If Christianity is meant to be defined by a particularly literal understanding of the scripture, I suppose you are right. Not my choice to make, I guess.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Theistic (Biblical) Evolution: how does this sucker work?
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
If Christianity is meant to be defined by a particularly literal understanding of the scripture, I suppose you are right. Not my choice to make, I guess.
The problem I see in reconciling Scriptures with evolution is not really related to interpretation and literalism, but it goes deeper.
Evolution is, essentially, trial and error. Most of the trials vanish immediately or after a while. And it is not only biology. One vulcano here, a mateorite there have influenced the fact that we are here in significant ways.
Now, if those mass extinctions or deselections of the "unfit" were programmed, I don't know how else to call this other than a sadistic exercise of eugenics at planetary scale. Not exactly what one would expect from a God who knows what He wants and knows how to do it (benevolently and omnipotently).
For this reason, I think that a literal reading of the Bible, including peaceful pre-fall T-Rexes eating lettuce, is far more intellectually coherent than postulating a God that tinkers with biology and cataclisms of various nature over billions of years so that a certain type of ape can gain salvation and join Him in Heaven.
Ciao
- viole
Last edited:
Metaphor = what is obviously wrong, if literal
Literal = what has not been proven to be obviously wrong. Might become metahoric later
Ciao
- viole
Delta-9
Member
I was a Christian theistic evolutionist for years, I think I can give an accurate representation of the belief. I was on the liberal side, I guess I still am, so my explanation may be a tad skewed from the average TE.
You look at the text itself, the theology, history, and commentary surrounding said passage. As far as Genesis 1 goes there is commentary calling for an allegorical interpretation since the beginnings of Christianity, most notably St. Augustine but he was not the first. It is also important to note that even when a historical interpretation was accepted oftentimes an allegorical interpretation was accepted too, the two aren't mutually exclusive.
As this Hebrew scholar advocates, and I agree, even the compilers of the Torah were not overly concerned with a literal interpretation. I linked this article previously but in case you didn't read it it is a good read on the subject from a knowledgeable person. Genesis As Allegory - My Jewish Learning
As to how the non-literalness works TEs have differing ideas. Some of the more conservatives will say that evolution is true and each day represents some long period of time that kind of catalogues the progression of evolution. I think that is nonsense for various reasons, for one thing the order is all wrong. The conclusion I personally reached was that a "day" is best understood as a normal 24-hour day, I took a multilayered approach where it is a literal and allegorical story, yet the meaning is not in the literal but the underlying message; the literal story was simply the vehicle by which ancient Hebrews expressed their theology.
Perhaps a non-religious example might be a camp-fire story that talks about two campers wondering off at night and got eaten by a bear. The story is literal yet fiction, and the message is not that there were two boys that got eaten by a bear but that you shouldn't be an idiot and wander around the woods at night.
Similarly Genesis' message isn't that God created in 6-7 days, but that God did create and cares about his creation. It also expresses the thought that we are all one giant family (all descendants of Adam/humankind) which is used to justify one of the seven Noahide laws that prohibits murder. Also the Sabbath is clearly expressed in Genesis 1 and 2, thus the expression of the creation story in terms of days.
The point is that non-literal interpretations of Genesis are nothing new, and have existed long before Darwin or modern science.
It is mythology and poetry, that isn't an opinion or an educated opinion, it is simply the terminology of religious literary scholars. "Mythology" in the context of religion has a technical use, basically any ancient story that is used to ponder questions of origins and our place in the cosmos. Poetry too doesn't have to be a modern rhyming poem, the Odyssey and Iliad are also poetry.
I have to go but mostly said what I wanted, until next time.
You look at the text itself, the theology, history, and commentary surrounding said passage. As far as Genesis 1 goes there is commentary calling for an allegorical interpretation since the beginnings of Christianity, most notably St. Augustine but he was not the first. It is also important to note that even when a historical interpretation was accepted oftentimes an allegorical interpretation was accepted too, the two aren't mutually exclusive.
