Evolution My ToE

[Bear Wild]

Why would you take offense at my suggestion that since one claims to be in the service of others,

Each one must follow his heart. After all, the scriptures say one must love the Lord with all one's heart, mind, and soul. Since you're getting sick and tired of me too, that's up to you. But I must say that the 'discussions' have been very interesting.
And let's not forget beyond Genesis, Mark 13:19, Jesus said: "Pray that it will not occur in the winter. 19For in those days there will be tribulation unmatched from the beginning of God’s creation until now, and never to be seen again. 20 If the Lord had not cut short those days, nobody would be saved. But for the sake of the elect, whom He has chosen, He has cut them short."
Whether you are sick of me or not, I have learned a great deal from you.

So in summary you do not care what evidence is presented in science because of an text written by people long before our understanding of the universe. Your absolute need to take the writings as literal truth with no objection to a single word allowed will never let you accept what science is teaching us. Does that sound correct? If so why even ask about evolution. Your ultimate answer is going to default back to "If it is not in the bible it is not correct". Of course whatever challenges are helpful to us who accept evolution to keep up on the subject so I guess I can thank you for that. All I would ask is do not pretend to anyone that you really want to learn about evolution when you know you will only reject it, not based on its merit, but because you will never accept anything that disagrees with your literal translation of a book written by humans.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm getting sick and tired of you too. It's about time you got it into your skull that most mainstream Christian denominations are not biblical literalist in nature and have no problem with science. It is deeply stupid to imagine that the only way to believe in a Creator and a created universe is if the Genesis stories are taken literally. These stories have been regarded as allegories, almost from the dawn of Christianity: Definition of ALLEGORY

If you want to write off Catholicism, Anglicanism, Methodism and Presbyterianism as not Christian, then nothing stops you doing so, but you will look a bit of an idiot trying.

Do those denominations or religions say that Mary did not have sexual intercourse when she got pregnant with Jesus? How do you or they figure? Just wondering here.

 

[YoursTrue]

I wasn't certain what you were saying about that, thus that was a question. I was therefore not taking offense but just asking you to clarify what you meant.

OK, so help out here, if you will. I asked another poster who said he was sick of me also, but I really took no offense. I still have a question and will ask you the same question in reference to evolution as reality or creation as the main substance. Was Mary a virgin when she got pregnant with Jesus? But in Jesus' case -- do you believe what the Bible says there? How do you teach?

Matthew 1:23 - “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.”
May I ask how you explain that in view of the theory of evolution? Please bear with me, if you get upset at the question, I am sorry and I will try hard not to ask any more questions of you. This conversation has been so helpful to me, and again, I thank you.

 

[exchemist]

Do those denominations or religions say that Mary did not have sexual intercourse when she got pregnant with Jesus? How do you or they figure? Just wondering here.

Nice example of whataboutery.

 

[YoursTrue]

Nice example of whataboutery.

I know Metis claims to believe in evolution as well as the Bible. So I'd like to hear his answer.

 

[metis]

OK, so help out here, if you will. I asked another poster who said he was sick of me also, but I really took no offense. I still have a question and will ask you the same question in reference to evolution as reality or creation as the main substance. Was Mary a virgin when she got pregnant with Jesus? But in Jesus' case -- do you believe what the Bible says there? How do you teach?

Matthew 1:23 - “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.”
May I ask how you explain that in view of the theory of evolution? Please bear with me, if you get upset at the question, I am sorry and I will try hard not to ask any more questions of you. This conversation has been so helpful to me, and again, I thank you.

The first part above has nothing to do with what we were talking about, and the second part also really doesn't relate to the ToE. IOW, what does Mary have to do with the ToE?

As I'm quite certain I posted this before, let me just mention that I am neither a scriptural literalist nor a believer in scriptural inerrancy, so I'm not sure if this is what you're trying to figure out or not with me. IOW. the Bible deals with Judeo-Christian beliefs, thus not objective history or science.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm getting sick and tired of you too. It's about time you got it into your skull that most mainstream Christian denominations are not biblical literalist in nature and have no problem with science. It is deeply stupid to imagine that the only way to believe in a Creator and a created universe is if the Genesis stories are taken literally. These stories have been regarded as allegories, almost from the dawn of Christianity: Definition of ALLEGORY

If you want to write off Catholicism, Anglicanism, Methodism and Presbyterianism as not Christian, then nothing stops you doing so, but you will look a bit of an idiot trying.

At least you say you're a cultural Catholic. I have a friend who was a nun, left the order, is still Catholic, goes to church and confession regularly, and cursed Mary when she ponders as to whether she was a virgin. I won't ask you what you think as a cultural Catholic or what the Catholic church itself thinks about Mary being a virgin when she got pregnant with Jesus as far as evolution goes along with a cultural view as a Catholic. But again -- thanks, it's been interesting. AND informative. Thank you so much!

 

[metis]

I know Metis claims to believe in evolution as well as the Bible. So I'd like to hear his answer.

I believe in both, but my beliefs are not "blind beliefs". I question and don't assume that everything I may read is totally accurate.

 

[YoursTrue]

The first part above has nothing to do with what we were talking about, and the second part also really doesn't relate to the ToE. IOW, what does Mary have to do with the ToE?

As I'm quite certain I posted this before, let me just mention that I am neither a scriptural literalist nor a believer in scriptural inerrancy, so I'm not sure if this is what you're trying to figure out or not with me. IOW. the Bible deals with Judeo-Christian beliefs, thus not objective history or science.

Yes, but do you believe Mary got pregnant by evolution when she was a virgin? Again -- thank you. You and some others regarding these points have done so much for me!!
Perhaps you agree with ex-chemist in his assessment that -- it was "whataboutery"?? Of course when you go into Judaic history, there are certainly aspects of commentary about that. But really -- we are discussing what YOU believe about Mary and evolution and getting pregnant with Jesus.

 

[metis]

Yes, but do you believe Mary got pregnant by evolution when she was a virgin?

Those two items don't relate as Mary's pregnancy has nothing to do with the ToE.

 

[YoursTrue]

I believe in both, but my beliefs are not "blind beliefs". I question and don't assume that everything I may read is totally accurate.

I believe in both, but my beliefs are not "blind beliefs". I question and don't assume that everything I may read is totally accurate.

Do you think there something about Mary's being a virgin when she conceived that is not totally accurate?

 

[YoursTrue]

Those two items don't relate as Mary's pregnancy has nothing to do with the ToE.

Yes, it does. But since you speak of blind belief, and the Bible says she conceived as a virgin, that could be evolution in your opinion, couldn't it? Or could it. Oh my, the questions you bring up!! In a student's mind. Please be specific, if you care to, thanks again.

 

[exchemist]

At least you say you're a cultural Catholic. I have a friend who was a nun, left the order, is still Catholic, goes to church and confession regularly, and cursed Mary when she ponders as to whether she was a virgin. I won't ask you what you think as a cultural Catholic or what the Catholic church itself thinks about Mary being a virgin when she got pregnant with Jesus as far as evolution goes along with a cultural view as a Catholic. But again -- thanks, it's been interesting. AND informative. Thank you so much!

Ah, now I get it. You want to know (although I'm sure you already know the answer, so it's presumably a rhetorical question) whether the Catholic church teaches the events reported in the gospels as being true. Correct?

The answer is yes I think by and large it does, though not necessarily in every detail. The church certainly accepts that God can work miracles.

 

[metis]

Do you think there something about Mary's being a virgin when she conceived that is not totally accurate?

Probably,. thus I'm not certain.

 

[metis]

ut since you speak of blind belief, and the Bible says she conceived as a virgin, that could be evolution in your opinion, couldn't it?

No.

 

[YoursTrue]

Ah, now I get it. You want to know (although I'm sure you already know the answer, so it's presumably a rhetorical question) whether the Catholic church teaches the events reported in the gospels as being true. Correct?

The answer is yes I think by and large it does, though not necessarily in every detail. The church certainly accepts that God can work miracles.

To an extent, yes. But not entirely. Since some claim to believe full throttle in evolution and also say they believe in the Bible to an extent, I'm wondering to what extent would that be. Is evolution entirely true? As scientists purport it to be? Like I said, I believe that, for instance, bacteria and viruses "evolve." They still remain bacteria or viruses. So far I see nothing further than bonobos remain bonobos and humans remain humans. And yes, I did not exist before my birth and/or conception. So I wasn't around when the first two chimpanzees, etc., were made. As in male and female.

