/christ/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>3156

Thank you for sharing your experience. That book is phenomenal by the way, especially because the drawings are so freaking creepy and disturbing.

Yes I'd be interested in hearing the beliefs of your relatives, regardless of who comments on this thread. Its a slow board so threads will always be light and stay up long in comparison to other boards.

>>3137

>What are your personal beliefs on the subject of how humans came to be?

Fun fact: Catholicism leaves this question open but has declared that "the soul was created by God as a deliberate/distinctive action" and did not evolve. Rest is up to personal belief.

I think that God created The first humans. I am not sure how, or if he used an already existing animal but there was a point where he took what was their and breathed in a soul and formed it to his likeness.

Evolution is true and every farmer or gardner can confirm it. But it is not as simple as media wants you to make you believe. In fact scientists have very little idea of what they are doing and how genetics work in detail.

>Also, Dinosaurs, what's up with that?

They lived on this earth before us and then got extinct. not sure how

>>3156

> and count the generations in Deutronomity to calculate the age of the world.

That's silly. These ages don't stand for actual years that passed but are symbolic. 40 is a number for divine tests for example. 40 years in the march to Israel, 40days fasting in the desert etc.

>I only fully accepted Evolution at the University when presented with maps and charts that made perfect sense.

About what did they make sense? About inherited traits being passed by? Is true. But how exactly species come to be like they are and how and why they change and can adjust to their environment, this is not clear.

Science is never 100% clear. 100 years ago people that believed in the continental drift were laughed upon. Today it is a fact.

To rely on science is not very safe.

>>3196

>To rely on science is not very safe.

It's also safer to listen to facts and opposing arguments rather closing my ears to it and resisting it as I was told to when I held to a Christian perspective. But who said anything about relying on science? That's a common misconception about Atheists (I thought Atheists were dogmatic about theories myself.) In reality most of us who have left religion hold a flexible belief in what is plausible, attach more probability to theories with better predictive/explanatory power, and are willing to reevaluate anything if presented with solid evidence.

Granted certain people use words from mysticism that make them appear dogmatic, (psysicists love to use colorful language), but that is because they're familiar with science, love the processes of the natural world, and consider the complexity of the universe beautiful. And when it comes to evolution, there's barely any room for doubt once it's been clearly presented to a person and supported by evidence to refute certain doubts and questions. It's been confirmed in so many experiments that it's safe to say it's a real rule the universe follows just like gravity, thermodynamics, or the passage of time. As for how the first life started, there have been experiments and theories to explain how lipids could evolve into simple life over time, and I wouldn't be surprised if we have a more definitive answer within a hundred years.

>>3196

> but has declared that "the soul was created by God as a deliberate/distinctive action" and did not evolve.

This seems to be the approach that level-headed institutions are taking, and I think that's a good thing.

> not sure how

Lol me neither. Mormon YEC has some interesting theories about that, and so fair I've adopted them just because I like the idea so much, regardless of whether its true or not.

>>3199

>believing in evolution in no way jeopardize the faith.

I would say this is true, but, a caveat. I'd argue that the physical origin of humanity is not necessary or influential to salvation and spiritual flourishing, and so if its done its to appease the natural man, that's it. Doesn't mean its wrong to be curious and want to understand the world better, but this is only fruitful and has merit when its done to understand God better.

I think studying Evolution, or indeed any subject ever is only good when it can be done in a safe, faith-promoting way; anything else is an unnecessary risk. This knowledge doesn't affect your salvation or your spirituality in a meaningful way, but it can be wielded like the witch's hammer by those seeking to destroy one's faith, and so its always prudent and proper for any follower of Christ to be wary and extra-skeptical, even close-minded, when dealing with things like this.

I'm personally on the fence on the subject. Evolution as taught today could be true, and there'd be nothing wrong with that. It could also be false, and it'd be a shame if a person were to become lost over a non-essential matter.

If you deny evolution, you deny the ultimate beauty in the idea that God planned everything in advance to the big bang, and I feel you also deny that God had the ability to create evolution.

