0
0

Christians who believe in evolution (self.Christianity)

kennyh13 が 投稿

Lately I have been noticing a trend in people who say "I am a Christian and believe in evolution", as somebody who is non religious and believe in evolution I am hoping a Christian who believes in evolution can explain to me how you can possibly believe in both of those things. Assuming evolution is true then you have to throw out the Genesis story of God creating mankind as they are today, without that story you have to throw out the concept of original sin, without original sin you have to throw out the need for Jesus' sacrifice and the whole focal point of Christianity falls apart. Going even further, evolution and the concept of a soul do not seen compatible. I've heard people say that God " kick started" evolution but why assume that? The book that describes him certainly doesn't say that. Anyway, I'm hoping someone can explain how they hold both beliefs, thanks in advance.

EDIT: People keep saying "Genesis is an allegory". As long as it is an allegory for God creating mankind, evolution remains incompatible with it.

上位 200 件のコメント全て表示する 331
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]Evangelical Lutheran Church in AmericaIrondog1970 9ポイント10ポイント  (102子コメント)

Literal interpretations and the ability to only see black and white is a bad thing in believers and non believers alike.

[–]United Church of Christpalaverofbirds 3ポイント4ポイント  (24子コメント)

Starting from the beginning... Genesis, we should all agree upon, is not a first-witness account. It would be inconceivable that anyone could accurately report what God was doing before he created people, except via divine revelation itself (which we generally agree is how we understand Genesis.)

Next, it would be a matter of asking why we should know anything of divine revelation regarding creation. The general understanding of those who follow a YEC/no-macroevolution stance is that Genesis is God's way of telling us what happened. Those of us who do believe in evolution generally accept that Genesis is not meant to be descriptive of what happened, but to give us an understanding of God's simplicity and uniqueness as Creator. Of human uniqueness in the divine plan. But not, a step-by-step list of what occurred.

Finally, and this might be more my own belief, rather than a matter of consensus, is that God is more than happy to speak to us in myth. Jesus spoke in parables. God understands metaphors. It is only a modern bias that we come to favor hard, historical fact, but this may just be a symptom of a modern delusion, rather than a stage of progress. Humanity has for most of our historical age been quite content to operate in a mythical mindset. Not because we didn't understand truth from fiction, but because myth has a purpose.

Sorry, that was not a short reply, but I wanted to give a full answer.

[–]kennyh13[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (23子コメント)

If we get to claim a book of the Bible is a myth where do we draw the line? Was Jesus during on the cross a myth? And why speak in riddles? Without original sin being a concrete FACT then the entire book fair apart.

[–]Christian Deistapophis-pegasus 2ポイント3ポイント  (21子コメント)

If we get to claim a book of the Bible is a myth where do we draw the line?

Presumably by looking at the book, at its context, who it was written by, and in what style it was written in.

[–]tiphphin 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

But that's hard work :(

[–]kennyh13[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (19子コメント)

Are other books written by Genesis author fictional? That's a dangerous road to go down considering they set the foundation for the religion.

[–]tiphphin 0ポイント1ポイント  (18子コメント)

You keep making the assumption that fictional is the same as untrue. People keep telling you that allegory doesn't work like that. I'm sure wikipedia will have a page explaining allegory.

[–]kennyh13[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (17子コメント)

Yes, people have to say it is an allegory because it is obviously not true, why assume it's an allegory? How can you know?

[–]tiphphin 0ポイント1ポイント  (16子コメント)

I don't claim to know, but that's where faith kicks in.

If you don't believe, then that's fine. But it's better to disagree with what people think rather than what you think they think.

And on that note, I'll leave you in the capable hands of biologos.

[–]kennyh13[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (15子コメント)

That site is hilarious, the way it tries to FORCE verses into meaning something scientific. You wouldn't accept such half baked reasoning or the Quran.

[–]United Church of Christpalaverofbirds 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Like if we consider the Psalms to be poetry, why not Kings or 1 Timothy!?! If Revelation is of the apocalyptic genre, why not the gospel of Luke!?! I think we can draw the lines fairly easily.