As this Hebrew scholar advocates, and I agree, even the compilers of the Torah were not overly concerned with a literal interpretation. I linked this article previously but in case you didn't read it it is a good read on the subject from a knowledgeable person. Genesis As Allegory - My Jewish Learning
As to how the non-literalness works TEs have differing ideas. Some of the more conservatives will say that evolution is true and each day represents some long period of time that kind of catalogues the progression of evolution. I think that is nonsense for various reasons, for one thing the order is all wrong. The conclusion I personally reached was that a "day" is best understood as a normal 24-hour day, I took a multilayered approach where it is a literal and allegorical story, yet the meaning is not in the literal but the underlying message; the literal story was simply the vehicle by which ancient Hebrews expressed their theology.
Perhaps a non-religious example might be a camp-fire story that talks about two campers wondering off at night and got eaten by a bear. The story is literal yet fiction, and the message is not that there were two boys that got eaten by a bear but that you shouldn't be an idiot and wander around the woods at night.
Similarly Genesis' message isn't that God created in 6-7 days, but that God did create and cares about his creation. It also expresses the thought that we are all one giant family (all descendants of Adam/humankind) which is used to justify one of the seven Noahide laws that prohibits murder. Also the Sabbath is clearly expressed in Genesis 1 and 2, thus the expression of the creation story in terms of days.
You seem to have a run-on sentence here. In any case I can't make sense of any of it.
The point is that non-literal interpretations of Genesis are nothing new, and have existed long before Darwin or modern science.
It is mythology and poetry, that isn't an opinion or an educated opinion, it is simply the terminology of religious literary scholars. "Mythology" in the context of religion has a technical use, basically any ancient story that is used to ponder questions of origins and our place in the cosmos. Poetry too doesn't have to be a modern rhyming poem, the Odyssey and Iliad are also poetry.
I have to go but mostly said what I wanted, until next time.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Thank you for your input.rusra02 said:
Considering the vile nature of the god of Abraham I don't see this at all. He created evil, killed millions of innocent people time and again, and directed people to perpetrate the most heinous acts against the innocent. But most abominable of all is sticking all of humanity with the consequences of two guileless people. But this is a whole other issue and I don't want to get sidetracked here.viole said:
So, where would these "pre-fall T-Rexes" fit into the Genesis narrative?
Just what is this compelling commentary? [Never mind, I see you've provided what looks like a very good link. If time allows I'll take a look at it.] And, I take it that this commentary has convinced you that Gen. 1 is allegorical, allowing to substitute evolution as the source of life's diversity. Does it also permit you to dismiss the whole A&E story?Delta-9 said:
FunctionalAtheist
Hammer of Reason
I've often wondered, if god is real, does he pray to Darwin?
Delta-9
Member
I think that article is a good layman summary from someone who knows their stuff. But at a more basic level I find it hard to believe that the elites among the ancient Hebrews took Genesis as literal history, at least in a dogmatic way.
"Dismiss" is simply the wrong word, but yes we can reject a literal Adam and Eve, and instead focus on the allegorical aspects of said story. Not all theistic evolutionists reject a literal Adam and Eve, mind you - I think the norm of this breed of TE is that A&E were the first in our evolutionary line to have a [fully human soul given to them by God].
Skwim
Veteran Member
Understood. And an excellent reply, by the way.
Dear Readers, Dismissing the highest form of intelligence which ONLY God and Adam have, Gen 3:22 leaves prehistoric man in his Cave forever. This is because Nature does NOT produce Human intelligence in Apes, no matter who tells you otherwise. When you ask these people to show you the evidence of How and When this Magical event took place, they call you names and imply that you are nuts, because you won't BLINDLY accept their provably False ToE. God Bless you.
BTW, TE cannot be supported by Scripture, since it is also False.
In Love,
Aman
We already know that Scripture is false. But the fact that Scripture is false, does not entail that evolution is false, too.
