Evolution is the only theologically plausible answer

[Estro Felino]

Theologically speaking, I think that Creationism contradicts every theological principle that we as Christians learn from the time we are children.
That is, that men are endowed with free will and that God has never meant to hurt anyone.
All that happens on this Earth is the result of a slow, incredibly slow process made up of changes.
Changes God has nothing to do with, because He will not deprive us of our freedom.
It's freedom what implies change.

Besides, the evil nature of people is the direct result of the animalistic component, sadism, that anthropologists and psychiatrists have been studying for years.
Felines torture their preys because they are endowed with that horrific animalistic component.
Sadism is what Nazis on the concentration camps have been diagnosed with.
There was a horrific sadistic component in their behavior: there was nothing rational or sensible in that.

I think that this scientific theory answers so many theological questions....that even the Bible asks.
And so... it can also explain what original sin (that has nothing to do with Adam and Eve since they have never existed) is, what atonement is, and the reason of Christ's coming.

 

[Estro Felino]

A macabre example of sadism.
Darya Saltykova: a Muscovite aristocrat that owned so many lands, and consequently so many serfs (krepostnoe pravo was the juridical condition of those people who were semi-slaves since their owner could do anything to them).
She used to enjoy seeing them tortured.

 

[Estro Felino]

@Wildswanderer I am curious about your stance, on this topic.

 

[sun rise]

@Estro Felino , your OP is very close to my own view.

Quickly, mine includes that there is a teleological purpose to evolution. The purpose of evolution is a fully self aware creature, a human being, who then continues evolution in intellectual, emotional, social and other dimensions as a primary focus.

 

[Left Coast]

@Estro Felino , your OP is very close to my own view.

Quickly, mine includes that there is a teleological purpose to evolution. The purpose of evolution is a fully self aware creature, a human being, who then continues evolution in intellectual, emotional, social and other dimensions as a primary focus.

Is there a reason evolution, in your view, only has the purpose of producing one such species? Why not more?

 

[Estro Felino]

Is there a reason evolution, in your view, only has the purpose of producing one such species? Why not more?

If I may express my personal humble opinion...there is no purpose at all.
I mean...God didn't design those huge monstrous lizards. Today known as dinosaurs.
No wonder they're extinct.

 

[F1fan]

Why assume a God at all when explaining how the diversity of life on the planet evolved? Theists have a dilemma, and that is trying to reconcile a literalist interpretation of religious books to what facts and science reveals about reality. I have suggested theists adjust their manner of interpretation and look at religious books more symbolically than literal. To my mind it will result in less inner turmoil between emotions and reason, and also allow a more substantive framework for meaning.

 

[Estro Felino]

Why assume a God at all when explaining how the diversity of life on the planet evolved? Theists have a dilemma, and that is trying to reconcile a literalist interpretation of religious books to what facts and science reveals about reality. I have suggested theists adjust their manner of interpretation and look at religious books more symbolically than literal. To my mind it will result in less inner turmoil between emotions and reason, and also allow a more substantive framework for meaning.

This thread is about Creationism/ Evolution.
Not about God's existence. Btw...interesting point.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Theologically speaking, I think that Creationism contradicts every theological principle that we as Christians learn from the time we are children.
That is, that men are endowed with free will and that God has never meant to hurt anyone.
All that happens on this Earth is the result of a slow, incredibly slow process made up of changes.
Changes God has nothing to do with, because He will not deprive us of our freedom.
It's freedom what implies change.

Besides, the evil nature of people is the direct result of the animalistic component, sadism, that anthropologists and psychiatrists have been studying for years.
Felines torture their preys because they are endowed with that horrific animalistic component.
Sadism is what Nazis on the concentration camps have been diagnosed with.
There was a horrific sadistic component in their behavior: there was nothing rational or sensible in that.

I think that this scientific theory answers so many theological questions....that even the Bible asks.
And so... it can also explain what original sin (that has nothing to do with Adam and Eve since they have never existed) is, what atonement is, and the reason of Christ's coming.

I don't buy into evolution in the sense of everything evolving over time. Organisms change, yes, but God didn't create a blank slate, he created a mature earth.

 

[Estro Felino]

I don't buy into evolution in the sense of everything evolving over time. Organisms change, yes, but God didn't create a blank slate, he created a mature earth.

So he created Adam and Eve as well, I suppose?

 

[Mock Turtle]

I don't buy into evolution in the sense of everything evolving over time. Organisms change, yes, but God didn't create a blank slate, he created a mature earth.

So no tectonic plate shifting - over hundreds of millions of years?

 

[Windwalker]

Why assume a God at all when explaining how the diversity of life on the planet evolved? Theists have a dilemma, and that is trying to reconcile a literalist interpretation of religious books to what facts and science reveals about reality. I have suggested theists adjust their manner of interpretation and look at religious books more symbolically than literal. To my mind it will result in less inner turmoil between emotions and reason, and also allow a more substantive framework for meaning.

And when they have done this, understand their religious books as symbolic instead of literal, are they still theists in your mind? In other words, do you believe that theists can be non-literalists, and still be theists?

 

[Windwalker]

I don't buy into evolution in the sense of everything evolving over time. Organisms change, yes, but God didn't create a blank slate, he created a mature earth.

God only made the universe and the earth appear to be ancient for what reason then? Why provide so much evidence to trick us into thinking it was old then?

To test our faith in our reading of scripture literally, to see if we might not question how we've thought about these things previously, and then punish us for doubting ourselves and our reading of scripture? Why else would God have so much evidence to the contrary, if it were actually only a few thousand years old?

 

[Wildswanderer]

So he created Adam and Eve as well, I suppose?

Of course.

 

[Estro Felino]

Of course.

If you believe in Adam and Eve, then you believe in Creationism.

 

[sun rise]

Is there a reason evolution, in your view, only has the purpose of producing one such species? Why not more?

Clearly it's not about intelligence given many quite bright creatures including corvids. And it's not about basic emotions given that some have a sense of fairness, for example. And I sincerely doubt we're the only ones in the universe for any plausible terms in Drake's equation. Other than that?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't buy into evolution in the sense of everything evolving over time. Organisms change, yes, but God didn't create a blank slate, he created a mature earth.

How do you account for all the evidence that says otherwise? It makes no sense that God would create fake evidence of a past that never existed. There is nothing in the Bible that suggests that. If it were the case, then how could people be held accountable for accepting it as a reality if it was put in place to achieve a false sense of reality.

Could it be that interpretation of Genesis as describing literal events where everything was poofed into existence as is may not be the best interpretation?

What do you mean by "organisms change" but in some way that is not an evolution?

I'm curious, what is your interpretation of Job 40:15-24?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

God only made the universe and the earth appear to be ancient for what reason then? Why provide so much evidence to trick us into thinking it was old then?

To test our faith in our reading of scripture literally, to see if we might not question how we've thought about these things previously, and then punish us for doubting ourselves and our reading of scripture? Why else would God have so much evidence to the contrary, if it were actually only a few thousand years old?

The way I see it, either a literal interpretation of Genesis is wrong or God is not setting a good example and lying to us. I can't see God as such a being and being so contradictory doesn't make sense. So, it must be that standard interpretations of some parts of the Bible do not apply.

 

[Wildswanderer]

It makes no sense that God would create fake evidence of a past that never existed. There is nothing in the Bible that suggests that.

There's no fake evidence... it's all in the interpretation of the evidence.

 

[gnostic]

I don't buy into evolution in the sense of everything evolving over time. Organisms change, yes, but God didn't create a blank slate, he created a mature earth.

So are you saying God is a “deceiver”?