Why speak in riddles? Because it's a good rhetorical device to cause the listener to do the thinking.

If the book of Genesis, the story of creation, doesn't correspond to creation, then the whole notion of a creating God falls apart. Original sin is easy to collaborate with alternate explanations. Why the planet, the universe and life seem to contradict a literal reading of Genesis is not easy.

[–]AtheistCalebu 3ポイント4ポイント  (13子コメント)

Noooo, stoooop. It's good when religion incorporates science rather than outright rejects it.

[–]Christian Deistapophis-pegasus 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

It doesnt "incorperate" science per se (Lemaitre is a prime example of a person firmly clamping down on that), merely it is "unconcerned" with its notions on a spiritual level, hence allowing (and sometimes encouraging) its adherers to accept it and even persue it

[–]kennyh13[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (11子コメント)

I agree, buy throwing out the creation story should negate all of Christianity, yet they hold two contradicting beliefs simultaneously and I want to know how.

[–]AtheistCalebu 1ポイント2ポイント  (10子コメント)

They're only contradictory if you take an absolute literal interpretation of the Bible, which most Christians do not. The creation, and several parts of the OT, are recognized as allegory by plenty of Christians.

[–]kennyh13[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (9子コメント)

As long as it is an allegory for God creating mankind then it remains incompatible with evolution, which is my only question here.

[–]the_real_jones 0ポイント1ポイント  (8子コメント)

1) genesis isn't actually concerned with providing a historical account of creation 2) if it was why couldn't it be an allegory for God creating through the process of evolution? You have yet to provide any reason for viewing evolution and Christianity as existing in direct opposition to each other except by stating you can't take Genesis literally (which most of us don't) and believe in evolution.

[–]kennyh13[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (7子コメント)

If evolution is true when did we get a soul capable of going to other dimensions after we die? Why does the Bible say multiple times we were descendants of Adam?

[–]the_real_jones 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

well to be fair the idea of the eternal soul is pretty much absent in most of Jewish thought. The soul is inextricably connected to the body and they cannot exist apart from each other. This is changed and adapted slightly after Jewish Hellenization, however, this remains the reason why passions about bodily resurrection in the eschaton remain high enough to cause major arguments between the Pharisees and Sadducees. It is really only with the emergence of Apocalyptic literature that the idea of heaven and hell become more refined, but even then it's a complex development that is often misconstrued.

there are lots of reasons the Bible says we are descendants of Adam. Sometimes it's used for continuity. Sometimes the story is taken literally (but this needs to be understood that when they took this story literally they also accepted all of the allegorical meaning as primary and the literalness of Adam was secondary and only necessary because there was no information contradicting this point, it's a different kind of literal than the modern day literal interpretations. For a better understanding Marcus Borg has a good explanation in "reading the bible again for the first time"). Sometimes the point is that we are the spiritual descendants of Adam in that we continue to repeat the same sin which is not about moral knowledge but about domination and control.

[–]kennyh13[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

Then what's the point? Why buy into any of it if you can't tell what's right from what's wrong, what's fact from what's allegory?

[–]the_real_jones 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

I take it you don't think great works of fiction are useful for exposing core truths about the human experience then? Should we throw out all of Aesop's fables as ridiculous since they aren't factually true despite the fact that there are morality tales under-girding all the stories?

The point is there is something there worth looking at, worth understanding. Modern exploration of the biblical narratives continue to deepen our understanding of the human condition even when the spiritual aspects are reject. For a great example I would point to how the French Anthropologist Rene Girard encounters the story of Jesus and how it exposes the cycle of scapegoating and mimetic rivalry as a fruitless endeavor. His approach was so powerful that many theologians took cues from him in developing a more comprehensive understanding of Atonement.

[–]kennyh13[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

I don't think anyone thinks the fables mean that talking foxes exist, people take the Bible much more literally than most fables, I don't think that analogy works

[–]BaptistGemmabeta 9ポイント10ポイント  (87子コメント)

For one, the Genesis account is spectacularly lacking in the specific details. I mean it says nothing about gravitation either, so why assume that?

