Evolution and Jesus

[Zhavric]

Shamelessly snatched from another forum:

Assuming the veracity of evolution, doesn't the account of the death and resurrection of Jesus become superfluous? If evolution is true, then the Fall of Man is allegorical and no atonement is necessary. The need for a literal resurrection to save mankind from an allegorical fall makes little sense. Consequently, what is the significance of Jesus for liberal Christians who accept evolution?

If God used death and "sin" to guide the creation process, then man never consciously chose to separate himself from God by sinning. According to current evolutionary theory, there was never a single pair of humans faced with a moral decision that could affect all human descendants.

Thus, it appears that we are left with two primary choices in regards to Christianity. Either evolution is true and Christ becomes little more than a moral guide; or evolution is false, and God for some reason created the earth to appear as though evolution is true. I find it difficult to believe that a loving God would create a system where belief in Christ's death is the sole means to get to heaven, and where rational people could reject the need for Christ based on credible natural evidence.

Does Jesus hold any supernatural significance in the beliefs of theistic evolutionists, or is he merely a good person who taught important moral lessons

Discuss.

[leegao]

Theistic evolutionists can't be true evolutionists since they would rather toy with stagnant supernatural beliefs then think through rationalism.

A true evolutionist would not accept evolution without empirical evidence. Therefore a true evolutionist can not accept his/her theistic religion without empirical proof.

[yourwrong]

Liberal Christians usually don't believe literally in Adam and Eve so therefore your argument is pointless. You may ask what they could possibly concoct as how Genesis is not meaning literally that Adam and Eve caused all humans to be punished for their actions. Some people could make a fairly good case that Genesis was not literally saying that sins of Adam and Eve made God punish us all, but that human society in its entirety is prone to make evil decisions due to a lack of disciplining oneself when one does wrong, so as to make oneself a more better human being ; so God decided that if humans were not all going to follow him then he must punish or reward individuals for their actions. (Of course he knew beforehand he would have to do this, but it was the best course of action as he is God and know all so what he did was the best course of action)

[leegao]

I'm guessing by proving that liberal Christians do not take the Bible literally, you are in turn saying that they are capable of conforming their beliefs to best accommodate their liking.

My question then would be why the Liberal Christians have not tried to rationalize God yet.

[Tycoon]

Anybody who tries to put creationism and evolution together and still retain their faith is just trying to cling to it despite obvious flaws and contradictions. They most likely try to do so because they think if they stop believing they will go to hell.

[nerdvincent]

Quote by: Tycoon Anybody who tries to put creationism and evolution together and still retain their faith is just trying to cling to it despite obvious flaws and contradictions. They most likely try to do so because they think if they stop believing they will go to hell.

It has been my case for a few months. I belived "in case he is real", but finally I just stopped believing in Christianity. I realized that I was christian only because I was raised christian, like Turkish kids are raised muslims, and not because it was more reliable or anything.

[rez]

Quote by: leegao My question then would be why the Liberal Christians have not tried to rationalize God yet.

There are still many uncertainties of how the universe came to be. There is still a big gap in or knowledge about the first moments of the universe.

Any sensible person can take a biology class and see that life evolves over time. It is common sense and doesn't a genius to see that.

[rez]

Quote by: leegao Theistic evolutionists can't be true evolutionists since they would rather toy with stagnant supernatural beliefs then think through rationalism.

If you were to consider people to be an evolutionist, then you would have to say they are a biologist. All Biologists are "evolutionists".

You must then think Biologists or any scientist can't have a belief in god. It's either be sorcerer or be a scientist. Right?

A true evolutionist would not accept evolution without empirical evidence.

If you don't accept the Theory of Evolution, then how could you be considered a "true evolutionist"?

This is very simple logic here. Stop trying to twist around words. It may work on other creationists, but its not going to work on someone who graduated highschool.

Therefore a true evolutionist can not accept his/her theistic religion without empirical proof.

What are you even trying to say?

[sdbest]

You can't link "evolution" and "the death and resurrection of Jesus". The former is a biological phenomenon. The latter is a myth. It's like posing the essay assignment: Compare and contrast the General Theory of Relativity and Mighty Mouse. Indeed, there is no non-Biblical evidence that Jesus even existed.

Regards

[leegao]

My question then would be why the Liberal Christians have not tried to rationalize God yet. There are still many uncertainties of how the universe came to be. There is still a big gap in or knowledge about the first moments of the universe.

Please explain the relevance of your response. Here I'm only pointing out the flaw of being a scientist and a Christian at the same time.

