Merged (edited) General thoughts about Christianity and the bible

[Darat]

Starting point: https://www.vatican.va/content/pius...nts/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

Then: https://www.vatican.va/content/john...hf_jp-ii_mes_19961129_pont-accad-scienze.html

Then go here: https://www.vatican.va/content/fran...esco_20141027_plenaria-accademia-scienze.html

“God is not a divine being or a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life.... Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.”

 

[Olmstead]

Starting point: https://www.vatican.va/content/pius...nts/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

Then: https://www.vatican.va/content/john...hf_jp-ii_mes_19961129_pont-accad-scienze.html

Then go here: https://www.vatican.va/content/fran...esco_20141027_plenaria-accademia-scienze.html

“God is not a divine being or a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life.... Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.”

Catholic devilry! How dare you!

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

In what?
How do I square the 7 items above?

You can't justify your blather with even the most torturous convolutions. Fun to watch you flail and fail. You are the best proponent for the atheistic viewpoint we have here.

 

[Steve]

Oh boy! Another Rusty Tyler thread on the same topic as all the others! I have been so excitedly anticipating this!!

Icerat, a name change to IRTF would be appropriate, it seems.

 

[Darat]

Catholic devilry! How dare you!

But they are the masters of explaining white is black and black is white and we always meant that! (Then stepping out and getting run over at the zebra crossing....)

The Eastern Orthodox Church doesn't have the equivalent of the Pope and vatican so you have to look around to see what individual Synods and Patriarchs have written, an example from them: https://www.goarch.org/-/on-creation-and-evolution

Overall the vast majority of Christians belong to churches that have no problem squaring their relgious doctrine about the creation of the universe and man's creation with the scientific theories of the beginning of the univese as we can see it today and evolution.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

If your faith is threatened by the facts of the world, you have to choose what's more important to you: faith or truth. That's a very personal decision, I don't think we can help.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

There is always The God of the Gaps.

We don't know yet how the first organisms evolution could act upon came into being. We don't even know if that happened on earth or on some other planet.
Similarly, we don't how the Universe came into being.

There is space there to attach your Belief in a Creator to, should you feel the need to.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

Put your underpants on your head, a pencil up each nostril and say "Wibble!"

 

[Rusty Tyler]

Six days is metaphorical, or allegorical, or mystical, or otherwise poetic. Maybe the "days" are the incomprehensible time periods before the big bang, wherein God set all the parameters for the universe as we know it, before expanding it out to size. Maybe the whole long history of this planet is all the "eighth" day. Maybe "day" is the closest translation we have, for a transcendental experience will never know and could never understand.

Each day in the creation record contains the statement about a sunset and sun rise.

Both can be true.

An explosion is destructive.
Intelligent design takes a measured and sensible approach.

It's metaphorical, or allegorical, or mystical, or otherwise poetic. "Pulled the trigger" is a figure of speech. So is "spoke into being". Seriously, you need to lighten up a bit.

My comment speaks to cause. Intentional cause.

"Adam" represents the point in evolutionary history when God deigned to imbue one of the hominids - H. sapiens - with souls created in his image. The Genesis account is a poetical or mythologized retelling of whatever relationship and transgressions passed between those early humans and God.

That''s interesting answer, thanks.
The biblical record say that God formed the man.

That's the best I can do on short notice, very little sleep, and swiftly waning interest. Again, talk to a priest. They have all kinds of answers for this stuff. Hope this helps. Have a nice day!

Thank you, I appreciate it.
I hope you have a GREAT day as well.

 

[Darat]

I think we do see a distortion of what mainstream christian dogma holds about creation of the universe and creation of man as the Anglosphere on the internet is dominated by the USA, and there is a small but very loud handful of Christian denominations in the USA that are Christian literalists who think they have to fight the scientific view of creation of the universe and creation of man as they think it is an attack on their religion. Remember most of the christian churches that are by far the ones the majority of Christians belong to have no problem with the theory of evolution or the big bang theories.

 

[Darat]

Each day in the creation record contains the statement about a sunset and sun rise.

....snip...

When was light created?

 

[Steve]

When was light created?

I know, I know! Ask meeee! - Monday!

 

[Carrot Flower King]

Follow the teachings of George Clinton: free your mind and your ass will follow.

 

[JayUtah]

First, you already have a thread on evolution. Starting a new thread every time you have a slightly different take on your pet topics is spammy and annoying, especially when you then later claim you're too overwhelmed to answer your critics.

Second, all but a few of your points have nothing to do with evolution. "Evolution" isn't just everything you disagree with from science. If you want to engage with knowledgeable critics, make at least some effort to learn what you're talking about.