[–]kennyh13[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (85子コメント)

It specifically says he created man, in his own image, out of the dust. As well as speaking all the animals into existence, that is incompatible with evolution. Why assume gravity existed in the world that God created? Is that really a reason or...

[–]BaptistGemmabeta 7ポイント8ポイント  (66子コメント)

If you think that's detailed, you should read a biology textbook.

[–]kennyh13[S] -3ポイント-2ポイント  (65子コメント)

What are you saying? Are you giving a reason why evolution and Christianity are compatible? Of course it isn't detailed, its an old myth, that's my point.

[–]Christian Deistapophis-pegasus 4ポイント5ポイント  (61子コメント)

Genesis has had allegorical interpretations since the first century.

[–]kennyh13[S] -5ポイント-4ポイント  (60子コメント)

And yet, if it did not happen, literally, the foundation of Christianity is lost, original sin MUST have happened or the entire thing falls apart.

[–]Christian Deistapophis-pegasus 3ポイント4ポイント  (48子コメント)

Why? Why must it have happened?

[–]kennyh13[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (47子コメント)

Because the Bible is very clear that "by one man's sin, sin entered into the world", without Genesis being true, that all goes away, original sin, Jesus sacrifice, the son of God, all that hinges on the concept of our sinful nature as brought on by Adam.

[–]Christian Deistapophis-pegasus 2ポイント3ポイント  (45子コメント)

original sin

Except not all Christians believe in original sin (at least, not the one you think)

[–]kennyh13[S] -3ポイント-2ポイント  (44子コメント)

That's called cherry-picking, keeping the crucifixion without the concept of original sin goes against what the bible says about why the cross was nessesary.

[–]ChestyPullersGhost -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

And it's true and they know it.

[–]Episcopalian (Anglican)adamthrash 1ポイント2ポイント  (10子コメント)

Why is it necessary that Adam and Eve are the original literal sinners, rather than someone else in our ancestry?

[–]kennyh13[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (9子コメント)

If that were true then would Genesis be wrong?

[–]Christian Deistapophis-pegasus 4ポイント5ポイント  (4子コメント)

Is the allegory of the cave wrong because there is no cave with people chained to a wall?

[–]kennyh13[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (3子コメント)

For Jesus sacrifice to be nessesary there would have had to be a literal fall of man, not an allegorical, "this didn't really happen" connotation.

[–]Episcopalian (Anglican)adamthrash 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

No. There's still a creator, still a fall, still original sin - all described by the mythopoetic language of Genesis.

[–]kennyh13[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

Still nothing coming close to explaining how evolution and Christianity are compatible.

[–]BaptistGemmabeta 9ポイント10ポイント  (2子コメント)

I apologize that my religion does not conform to your expectations. I will certainly strive harder to be more close-minded for you.

[–][削除されました]  (1子コメント)

[removed]

    [–]Christian (Evangelical)Cabbagetroll[M] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Don't suggest that Christianity isn't true. This violates rule 2.1 and has been removed.

    [–]Emergentnon-troll_account 0ポイント1ポイント  (17子コメント)

    Nope does not say that. (I'm sorry for all the downvotes, these guys can be jerks sometimes. "ooh, here is someone who is legitimately curious, and, like all humans, needs the love of God. Let's downvote his misconceptions!")

    Notice that the passage where God says "in our image," is at the end of the 7 day story, and the passage where he creates the man from the dust comes from the second story.

    The first story has man and woman being created together, in God's image. The second story is a much different story.

    Both stories a clearly symbolic, allegorical, and the first is very much poetry. Notice the symbolism of the days

    1. Light and darkness separated and defined.
    2. Water and sky separated and defined.
    3. Sea and land separated and defined.
    4. The space of light and darkness is filled with moving bodies
    5. The spaces of sea and sky are filled with moving bodies
    6. The space of land is filled with moving bodies.

    It's symbolic poetry, NOT literal.

    The same can be said of Genesis 2-11 as well, and also, in a different way, the rest of Genesis and much of the first five books.

    The belief that those stories didn't "happen" literally, but were allegories for a bigger truth is a very ancient Christian tradition, and didn't just get made up when evolution was discovered.

    [–]tiphphin 0ポイント1ポイント  (16子コメント)

    here is someone who is legitimately curious

    I haven't downvoted him, but I'm sensing troll rather than legitimately curious.

    Obviously, you are not a troll ;)

    [–]Emergentnon-troll_account 1ポイント2ポイント  (15子コメント)

    The thing is, he has no idea what he's talking about. Trolls usually do much better than this kid.

    [–]Christian Deistapophis-pegasus 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Trolls usually do much better than this kid.

    Hes not a kid, hes over 25 years old.

    [–]kennyh13[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (12子コメント)

    If Genesis is poetry, and mankind evolved from a single-cell organism, then why was Jesus' sacrifice nessesary? On what day did the soul evolve? You can insult me all you want, no one has explained how evolution and Christianity are compatible. All I'm getting is "GENESIS IS FICTION"

    [–]the_real_jones 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

    I guess my question is why do you think Jesus' sacrifice was necessary? There are a ton of different views on atonement/soteriology, so understanding what your underlying assumptions are might help people respond to your question.

    [–]kennyh13[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I don't think Jesus is sacrifice was necessary, I think the entire Bible is not literal, however the Bible is very clear that Jesus' sacrifice was necessary to throw off our sinful nature and we were born doomed to hell because of Adam's sin

    [–]Christian Deistapophis-pegasus 0ポイント1ポイント  (8子コメント)

    On what day did the soul evolve?

    You assume the soul is an organ.

    [–]kennyh13[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (7子コメント)

    What is it?

    [–]Christian Deistapophis-pegasus 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

    There are different interpretations.

    [–]kennyh13[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

    Non of which are compatible with biological evolution. You could just wildly assume "we evolved then god put a soul into us" but that's just working backwards from evolution trying to fit god in somewhere.

    [–]Emergentnon-troll_account 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Give me a few more hours. I intend to give you a fair answer. You deserve it, especially after all the disrespect you've gotten in this thread.

    [–]tiphphin 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    You may have a point.

    [–]Christian Deistapophis-pegasus 2ポイント3ポイント  (14子コメント)

    you have to throw out the Genesis story of God creating mankind as they are today

    Why?

    without that story you have to throw out the concept of original sin,

    Why? Also, not all Christians believe in original sin

    without original sin you have to throw out the need for Jesus' sacrifice

    Why?

    and the whole focal point of Christianity falls apart.

    How?

    The book that describes him certainly doesn't say that.

    The book says nothing about quantam mechanics either.

    [–]kennyh13[S] -2ポイント-1ポイント  (13子コメント)

    If you think that original sin is not required to make Jesus sacrifice nessesary then I can only assume you have never read the book.

    [–]Christian Deistapophis-pegasus 3ポイント4ポイント  (12子コメント)

    Sin is required to make Jesus' sacrifice neccessary. Not neccessarily the first sin of two people.

    [–]kennyh13[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (11子コメント)

    Not according to the Bible.

    [–]Christian Deistapophis-pegasus 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Citation please.

    [–]Christian (Chi Rho)Rj220 1ポイント2ポイント  (8子コメント)

    [citation needed]

    [–]kennyh13[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (7子コメント)

    Romans 5:12-21

    [–]Christian (Chi Rho)Rj220 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

    Yes, Paul alludes to genesis in order to draw contrast between Adam and Jesus. Even if Paul believed in a literal Adam (though there is no way to know that he did/didn't), it does not necessitate that we must.

    [–]kennyh13[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

    He is not alluding to Genesis. He is literally saying that Adam is the reason for our sinful nature.

    [–]Christian (Chi Rho)Rj220 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

    Or he's using the story of Adam to make a more important point about Jesus, namely that Jesus takes away the sin of the world.

    [–]kennyh13[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

    A casual glance around confirms that sin was not removed from the world, the sacrifice was meant to save us from our sinful nature, our being doomed to hell because of Adam.