 

[exchemist]

To an extent, yes. But not entirely. Since some claim to believe full throttle in evolution and also say they believe in the Bible to an extent, I'm wondering to what extent would that be. Is evolution entirely true? As scientists purport it to be? Like I said, I believe that, for instance, bacteria and viruses "evolve." They still remain bacteria or viruses. So far I see nothing further than bonobos remain bonobos and humans remain humans. And yes, I did not exist before my birth and/or conception. So I wasn't around when the first two chimpanzees, etc., were made. As in male and female.

No, the Christians you refer to believe fully in the bible as inspired by God. What they recognise however, is that it was written by men, using the literary devices and imagery of their culture and time and thus the messages it contains are expressed in a certain way that may need interpretation for us, in our time and culture. Unsurprisingly, this tends to apply especially to the most ancient parts of it.

I really don't understand the hangup about the evolution of life. Why focus on that, rather than the age of the Earth, say, or the development of the solar system, all of which Genesis gets totally wrong if taken literally?

 

[YoursTrue]

No, the Christians you refer to believe fully in the bible as inspired by God. What they recognise however, is that it was written by men, using the literary devices and imagery of their culture and time and thus the messages it contains are expressed in a certain way that may need interpretation for us, in our time and culture. Unsurprisingly, this tends to apply especially to the most ancient parts of it.

I really don't understand the hangup about the evolution of life. Why focus on that, rather than the age of the Earth, say, or the development of the solar system, all of which Genesis gets totally wrong if taken literally?

To me, it's quite apparent that time of a 'day' does not mean necessarily 24 hours as we see it. Thus it is certain that each day in the creation account, including the last one which has not yet ended, is more than a 24 hour period. As you say, each may reason it out accordingly. But--the details of how God did it are not included much, because it is not essential to life (or salvation).

 

[YoursTrue]

No, the Christians you refer to believe fully in the bible as inspired by God. What they recognise however, is that it was written by men, using the literary devices and imagery of their culture and time and thus the messages it contains are expressed in a certain way that may need interpretation for us, in our time and culture. Unsurprisingly, this tends to apply especially to the most ancient parts of it.

I really don't understand the hangup about the evolution of life. Why focus on that, rather than the age of the Earth, say, or the development of the solar system, all of which Genesis gets totally wrong if taken literally?

OK, so do you say you are a Christian? Meaning, which I assume, is a follower of Christ. And Jesus spoke of creation by God of the first man and woman. I'm not talking about literary devices here. Really my question is whether you believe man and woman came about by God's creation, as Jesus said, or by evolving from some unknown Last Common Ancestor, as evolutionists believe in the order of descent. By the way, do you know if and when God's hand (yes, a symbolic term for his energy and direction) was definitely involved in man's creation? Was it? When? How? that is, if you believe God had any part of creating the first man and woman. Other than sheer evolution without intelligent direction or guidance.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, the Christians you refer to believe fully in the bible as inspired by God. What they recognise however, is that it was written by men, using the literary devices and imagery of their culture and time and thus the messages it contains are expressed in a certain way that may need interpretation for us, in our time and culture. Unsurprisingly, this tends to apply especially to the most ancient parts of it.

I really don't understand the hangup about the evolution of life. Why focus on that, rather than the age of the Earth, say, or the development of the solar system, all of which Genesis gets totally wrong if taken literally?

This is a discussion about evolution. And the reason I am centering on this now is because some here claim to be Christian yet also believe in evolution as the fact of life. So that's why I'm asking how the two reconcile, and what I've read as answers. It amounts to (but not exactly said in the following words that some could say): "Well, you really can't believe much of what the Bible says, even though I like Christ's teachings, I'm not even sure he existed." To make clear, that is how I sum up what a few have been saying here, I'm not sure though. Perhaps you can make it clearer.
So let me make it more succinct, if you will.
1. Do you believe much of what the Bible says?
2. What parts of the Bible do you believe?
3. Do you believe Christ existed?
4. Did he exist as told in the scriptures or was this also in your view a myth, expressions told by men and not truthfully coming from God's spirit?
5. (Go back to #3.)