Third, you clearly have no intention of "squaring" anything. You have been a devout Christian your whole life and you display no desire to do or be anything but that. Your engagements with atheists and skeptics here seem more directed toward collecting more ammunition to throw at them.

Fourth, you have your own particular reading of the Bible that isn't shared among all Christians. When you say, "the Bible says...," you don't seem to realize that many others have read the Bible differently, have come to different beliefs, and aren't as hung up with all your manufactured grievances against science. Your first job in reconciling your religion with the facts is to understand more about where you got your religion and what might be broken about that.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Each day in the creation record contains the statement about a sunset and sun rise.


An explosion is destructive.
Intelligent design takes a measured and sensible approach.


My comment speaks to cause. Intentional cause.


That''s interesting answer, thanks.
The biblical record say that God formed the man.


Thank you, I appreciate it.
I hope you have a GREAT day as well.

@Crusty: Great is the power of ignore. You are a pro at ignoring reality so this should be a walk in the park.

 

[JayUtah]

Remember most of the christian churches that are by far the ones the majority of Christians belong to have no problem with the theory of evolution or the big bang theories.

That's what I'm getting at in my fourth point above. American Fundamentalism is not even particularly well-liked among other Christians. Among the worst of them, even Jesus is now considered too "woke."

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

My hillbilly cousins would say you're just weak on Jesus. Excuses all their excesses. I lose a few teenage cousins every year when a meth lab in a barn goes very wrong and the youngsters die screaming in the fire.

 

[JayUtah]

Seriously: Talk to a priest. A Jesuit, if you can get one.

I like the Jesuits. The Capuchins too were always nice to me. They let me into the Palermo catacombs for free and always had time for questions.

But definitely not an Evangelical pastor.

Heavens no.

Now on to Randy's rejoinders.

Each day in the creation record contains the statement about a sunset and sun rise.

The relaxation of the literal 24-hour day into allegorical creative periods began with St. Augustine. Your desire to cling to the interpretation that reads the most absurd literalism into the story seems like your problem, not science's. There is a great scene in Inherit the Wind on this exact point.

An explosion is destructive.

Nobody said anything about an explosion. If you're referring to something like the Cambrian explosion, then you're just being childishly equivocal.

Intelligent design takes a measured and sensible approach.

Or so you've invented it.

My comment speaks to cause. Intentional cause.

You're still just playing silly word games and imagining that this makes you look clever.

That''s interesting answer, thanks.
The biblical record say that God formed the man.

But it doesn't describe the process he used to do that. Your problem in reconciling your beliefs with observation is that your beliefs are full of interpretational baggage that you refuse to let go of.

And yes, reading the Bible hyper-literally is an interpretational choice. Try Peter Gomes' The Good Book. He's a Baptist pastor and a professor of divinity. He'll help you understand where you may be tripping over your own shoelaces.

 

[theprestige]

Each day in the creation record contains the statement about a sunset and sun rise.


An explosion is destructive.
Intelligent design takes a measured and sensible approach.


My comment speaks to cause. Intentional cause.


That''s interesting answer, thanks.
The biblical record say that God formed the man.


Thank you, I appreciate it.
I hope you have a GREAT day as well.

This kind of rationalization can only do so much. At a certain point, you have to want to enact some kind of reconciliation between the two views. And even then, it'll probably never be enough. It will certainly never be enough to satisfy atheists. You're really better off leaving them out of the conversation, if that's the conversation you're trying to have.

For example, the sun wasn't created until day four. So it doesn't make sense to interpret days one through three as literal sunrise-to-sunset time periods. Even just reconciling the biblical account with itself requires some poetic license.

 

[Darat]

I ...snip....

Each day in the creation record contains the statement about a sunset and sun rise.

The relaxation of the literal 24-hour day into allegorical creative periods began with St. Augustine. Your desire to cling to the interpretation that reads the most
absurd literalism into the story seems like your problem, not science's. There is a great scene in Inherit the Wind on this exact point.

On this point the two accounts of creation in Genesis should cause a real problem for a literalist as there is no way to reconcile them. For instance in the first account man is created on the 6th day after the plants and animals, in the second account man is created before the plants and animals. In the first account man and woman are created at the same time, in the second account Adam is created, then the animals then Eve. There is simply no way to actually reconcile those differences in chronology if you hold that the account of creation is to be read literally. Now to non Christians and non-literal Christians these differences aren't an issue, they are viewed for what they are, different accounts woven together probably from different oral traditions as tribes merged. Most apologetics (non-literalist ones that is) will say the accounts are dealing with the creation from different perspectives, one is about our intimate personal connection to god, the other the majesty and grandeur of god the creator.