I suggest that instead of ignoring the philosophical implications of your position, you would instead understand that there is more to life than scientific proofs and evidence. I agree that science is a good thing and that it is productive and meaningful, however, I also do concede that science is an attempt at man to understand that which is infinite in complexity(the cosmos) and is therefore limited(btw, I don't know if you are a scientist or not, but most of the ones I know would probably agree with me on this).Sciences results ultimately are consistent with general theism and even Christianity. Fine, you might say that it doesn't agree with the flood, this is fine. Congratulations, you at best have a decent case against the inerrancy of the bible or perhaps against a literalists interpretation of the bible. Of course your case is not full proof and is therefore based on some faith. You might rationalize that the literal flood is unlikely and many Christians would possibly agree with you. The ultimate problem you have however is that if the Christian God does exist, then even the lack of evidence of a worldwide flood or young earth, does not mean anything, since He could have simply commanded the appearance of an old earth in order to test our faith in these latter days of advanced science.This argument then is illogical in that it does not prove that the Christian God does not exist, nor does it prove He does exist. The question CAN NOT be answered by science.So answer this, Why do you believe God does not exist, or that the Christian God does not exist? Surely you have a reason for such a belief, in light of the evidence suggesting He does. Why make such rash assumptions? While it is true that some Christians might profess faith out of fear, others do not. In fact Christian theology is quite against this concept. My faith is described above because I have experience Christ. It is true that I can not fully demonstrate this to you(as would be expected, I am not sovereign).My final point is that God has made Himself apparent to creation through morality ,wisdom and the order observed within the universe.
God has said that we are imperfect and that we will produce reasons to not believe in Him. He has also said that these reasons are oversimplified and that ultimately, this position of unbelief is foolish.I, upon observing the world in which I live, can agree that this is consistent with what we understand to be true concerning the nature of the universe through both philosophy and through the natural sciences. Like it or not, this is all an act of divine grace and sovereign authority.Take care..[This message has been edited by grace2u, 01-06-2004]

How on earth can you say that I must believe in the sin of Adam and Eve when I've just said I don't believe that Genesis is a true reflection of the beginnings of life. I mean, surely it follows that I don't have much truck with Adam and Eve. Neither do I have much truck with the concept of Original Sin, but I'm in the good company of the RC Church, who no longer teach Original Sin and have dropped the whole idea!!! I hate to point this out, but the sin of Adam and Eve is hardly the single sin that mankind has managed to fall into. I can believe in sin without believing in Original Sin. For example, I think it might just be a sin to beat up an old person and steal their pension, no matter what I think about Adam and Eve (which is not a lot), I believe it's a sin to say untrue things about people, I believe it's a sin to treat people badly. I think you'll find that most people believe these things are wrong, no matter what their religious position is, so Adam and Eve and Original Sin don't come into it.So, hitchy, of course I admit that "we" have sinned. You show your ignorance of the subject when you talk about the sins of a newly baptised baby. A newly baptised ANYONE has NO sin, with adults this manages to last about two minutes if they're lucky!!! I'm not keeping the origin of sin from Genesis and chucking the rest out - I'm chucking it all out. It's possible to know what sin is and to recognise it without knowing how it first originated. For example, I'm sure you have the occasional weed in your garden. You don't know where it came from, OK it was a seed blown in, but WHERE was the original parent plant? You don't know, but the damned weed is still there, spoiling your flowerbed. It hasn't suddenly disappeared now that you realise you don't know where it came from.

would you all agree that christians believe christ once walked on this earth as an actual person (god made man)? so this man was actually sacrificed to save people from a metaphor!
anyway, if we can pick and choose from the bible what stories we want to believe and which we think are only metaphors, then christianity becomes totally subjective. i can believe it or not and anyone else is free to do the same. but passing off religious dogma as fact and reality based on subjective belief is definitely not science. i can choose to believe that sun revolves around earth, but that doesn't make it so. so if someone else passess off a story of a recently created earth that was beset by a catestrophic flood that ended up creating the geologic characteristics we see on our planet today, that does not make the story so. what is needed is objectively gathered evidence, not ancient rehashed stories.

Trixie--
thank you for clearifying your position. the nice thing about your message, besides its lovely tone and ad hominim attack, was that you just proved my point about how subjective religion is. if you can briefly enlighten me on what your church asserts (or direct me to where i can find out) i would be grateful.
one more thing, you assert that you can know what "sin" is without knowing where it first originated. are you saying with your weed example that you know what a weed is without prior knowledge of the (subjective) difference between a undesired weed and a desired flower (regardless of its origin)? i think dandelions are pretty flowers and their young leaves are tasty. my dad thinks they are weeds. without knowing i liked the dandelions, my dad pulls them up because he thinks they are undesirable. without knowing my father liked an introduced plant species, such as english ivy, i pull it up because i think its undesirable. my dad liked the english ivy because he thought it was pretty.

Hitchy, you have explained the reasons why I left Christianity when I could no longer believe in the literalness of Genesis. I, too, feel that picking and choosing which parts of the Christian Bible are literal and which are metaphorical makes the whole enterprise subjective. I suppose that many Christians would answer that they know the truth of Christ's resurrection because they feel His presence in their lives. Or something like that.And there are a very few Christians who do not claim that their Christianity is the only way to God; these recognize the validity of any other religion that brings people to recognize that we are all brothers and sisters.