    [–]Purgatorial Universalistdarth_elevator 2ポイント3ポイント  (11子コメント)

    God uses metaphors constantly. He referred to Jesus as the lamb, despite the fact that He is not literally a lamb. Jesus delivered a lot of information through the use of parable, simile, and metaphor. It appears He uses symbolism pretty heavily in delivering prophecy as well.

    There is no reason to think God did not use metaphors to describe certain truths to people about our origins and relationship with God and the rest of creation. The fact that we know the universe did not pop up in 6 literal days is a pretty good reason to suspect the opening to Genesis is one of these instances.

    I've read a bunch of very interesting metaphorical interpretations to Genesis. I think the understanding of the text as figurative with the purpose of a few key truths has a lot more merit than a literal understanding.

    [–]kennyh13[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (10子コメント)

    To me, when a book is found to be untrue, the rational thing to do is mark it as "untrue" and move on. Instead of trying to FORCE it to be true by claiming it's an allegory for something true or some kind of mental gymnastics. What would you say to the Muslim who said "the Quran may have somethings that are not literal, but it is true because it stands for something literal"?

    [–]Purgatorial Universalistdarth_elevator 1ポイント2ポイント  (9子コメント)

    Because the options were never "this book is 100% literal, or it's wrong." Symbolism is a massive part of religious texts, and the Old Testament is no exception.

    [–]kennyh13[S] -2ポイント-1ポイント  (8子コメント)

    Would you acceot that rational from a Muslim speaking about the Quran? "The Quran is not always right but where it is wrong is symbolism"

    [–]Purgatorial Universalistdarth_elevator 1ポイント2ポイント  (7子コメント)

    The mentality of "well, if it's not right it's symbolism" is part of what I'm disputing actually. It's not that metaphor is a second ditch effort to save a claim in the face of different knowledge. It's that certain passages, when examined in their writing style, probable audience, apparent intention, and various exegeses, make far more sense to be understood as figurative instead of literal.

    For an easy example, Jesus is not literally a lamb. That's a metaphor. I don't think it's a metaphor only because it's been proven that lambs can't talk or be born from human women, so I'm resorting to Jesus-as-a-human theory. It just makes sense that God is using a lamb to describe the traits and purpose of Christ.

    Understanding Genesis is the same way.

    But to answer your question directly, sure. I have no problem with the idea that the Quran uses symbolism. I would expect it to, given the nature of the text.

    [–]kennyh13[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (6子コメント)

    You think the Quran is pure symbolism, I doubt you think that about the Bible.

    [–]Purgatorial Universalistdarth_elevator 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

    I don't think the Quran is pure symbolism. I just don't think it's divinely inspired. I'm not sure where I implied what you're saying. Why do you think that's what I think?

    [–]kennyh13[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (4子コメント)

    You get to just presuppose the authors of the Bible were divinely inspired. Others claim the same thing and you dismiss them.

    [–]Purgatorial Universalistdarth_elevator 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

    I don't presuppose the authors of the Bible were divinely inspired. Have we talked about why I believe in God and how I was drawn to the Bible? Why are you making these assumptions about me and my perspective? As far as I know, we don't know one another.

    [–][削除されました]  (26子コメント)

    [deleted]

      [–]kennyh13[S] -5ポイント-4ポイント  (25子コメント)

      Christian, aka someone who follows the teachings of Christ. Christ never would have needed to come down and sacrifice himself unless the story of Genesis is true, so how can someone be a Christian and not believe in the very reason that made Christ necessary?

      [–][削除されました]  (24子コメント)

      [deleted]

        [–]kennyh13[S] -4ポイント-3ポイント  (23子コメント)

        Not the kind that requires the son of God to make a blood sacrifice to save everyone from a sinful nature, bestowed on them by a distant ancestor.

        [–][削除されました]  (22子コメント)

        [deleted]

          [–]kennyh13[S] -3ポイント-2ポイント  (21子コメント)

          That's literately what the Bible says but OK.

          [–]Christianbnmbnm0 0ポイント1ポイント  (20子コメント)

          Except it's not, original sin is a concept that is a few hundred years older than the formation of the church and is only believed by a few denominations. The basic message of Christianity is that humanity is not perfect, we are a little broken, hungry, angry, abusive, sick, poor, depressed, and otherwise imperfect but that God is willing to be with us, to share our pain, and to help heal us. I don't need Adam and Eve to be in need of love, I am a broken man all by myself, and it is my supreme hope that I will one day become the whole, to become healed. And that is my hope for the world.

          [–]kennyh13[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (19子コメント)

          So Genesis is wrong?

          [–]Christianbnmbnm0 0ポイント1ポイント  (18子コメント)

          Wrong? What does that even mean? Is Animal Farm wrong? Its a poem, it can't be right or wrong. Now interpretations can be wrong, sure. If by wrong you mean not history, than yes it's not history, its a poem meant to show us that all things come from God, and reflect God, and that man is an image of God, but that Mankind (Adam) falls short, we are imperfect. Saying the genesis needs to be historically accurate for Christianity to be real is like saying that animal farm needs to be literal if you are going to oppose hierarchical socialism. They are stories that teach us a truth, not a history.

          [–]kennyh13[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (17子コメント)

          Then why not believe god is fictional, party of a story meant to teach about something? Much like no one would believe in talking animals, but look to what the message of animal farm was?

          [–]Slave_to_Logic 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

          Why do you believe all Christians believe genesis was meant to be taken literally? It's a hebrew text after all and they don't take it literally, why should we?

          [–]kennyh13[S] -4ポイント-3ポイント  (1子コメント)

          Because if it did not literally happen, then there goes original sin, without original sin, there goes the need for Jesus' sacrifice, without that, the entire idea of Christianity falls apart.

          [–]Emergentnon-troll_account 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

          I have been reading your comments, and you deserve an answer to your questions, not dismissive remarks. I'm going to spend a few hours later today writing up a response for you. Your religious upbringing has left you with a lot of misconceptions, and nobody here is actually explaining why they are misconceptions.

          I'll post it later today.

          [–]Episcopalian (Anglican)adamthrash 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

          without that story you have to throw out the concept of original sin, without original sin you have to throw out the need for Jesus' sacrifice and the whole focal point of Christianity falls apart. Going even further, evolution and the concept of a soul do not seen compatible.

          No, you don't. As long as God is the creator, and our ancestors chose their own desires over God's will, then the story is basically the same.

          [–]Secular Humanistcygx 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

          Perhaps you'd like to fund my expedition around the world in search of the treasuries that store the wind? I could use a vacation...

          [–]kennyh13[S] -2ポイント-1ポイント  (2子コメント)

          What?

          [–]Secular Humanistcygx -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

          Well, the Bible tells me that's where wind comes from (Psalm 135:7, Jeremiah 10:13, Jeremiah 51:16).

          You're perhaps also aware of that Galileo thing and his blaspehmy about the Earth not standing still as described by scripture?

          [–]kennyh13[S] -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

          True, and the sky being held up by pillars.

          [–]tiphphin 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

          RE: your edit. Th only way evolution can be incompatible with an allegorical Genesis is if God had no part to play in it. There are a numbet of positions on God-guided evolution that are held by Chriatians. Search for biologos for a website dedicated to it. (I'd give a link, but I'm on my phone).

          [–]kennyh13[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

          If Genesis is an allegory for God seting evolution into play then it is an awful allegory that you have to cherry-pick to death with the intent purpose of forcing it to be one.

          [–]tiphphin 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Here is the biologos website. That will be able to explain it all better than we can in reddit comments.

          [–]Kamtre 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

          CS Lewis is highly regarded in Christianity as an author and thinker. He believed in evolution. If you want a good layout of how to reconcile original sin with evolution, check him out.

          [–]thomasxian 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

          As long as it is an allegory for God creating mankind, evolution remains incompatible with it.

          Why? Genesis tells us who, science tells how.

          [–]kennyh13[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

          How is the story of God creating a walking talking grown man an analogy for evolution? You have to be trying to FORCE the booko mean that to reach that conclusion.

          [–]thomasxian -1ポイント0ポイント  (3子コメント)

          Already answered. Genesis is not meant to be a science book. It tells us who created, science tells what method He used.

          [–]kennyh13[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

          Why believe it then? If the best food could do is a strange allegory why believe it has any truth?

          [–]TotesMessenger [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

          I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

          If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)

          [–][削除されました]  (35子コメント)

          [deleted]

            [–]Eastern Orthodoxdeuteros 2ポイント3ポイント  (31子コメント)

            The Bible and the theory of evolution completely contradict one another.

            Based on whose interpretation?

            [–]Christian (Cross)Lando4Peace -1ポイント0ポイント  (30子コメント)

            Based on the interpretation of the book of Genesis. If anyone has verse proof of evolution being supported in the Bible, I'm all ears. Or eyes?

            [–]Christian Deistapophis-pegasus 0ポイント1ポイント  (29子コメント)

            Do you have proof of Alpha Centauri being supported in the bible? Or themodynamics?

            [–][削除されました]  (19子コメント)

            [removed]

              [–]Christian Deistapophis-pegasus 1ポイント2ポイント  (17子コメント)

              How exactly is knowladge of alpha centauri useful? Furthermore, exactly how much of Christianity do you know?

              [–]kennyh13[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (16子コメント)

              I was a Christian for 25 years, when I was 12 I could quote the entire book of Philippians, a ran a print shop that helped distribute millions of gospel tracts, I know enough about the Bible to know that supposedly God chatted with people about what he wanted them to do concerning clothing habits and eating habits yet didn't decide it was worth mentioning that germs cause disease or how to perform heart surgery or hey don't rape each other.

              [–]Christian Deistapophis-pegasus 0ポイント1ポイント  (15子コメント)

              What denomination?

              [–]kennyh13[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (14子コメント)

              Independent Baptist

              [–]Christian Deistapophis-pegasus 0ポイント1ポイント  (12子コメント)

              YEC?

              [–]tiphphin 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

              Ah, there's your problem. They are not troubled by subtlety of thought.

              [–]Christian (Evangelical)Cabbagetroll[M] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

              Don't suggest that there's nothing useful in the Bible. This has been removed for violating rule 2.1.

              [–]Christian (Cross)Lando4Peace -1ポイント0ポイント  (8子コメント)

              Neither of these things mentioned has anything to do with Christianity.

              [–]Christian Deistapophis-pegasus 4ポイント5ポイント  (7子コメント)

              Neither does evolution.

              [–]Christian (Cross)Lando4Peace -2ポイント-1ポイント  (6子コメント)

              True, however, believing in evolution means one doesn't believe the book of Genesis is accurate, or even somewhat true.

              [–]Christian Deistapophis-pegasus 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

              Not literal =/= inaccurate.

              [–]tiphphin 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

              The wise man who built his house upon the rocks didn't exist. Neither did the foolish man who built his house upon the sand. That doesn't stop the story from being true.

              [–]kennyh13[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (3子コメント)

              For Jesus sacrifice to be nessesary there would have had to be a literal fall of man, Genesis describes this, if those events did not happen then why was Jesus nessesary? If it's an allegory then how do you decide what parts of the Bible are a myth and what parts are true?

              [–]tiphphin 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

              For Jesus sacrifice to be nessesary there would have had to be a literal fall of man

              You have not explained why this is.

              [–]Christian Deistapophis-pegasus 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

              , I don't see how one can call themselves a follower of Christ and believe in Evolution. The Bible and the theory of evolution completely contradict one another.

              Origen, Philo, Theodosius Dobhansky, Francis Collins, and the ENTIRE Jesuit order would like to have some words with you.

              [–]tiphphin 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

              Origen, Philo, Theodosius Dobhansky, Francis Collins, and the ENTIRE Jesuit order would like to have some words with you.

              (Small niggle, you left out Kenneth Miller who wrote the biology textbook that quite a few American schools use).

              But to the main point: they can explain it to him, but they can't make him understand.

              [–]Christian Deistapophis-pegasus 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

              (Small niggle, you left out Kenneth Miller who wrote the biology textbook that quite a few American schools use).

              Of course, how could I forget!