Let's think about this: it's proven fact. Not only do we fundamentally understand it on a biological level, but it's been observed.

Now, a Creationist closes his ears and denies evolution without cause, because he thinks it will invalidate his faith. That is very much the opposite, and in my eyes, denying a newly understood part of God's world is heresy. In reality, it brings a whole new understanding of how God created the world, and a new, very interesting debate on it. It doesn't go against true faith; it strengthens it.

If you accept that God created everything, and is all knowing, then you must accept that he created evolution since it's a part of the world; you can't just say it isn't real, close your ears and then continue living in ignorant fantasy, and you can't continue saying you have belief in God if you deny he could do that.

If he was always all-knowing, all he had to do was move around a few particles to create Earth and Humanity before the big bang.

>>3301

Hmm, you have an interesting perspective, though you'd have a hard time proving that denying evolution is heresy or that its in any way shape or form a negative thing, spiritually speaking. This is friendly way of saying that this is unfortunately, a straw-man

If you really understand evolution and believe it to be true, I'd urge you to try and educate Christians in a friendly and faith promoting way, because there's already more than enough atheists, satanists and jews who mock and demonize YECs, which makes them associate evolution with Satan (which is partly true, insofar as many of its adherents are concerned). You'd be a great asset in this battle; because if you find the idea of creationist denying evolution and interpreting the Bible literally heretical, I can only imagine how livid you must feel towards the people who use Evolution as a tool to disprove, slander and blaspheme the Lord.

Few of us, if anyone, are creationists here. Creationism is the bane of modern Christianity and the mediatic toy of the New Atheists. Both love their debate because it advertises Creationism, which Creationists like, and it reduces Christianity to something stupid, which New Atheists love.

Creationism shouldn't exist as it makes no sense scientifically AND religiously.

>>3137

> if you believe that God played any role whatsoever in creating life, you are a Creationist;

>>3320

>Creationism shouldn't exist as it makes no sense scientifically AND religiously.

So, I had met my Catholic relatives and they were complaining about how progressive liberals had used social Darwinism to hurt "our people" with political cartoons a century ago. I have no idea what she was going on about, but it was the perfect timing to ask the Catholic relatives what the Catholic position on evolution was. They said there was no official position, and what various arch bishops believed were opinions.

They said microevolution might be possible (dog breeds) but not macroevolution. They said a species cannot turn into another species.

The mother with her kids said the Big Bang is incredibly impossible for "many reasons" and that Earth is located in an arm of the galaxy where we have an unusually good view of the galaxy which we wouldn't have if it were anywhere else. She said it's nearly impossible for a planet to evolve life in the Universe because it has to be at the right distance from the sun, and properrly heated and shielded from asteroids with the right atmospheric chemicals and so forth.

She said the universe is like a clock. It's too complicated and perfect to have been created by chance. She questioned how a baby could evolve to automatically suck on a nipple for milk, and how the mother could evolve to give milk. She said a frog laying eggs in the back of another was an unlikely evolution. She said it was nearly impossible for a mitrochronida and other cell components to evolve, and for all of these things to happen together is ridiculous, can't you see? She named a bunch more arguments for intelligent design. Then she said you have to get all sides. (She must have thought I hadn't done that, or heard the names of her arguments before.)

Later she and her kids actually all separately scoffed at me for having a "liberal education", (their term) implying their education was better. (This blatant arrogance/prejudice is why I don't bother to meet with them very often.) I asked the daughter what classes she was taking as a senior and her subjects were "Catholic European history," "16th century European history", "Catholic writing", "Shakespheare" and "Creative Writing" because she is attending a private Catholoc University.

The daughter then smiled and said, "I bet you probably weren't taught the Catholic position at any of your courses at your University." I replied those classes useful mainly for understanding the history of religion. She said, "But you have to get all sides. Your education didn't give you all sides."

The son said "It's good to check the Christian websites." The mom added, "Science and religion can coexist."

The son then told me scientists had invented a new battery that can hold all of the energy being used in the working world, and it can fit inside your hand. I told him that was too incredible to believe, and where did you hear that?

He replied that you have to check multiple sources, and told me a few dozen more crackpot theories he'd read on the internet. (One was that there were significantly fewer exoplanets than we believed, and it was nonsense that any could support life, and a religious scientist had tried to say so but was silenced by the government.)

I told him the his battery idea sounded like cold fusion, and the quality of the source matters. He replied "but I read 3 sources online, from 3 different blogs."

By the way the mother of these kids is a teacher and she homeschooled her kids their entire lives. In my opinion she has a weak understanding of science, (her concentration is national history) and she should not have attempted to teach it to her kids. (Even though she had online modules for assistance, it wasn't enough.) They believe whatever their mother told them, and have lived secluded from outside influence their whole lives.

All of them randomly besmirched liberals at least every ten minutes, and identified as Neoconservatives. They also said certain races are genetically better at certain mental tasks, that it matters more than culture, (and then talked about what their race was good at.)

These particular relatives are confident that their family are fortunate enough to see the truth of the world. Anyone who does not concur has not been red-pilled, and is clearly brainwashed by society and/or secularism.

>>3320

Atheists are not the one that want creationism to be told in school.

evolution makes no sense

it makes no sense to me that a single celled organism in 2015 has an entire geneology going back to the very first occurrence of life (which was a single celled organism) entirely made up of single celled organisms, whereas a human in 2015 evolved from that same initial single celled organism, all based on random mutation and natural selection

the Bible is clear. God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind. the Bible explicitly teaches a non-evolutionary creation

Bump.

I'd appreciate some more input from anyone who believes the Bible is incompatible with the theory of evolution.

>It is most likely that the vast majority on this board are Creationist. Before that is misinterpreted, if you believe that God played any role whatsoever in creating life, you are a Creationist

What kind of Christian doesn't believe God created the universe? I know you want to change the common meaning of "Creationist" to mean "people who believe God created the universe", but as much as you dislike it, it's not how it works. Whenever anyone hears "Creationist", they think American Protestants and the making of the planet as an intervention that defies the known laws of physics, chemistry, and everything else.

If your question really is "who believes that God created the universe?" then why even ask? It's one of the few common denominator to any monotheist faith: God is the creator.

Asking this is asking nothing.

>What are your personal beliefs on the subject of how humans came to be?

My best guess is what science shows us. I'm not one to assume the physical world is a trick (Gnosticism) or that God is a lying prankster, so empirical data is valid to me.

I've long doubted evolution, but educating myself about it made me doubt it no more, although I'm not convinced we've figured it all out already, by far, and in any case, nothing prevents anyone from assuming God is behind it just as He'd be behind the universe. Once you set the universe in motion, given the right rules, you eventually get biological life going on, and it evolves. I wouldn't bet my faith on the idea that life can't start unless God kickstarts it as a miracle. I don't exclude the idea, but I don't feel obligated to put any stock on it. It isn't necessary.

So far, we don't really have evidence that life started itself, however.

I entirely reject YEC and OEC, what everyone calls "Creationism" simply because wishful thinking isn't an argument and doesn't make reality change. The idea that science is a threat to faith is one of the most noxious ideas to ever meet the faithful. Don't let yourselves be cornered by this unnecessary fork in the road: faith or reason. There should be no fork, no division. If God is the Logos, reason, then we shouldn't stray too far from it.

>>3320

I don't think atheists debating creationists or trying to undermine their position is to make christians look bad as whole. That might be a part of it. But while the controversy has died down considerably it wasn't too long ago that creationists were making a serious push to teach intelligent design in science classrooms and were actually convincing prominent people that it was an equally valid and competitive theory.

This was mainly in the US in states like Texas and Louisiana, the Bible Belt, where you had people on education boards saying they didn't believe dogs could turn into monkeys and things of that nature. To give a personal example when I was going to Catholic school in 1st grade we weren't allowed to wear pokemon shirts because they "evolved". It was that bad in some parts of the country. Thankfully that's about when my parents realized it was time to pull us out of Catholic school.

So I don't think attacking crackpots like Ray Comfort or Ken Ham is an attempt to make Christians look like idiots. It was a necessary battle to be fought.

>More importantly, how essential is knowledge of these events in terms of one's spiritual well-being?

Either very important or meaningless, it depends on your approach.

For my part, it is becoming increasingly difficult to reconcile the notion of sin (as understood by most) with what we know of biology, psychology, etc. I can't just assume that sexual instincts are the result of sin and that there's a fallen version of sexual instincts and a non-fallen one. The Catholic dogma that humans were once immortal is, for instance, something I currently can't accept.

In order to rescue my little faith from this stuff, I'm increasingly forced to redefine "sin" and I'm getting ever closer to the idea that sin is our ungodliness, i.e. that we aren't God and can only fall short of His perfection, whatever it is. The problem with that is that I still can't connect personal guilt to it. There's nothing in evolution that I can see as "our fault". I'm not one to avoid blame where blame is due, but until I can pinpoint what we did wrong and why we're at fault, I can't take this too seriously. This is going to require much more studying on my part.

>>4309

I know this might be a ridiculous question. But if empirical science finds that reality is at odds with what is taught in the bible. Wouldn't it make sense to reconsider your faith? I'm not trying to deconvert you or anything, don't worry. I'm just wondering why this is such an inconceivable notion.

Now as far as Christianity being demonized I agree that it might have played a part but I don't think it was the primary reason for trying to discredit creationism so fervently. Was Dawkins just looking out for scientific education when he attacked Christians? Probably not, he dislikes Christianity and its teachings so I wouldn't be surprised if he relished in making Christians look stupid.

But as far as an atheist/jewish/reptillian/etc. conspiracy to undermine Christianity I'm not convinced. The Christians who supported creationism and denied reality are the ones who made Christianity look stupid. The primary motivation for the debate was about what constituted proper science and why creationism absolutely failed as a theory.

>>4311

>>4311

>But as far as an atheist/jewish/reptillian/etc. conspiracy to undermine Christianity I'm not convinced. The Christians who supported creationism and denied reality are the ones who made Christianity look stupid. The primary motivation for the debate was about what constituted proper science and why creationism absolutely failed as a theory.

Once again it is misunderstood what creationism is.

Hint: IT does not contradict the big bang theory.

Which was made by a Catholic monk btw. But this doesn't fit in with the modernist world view where the Church is evil, so you don't know it.

>>4302

>For my part, it is becoming increasingly difficult to reconcile the notion of sin (as understood by most) with what we know of biology, psychology, etc. I can't just assume that sexual instincts are the result of sin and that there's a fallen version of sexual instincts and a non-fallen one. The Catholic dogma that humans were once immortal is, for instance, something I currently can't accept.

There is no arguing with the truth. You acknowledge it or you don't.

>>4314

I'm not talking about creationism in that context. I'm talking about creationism in the sense that all life was created in its basically current form and that evolution is false.

I'm well aware of how many scientists were religious thank you.

>>4315

Using the terms Young Earth Creationist or Theistic Evolutionist would cut down on all this silliness

>>4311

I don't think this is a silly question at all. Honestly, I'd probably just become an edgy /pol/ack using religion to further my political means to be honest, I certainly would never be openly atheist again. I basically just think the world is better when people believe in God and follow that morality.

> I don't think it was the primary reason for trying to discredit creationism so fervently.

I do. If you believe in Christ, the idea of an over-arching conspiracy against all that is good and decent is not so far fetched; the Devil is actively trying to destroy us, and he manifests in many forms. Its all a matter of connecting the dots, but the impetus is there.

>The Christians who supported creationism and denied reality are the ones who made Christianity look stupid.

You could make the argument that Protestants have been deceived by Satan to spread a heresy, but even then the main proponents of Evolution still wouldn't be in the side of God or right; they'd still; be evil secularists and jews doing the will of Satan whether they know it or not.

Well, I'm pretty sure Christ never condoned anyone being stoned to death. But this always sounded like being anti-polygamy to me.

>>4309

>"how does this reconcile with the Bible?"

It doesn't need to if we mean the OT. Belief that God is good and created this world good and is not trying to fool us with trickery means that empirical data is valid. Once that is accepted, I trust experts on their fields, not blindly, but I have no reason to go against astrophysicists and geologists, especially not when they are so numerous and would have seen a flaw had there been one (that doesn't go for all things, but for the most part, I think it does).

> Think about the curve that evolution throws to the idea of sin and its origins, or the existence of the soul.

I struggle with this but one of our new members just gave me great info about the very word "sin" and it'll help a lot. It comes from archery, and means "missing the mark". This is tremendously important because "missing the mark" means you're not perfect, more than "you committed an atrocity". In this sense, not being God forces you to "sin", and in that, it works whether humanity "fell" or not.

>soul

More complicated, but not that much. I don't see the problem between evolution and souls. It's less problematic to me than imagining God suddenly popping out from behind a cloud and SHAZAM: two humans.

>Was there death before sin, before humans were as they are today or no?

All excellent questions. I think so, because dinosaurs weren't immortal, none of the animals before us were immortal, and I don't believe humans were immortal either.

>Did Jesus address and refer to the creation story or something explicitly derivative from it (or taking it as literal) during his earthly ministry?

He thankfully did not.

>If He did, how could we tell?

We can't, but that only show it wasn't important. It's only important from a scientific point of view, which didn't exist back then. Can't have one without scientific method.

>>4309

>I beg to differ.

Actually, I must have misworded my sentence… I do think atheists enjoy debating Creationists to make all Christians look bad. Some atheists may even believe all Christians are Creationists (in that specific meaning).

>But see I feel like that's very, very wrong, and that it ought to be the other way around.

Ironically, my redefining it fits with the original meaning of the Hebrew word for "sin".

>>4309

>This is why this stuff is so dangerous unless taught in a proper setting.

Nah, you can trust this universe more than the Bible, because God made the former but we made the latter. The laws of physics are more reliable than the OT.

>begins to contradict and twist the principles of Christ

I don't see how it could do this.

>metaphysical concepts

These remain out of reach for empirical study (most of the time).

>That's lame. I like the whole "Dinosaurs are alien animals from dead worlds that God used to create the Earth" much better.

XD

>>4311

>But if empirical science finds that reality is at odds with what is taught in the bible. Wouldn't it make sense to reconsider your faith?

No. Instead, I reconsider the Bible. Something like Genesis is not a problem: science only confirms literary tradition, that it was not intended to be read literally, but shows the poetic ability of the Hebrews (with the symbolism of their numbers and all that) and we were simpletons to read it at such a base level. That's all I need to "reconsider".

(I know you're not talking to me directly but I like to respond to EVERYTHING.)

>>4314

>Which was made by a Catholic monk

Priest. Georges Lemaître.

>There is no arguing with the truth. You acknowledge it or you don't.

Exactly. The truth is that God is not playing tricks with the universe and we can trust empirical data over the ideas of arrogant humans. I'll trust His creation over your arrogance any day.

>>4432

>Belief that God is good and created this world good and is not trying to fool us with trickery means that empirical data is valid.

Yeah, ok, that's going to be a fundamental difference between your theology and mine, because we do believe God has and will continue to give us conflicting commandments and seemingly contradicting truths so that we may only discern the correct one spiritually, and never empirically.

>This is tremendously important because "missing the mark" means you're not perfect, more than "you committed an atrocity". In this sense, not being God forces you to "sin", and in that, it works whether humanity "fell" or not.

>2 Nephi 2:25 "Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy."

>2 Nephi 2:27 "Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself."

>More complicated, but not that much. I don't see the problem between evolution and souls. It's less problematic to me than imagining God suddenly popping out from behind a cloud and SHAZAM: two humans.

At which point did humans "gain" souls, from a Christian Evolutionist perspective? Did we have them from the beginning when we were unicellular organisms, or knuckle dragging beasts? Was there a generation of parents who begat children with souls when they themselves were soulless?

>He thankfully did not.

I'm not Bible savvy enough to contradict this, though I do know that He accepted the flood and Noah's ark as literal in Luke. Is this something you struggle with also?

> It's only important from a scientific point of view, which didn't exist back then.

This is why I find it incredibly upsetting when people loose their faith because of this stuff: its not even relevant to salvation.

>>4433

>Ironically, my redefining it fits with the original meaning of the Hebrew word for "sin".

And how is ti that you define sin?

>The laws of physics are more reliable than the OT.

Its not the Laws of the Universe I take issue with, its the imperfect men whom they get translated to, similarly to the Bible.

>I don't see how it could do this.

Look what its done to you.

>>4445

>we do believe God has and will continue to give us conflicting commandments and seemingly contradicting truths so that we may only discern the correct one spiritually

Yep, that's going to be a major difference between us. I don't believe God is messing with us like this. If I believed this, I would fully believe in everything I think is right and be far less skeptical than I am. It sounds like the feel good approach everyone rides my ass about.

>At which point did humans "gain" souls, from a Christian Evolutionist perspective?

That would require more knowledge about souls than I have. Soul and consciousness don't have to be there all the time, you can be unconscious yet still in your body, as when you're asleep.

>Was there a generation of parents who begat children with souls when they themselves were soulless?

Excellent question. Consciousness evolved gradually. Perhaps souls are present in all life forms. What happens to a worm that's cut in half? Does he get two souls? I have no idea.

>I'm not Bible savvy enough to contradict this, though I do know that He accepted the flood and Noah's ark as literal in Luke.

Which proves nothing. Christ isn't omniscient and while He has telepathy and can guess strangers' names, nothing suggests He can read into the past.

>Is this something you struggle with also?

No. I don't struggle with much about the OT, I've largely accepted that it was more cultural and relevant to Jewish culture than properly Christian so to speak. I tend to view OT material the same way I look at Greek mythology or else: it speaks the people.

>And how is ti that you define sin?

More and more as a "falling short of God's perfection" rather than "acting against God". The original meaning of the word in Hebrew means "missing the mark".

>Look what its done to you.

None of the scientific discoveries and theories have ever twisted Christ's teaching. If you mean something else, by "done to" me, feel free to elaborate.

>>4454

> It sounds like the feel good approach everyone rides my ass about.

Its not though. God isn't messing with us just for giggles, they are tests of resolve, strength, cunning, intellect and spiritual ability. How can you be expected to become a God if you can't handle all of these with at least some degree of proficiency. You couldn't

> Perhaps souls are present in all life forms. What happens to a worm that's cut in half? Does he get two souls? I have no idea.

I don't think this could work. Souls are what make humans as we are, they're the "real" us. I'm starting to think this might be incompatible with LDS theology if this theory puts forward that God locked us into subpar, animal bodies for millennium.

>Which proves nothing. Christ isn't omniscient and while He has telepathy and can guess strangers' names, nothing suggests He can read into the past.

This I would have to say is heretical. Christ was already a God at the time of His ministry.

> I tend to view OT material the same way I look at Greek mythology or else: it speaks the people.

I don't know how healthy this is, though if I were you I guess I'd judge it by how it affects your faith. Do you see this as a positive thing which makes your faith in Christ and God stronger, or does it diminish and tarnish your faith, and makes you what some here call a "cafeteria-christian"?

>More and more as a "falling short of God's perfection" rather than "acting against God". The original meaning of the word in Hebrew means "missing the mark".

Yeah, its the same thing though. When you do not fulfill your potential for whatever reason, God weeps for you. If you disobey Him and don't do what He says, you're acting against Him AND not fulfilling your potential. The Law is there for *your* benefit, God is already God, He doesn't need it.

>If you mean something else, by "done to" me, feel free to elaborate.

That is has made it you turn into a man of little faith is what I mean.

bump