Quote by: rez If you were to consider people to be an evolutionist, then you would have to say they are a biologist. All Biologists are "evolutionists". You must then think Biologists or any scientist can't have a belief in god. It's either be sorcerer or be a scientist. Right?

Basically, yes that is what I am trying to say. Note, I share the same mentality as Tycoon and Vincent.

If you don't accept the Theory of Evolution, then how could you be considered a "true evolutionist"?

Exactly, now read the second sentence together with the first one and it should make sense.

[loser]

Thus, it appears that we are left with two primary choices in regards to Christianity. Either evolution is true and Christ becomes little more than a moral guide; or evolution is false, and God for some reason created the earth to appear as though evolution is true.

You start off with a false assertion so where will your reasoning go? You don't understand evolution and you don't understand creation so you come up with self-defeating conclusions.

God didn't create the earth "to appear as though evolution is true." Actually, just the very opposite is true:

(WNT) Rom 1:20 For, from the very creation of the world, His invisible perfections--namely His eternal power and divine nature--have been rendered intelligible and clearly visible by His works, so that these men are without excuse.

Evolution is true when you define it as the adaptability of life in its environment. However, evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life. This is in the realm of intelligent design (ID) and creation by God. Evolution only applies to creation, thereafter.

Non-theists have tried to expand evolution beyond its actual bounds in order to dispel God.

God created life with such INTRICATE design that no rational person could deny the Creator without burying his head in mud.

To evolve means to change and nothing more. The very definition of life is change. Without change, life doesn't exist. How hard is that to comprehend?

This thread is evolving but it did not just randomly appear by chance. It had its origins in ORIGINAL DESIGN!

...and where rational people could reject the need for Christ based on credible natural evidence.

I attest to the fact that MANY rational people do NOT reject Christ also based on credible natural evidence.

Does Jesus hold any supernatural significance in the beliefs of theistic evolutionists, or is he merely a good person who taught important moral lessons

God, Jesus, and the supernatural have nothing to do with evolution and Jesus Himself said that He was not good.

You are mortal human flesh. You cannot hope to defeat death on your own. God is spirit and eternal. As spirit, one is not limited by death.

That is God's offer: that you might receive eternal life in a spirit body. If you don't, then you will die in the flesh. It's really not that complicated.

Theistic evolutionists can't be true evolutionists since they would rather toy with stagnant supernatural beliefs then think through rationalism.

You're either naive or grossly misinformed. I am one of the most rational people to have ever lived and my "supernatural beliefs" do not conflict with reality because it is reality.

A true evolutionist would not accept evolution without empirical evidence.

Then there are no true evolutionists because there is no empirical evidence.

My question then would be why the Liberal Christians have not tried to rationalize God yet.

Is that like a gay homophobe? A Nazi Jew? A black KKK'er?

Anybody who tries to put creationism and evolution together and still retain their faith is just trying to cling to it despite obvious flaws and contradictions

It's hard to understand the sway that evolution holds over people, isn't it?

Any sensible person can take a biology class and see that life evolves over time. It is common sense and doesn't a genius to see that.

The genius comes in knowing where to draw the line. Also, a sensible person would not put too much faith in what some idiot wrote in a biology book.

You can't link "evolution" and "the death and resurrection of Jesus". The former is a biological phenomenon. The latter is a myth.

You discredit yourself with such blanket dismissals. On what authority do you make such a claim?

Personally, I think you are a myth...you only think that you exist. Actually, you are nothing. Prove otherwise.

At any rate, you talk like you were an eye witness in Jerusalem some 2000 years ago. How credible can you be?

Your opinions should be proffered as such. Otherwise, you come across as disingenuous.

Indeed, there is no non-Biblical evidence that Jesus even existed.

Sure there is, as evidence goes.

Is there any evidence that Christopher Columbus ever existed? T-Rex?

Here I'm only pointing out the flaw of being a scientist and a Christian at the same time.

I think it's a flaw to be a scientist and an atheist at the same time. In fact, I think its impossible.

If you don't accept the Theory of Evolution, then how could you be considered a "true evolutionist"?

Of course, the can of worms is defining "true evolutionist".

According to current evolutionary theory, there was never a single pair of humans faced with a moral decision that could affect all human descendants.

That can't be a "true evolutionist".

Evolution extends from the moment of creation. Creation and evolution are apples and oranges. If you try to use evolution to dispel creation (and, therefore, a Creator), you don't understand evolution. It really is that simple.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: loser You start off with a false assertion so where will your reasoning go? You don't understand evolution and you don't understand creation so you come up with self-defeating conclusions. God didn't create the earth "to appear as though evolution is true." Actually, just the very opposite is true: (WNT) Rom 1:20 For, from the very creation of the world, His invisible perfections--namely His eternal power and divine nature--have been rendered intelligible and clearly visible by His works, so that these men are without excuse. Evolution is true when you define it as the adaptability of life in its environment. However, evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life. This is in the realm of intelligent design (ID) and creation by God. Evolution only applies to creation, thereafter. Non-theists have tried to expand evolution beyond its actual bounds in order to dispel God. God created life with such INTRICATE design that no rational person could deny the Creator without burying his head in mud. To evolve means to change and nothing more. The very definition of life is change. Without change, life doesn't exist. How hard is that to comprehend? This thread is evolving but it did not just randomly appear by chance. It had its origins in ORIGINAL DESIGN! I attest to the fact that MANY rational people do NOT reject Christ also based on credible natural evidence. God, Jesus, and the supernatural have nothing to do with evolution and Jesus Himself said that He was not good. You are mortal human flesh. You cannot hope to defeat death on your own. God is spirit and eternal. As spirit, one is not limited by death. That is God's offer: that you might receive eternal life in a spirit body. If you don't, then you will die in the flesh. It's really not that complicated. You're either naive or grossly misinformed. I am one of the most rational people to have ever lived and my "supernatural beliefs" do not conflict with reality because it is reality. Then there are no true evolutionists because there is no empirical evidence. Is that like a gay homophobe? A Nazi Jew? A black KKK'er? It's hard to understand the sway that evolution holds over people, isn't it? The genius comes in knowing where to draw the line. Also, a sensible person would not put too much faith in what some idiot wrote in a biology book. You discredit yourself with such blanket dismissals. On what authority do you make such a claim? Personally, I think you are a myth...you only think that you exist. Actually, you are nothing. Prove otherwise. At any rate, you talk like you were an eye witness in Jerusalem some 2000 years ago. How credible can you be? Your opinions should be proffered as such. Otherwise, you come across as disingenuous. Sure there is, as evidence goes. Is there any evidence that Christopher Columbus ever existed? T-Rex? I think it's a flaw to be a scientist and an atheist at the same time. In fact, I think its impossible. Of course, the can of worms is defining "true evolutionist". That can't be a "true evolutionist". Evolution extends from the moment of creation. Creation and evolution are apples and oranges. If you try to use evolution to dispel creation (and, therefore, a Creator), you don't understand evolution. It really is that simple.

That is the worst response I've read in hours.

Edit it and try again. I'm not replying to that. It would be like kicking someone who couldn't fight back. I'm seriously beginning to believe that loser isn't a theist, but a non-theist who thinks it's funny to make theists look bad. I'm not laughing. Seriously. No Zhav sarcasm.

[Morality Games]

A liberal Christian might reason somewhere along these lines.

The 'original sin' is an aspect of being human acquired through evolution. Humans evolved and acquired the moral sense other animals lacked.

Paradoxically, this aspect, the moral sense, makes them reprehensible for those parts of their nature that allow them to stray from or fall short of the high ideals of God. Aka, their innate, sin-prone tendencies. This means two equally real parts of human nature are in constant conflict with one another.

In contrast, animals lack the capacity to stray from or fall short of the high ideals at all (not in their nature), so they don't factor into the equation in the same way humans do.

In order to resolve the paradox, Jesus comes and provides, in the form of his teachings, a guide for the refining of flawed humans on earth, pending on their eventual completion in the afterlife.

Well, that's how I used to think, anyway.

[featherman]

Some members of the current animal world (humans) currently residing on our small planet... should try to understand that God? is responsible for the existence of the entire physical and spiritual? universe....

[Piscean]

Thus, it appears that we are left with two primary choices in regards to Christianity. Either evolution is true and Christ becomes little more than a moral guide; or evolution is false, and God for some reason created the earth to appear as though evolution is true. I find it difficult to believe that a loving God would create a system where belief in Christ's death is the sole means to get to heaven, and where rational people could reject the need for Christ based on credible natural evidence.

Your a man of great faith. And you put this great faith in the science of men who two blinks ago were sure the earth was flat, and two blinks from now will have to take back all the current theories.

[loser]

That is the worst response I've read in hours. Edit it and try again. I'm not replying to that. It would be like kicking someone who couldn't fight back. I'm seriously beginning to believe that loser isn't a theist, but a non-theist who thinks it's funny to make theists look bad. I'm not laughing. Seriously. No Zhav sarcasm.

I get those kind of responses all the time, Z, from wannabe debaters who can't. I knew you didn't have any answers. Now, so does everyone else.

Sorry that I overwhelm you. Perhaps you should spar in a lower weight class.

A liberal Christian might reason somewhere along these lines. The 'original sin' is an aspect of being human acquired through evolution. Humans evolved and acquired the moral sense other animals lacked. Paradoxically, this aspect, the moral sense, makes them reprehensible for those parts of their nature that allow them to stray from or fall short of the high ideals of God. Aka, their innate, sin-prone tendencies. This means two equally real parts of human nature are in constant conflict with one another.

I think "A liberal Christian" is an oxymoron but no matter. Mankind did not evolve a "moral sense". It was learned. But, yes, it was a shock and a horror to find out that God found our human nature reprehensible.

[Derach]

Quote by: Piscean Your a man of great faith. And you put this great faith in the science of men who two blinks ago were sure the earth was flat, and two blinks from now will have to take back all the current theories.

First of all, not everyone thought the earth was flat. There were round-earth theories abounding in recorded history from various cultures dating back from the earliest recorded accounts of men pursuing scientific, as opposed to religious, explanations of their surroundings.

Secondly, theories are rarely taken back. Hypothesis are. Example being the origin of life. The hypothesis that is accepted by most scientists is that atoms of elements created in stars were blown on to celestial bodies like planets, astroids, comets etc where under the right conditions (temperature, pressure, energy source, etc) spontaneously created a reaction that resulted in a simple bacteria capable of reproducing itself. This spontaneous and random event sparked the evolutionary process that is almost universally accepted by scientists worldwide.

The scientific hypothesis concerning the origin of life is openly accepted as being little more than an educated guess based on circumstantial evidence that suggests that guess is accurate. Most scientists openly admit that changes to that hypothesis, and perhaps a total rejection of it, are possible, and maybe even likely ... but for the moment, with the information available to us now, the random, spontaneous coagulation of the right elements at the right time initiated the ability in 'stuff' to replicate ... and that ability blossomed into the theory of evolution.

Similarly, the flat earth hypothesis was supported by the empirical evidence available to early man. The earth looks flat from most vantage points. Gravity seems to pull everything down ... therefore, the thought that there is a 'bottom' to the earth seems silly. Men of science who were wise enough to question this guess, eventually discovered more convincing evidence to reject the flat earth hypothesis for a better explanation of the question.

Likewise, evolutionists eventually could distance themselves from the 'evidence' (like "God created life with such INTRICATE design that no rational person could deny the Creator without burying his head in mud) enough to explore other ideas as to the history of the universe and the life within it.

Finally, 'science' has no one source of mandatory accepted 'truths' (facts). In fact, genuine science encourages discussion, dissent and better understanding of the theories and hypothesis that appear to be 'truths'. Religion(s) base their theories and hypothesis on an accepted source that can only be argued in terms of interpretation (mostly, which parts are literal and which are metaphorical) among believers. Because the only empirically verifiable facts in the Bible are city names and some rulers that were verified independantly, most scientists dismiss the rest of the Bible (or other holy scripts) as metaphorical stories about moralism and the afterlife, not as literal sources of history ... particularly of pre-history.

[Piscean]

So what pesentage of these theorys get proven true then? Give examples

[gallo]

Quote by: loser Evolution is true when you define it as the adaptability of life in its environment.

It's also true if you aren't motivated to redefine it according to your superstitious mythology and stick with the definition that evolutionary biologists use.

However, evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life.

Right. That would be a different field of science, abiogenesis. Of course, even that field uses evolutionary principles to explain why some self-replicating chemicals became more prevelant than others.

This is in the realm of intelligent design (ID) and creation by God.

If you want to limit your knowledge to superstition and magic, sure. Why not invent magical beings for which there is no evidence?

[Derach]

Quote by: Piscean So what pesentage of these theorys get proven true then? Give examples

Well, off the top of my head, your example of the theory of the shape of the earth serves as a good starting point. Einstein's theory about the gravitational affect on light was proven. Theories about the function of internal organs were proven by the development of better imaging devices. Theories as to the chemical makeup of celestial bodies have been either verified or disproven by probes visiting them. There are countless examples of theories proven true or false over time.


I have no idea what % of theories get proven true. The critical thing is that it is not 100% ... nor is it 0%. The whole point of developing theories is to approach the truth in the most sensible way possible.