Ciao
- viole
Last edited:
Der viole, Scripture is True because it agrees n every way with every discovery of Science and History. The ToE, on the other hand, doesn't agree with any other discovered Truth. That's because it's a Satanic Lie, forced upon our little children by Godless Evols. Jesus tells us what will happen to these False Teachers:
Mat 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in Me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
Whatever is planned for these UnBelievers is WORSE than being drowned in the Sea. Maybe it's being thrown into the Lake of Fire. God Bless you.
In Love,
Aman
That would be an odd reason to decide that the Christian Scripture is true, even if the reason itself were clearly true (which is arguable at the very best).
Does the way things actually work and happen in the Real World (TM) count as a "discovered Truth"?
If it does, then you are simply lying.
If there is a God, it was him that "forced" it on us all. Go take it up with Him.
Dear Luis, It is NOT arguable IF you read Genesis for what it actually says, instead of what some UnBeliever says it says.
God's Truth agrees in EVERY way with EVERY discovery of Science and History IF you have the proper interpretation.
God is Love and doesn't FORCE anything upon Unbelievers. He allows them to decide their own Future, no matter how terrible is their decision. God Bless you.
In Love,
Aman
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
This is nothing but wishful thinking on your part.
hells bells, you cannot even present any science or history...
which reveals you know it is a big steaming pile of bull **** you spew.
Good thing.
Otherwise you would be in a world of hurt...
From you this is a bold empty threat.
Dear Amen,
I usually interpret reminders of my destiny in fire as a sign that I am winning an argument.
However, they are to me as scary as the threat of not receiving any present from Santa this coming Christmas.
Ciao
- viole
Roman Catholic Answer: The Bible is not literal, but allegorical. Claims in early Genesis are allegorical, thus it did not happen in literal days nor independently of one another; it's just the narrative frame for the actual scientific processes that God put into place over billenia.
I have read some of Genesis. It does not seem to suit itself to support such controversy against the findings of science.
In that case, what are you complaining about?
For better or worse (and is it even worse?), the world includes the facts predicted and explained by the Theory of Evolution. That must mean that God is at least in acceptance of it, doesn't it?
Sha'irullah
رسول الآلهة
Religious people are known for serious mind bending. I have no the slightest clue how it is done but all I know is that it only qualifies one as insincere, a liar, or perhaps uneducated. When I think of theistic evolution(Christian primarily) I just wonder to myself "how on God's green earth do you shoehorn that in"?
Old Earth Creationism as espoused by the Roman Catholic Church definitely has no issue with evolution as the mechanism, due to the lack of sola scriptura.
From my time as a Roman Catholic, the doctrine is decided by the Magisterium of the Church. Determination of literalism and allegory is determined by a) scholarly investigation, b) scientific inquiry (There are a surprising amount of biologists and physicists in the Church ranks.), and c) theological debate. It mostly works, as with any human process. Of course, not perfect.
The general rule of thumb is that God does not violate His own rules...and the laws of nature and science are those rules.
Why, when a simple explanation is best? As before, from my previous Catholic stance, God created the universe, and being omniscient, knew how evolution and all else were going to come out when He set it going. And Man, writing it down, wrote it in a way that made sense to him at the time.
I am curious; what's wrong with parts (or all) of the Bible being allegorical? The same standard is applied to all other religious founding texts...why not the Bible?
Skwim
Veteran Member
Ah yes, I guess I should have added the qualification that Catholics need not bother.Castaigne said:
Because Delta-9 said "I honestly think that is a caricature and gross oversimplification for TEs that care about the issue."
It's just a simple request.
Because many Christians claim the Bible is a reliable source of truth,
Timothy 3:16 (TLB)
"The whole Bible was given to us by inspiration from God and is useful to teach us what is true."
Yet when shown the absurdity of some of its stories, they start qualifying these "truths" as myths, allegories, and such, not based on any evidence or research, but merely on their ridiculousness. I say, if you're going to assert that everything in the Bible is the true, then, out side of its absurdity, explain why element X should be an exception."The whole Bible was given to us by inspiration from God and is useful to teach us what is true."
If you claim the Bible is filled with myths, metaphors, allegories, contradictions, then you can't call it a book of truth. It's a book that may contain some truth, but it's also filled with some non-truths as well.
Last edited: