Can Christianity and human evolution be reconciled?

Can Christianity and human evolution be reconciled?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=matJ3MkikDc.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
youtube.com/watch?v=BIThwuOHrJw
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/god
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution
haaretz.com/jewish/the-jewish-thinker/were-jews-ever-really-slaves-in-egypt-or-is-passover-a-myth-1.420844
youtube.com/watch?v=MlnnWbkMlbg
letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/2015/07/09/exposing-the-roots-of-young-earth-creationism/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptance_of_evolution_by_religious_groups
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptance_of_evolution_by_religious_groups#Eastern_Orthodox_Church
orthodoxwiki.org/Evolution
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

A rationalization that's growing in popularity among more pragmatic Christians is that, to paraphrase, god creating the earth in a week could mean much longer in real life and a week is only from god's perspective.

It sounds ridiculous but that's how far some are willing to go to reconcile religion and science.

Yes. Most Christians already do. It's pretty much just the Baptists and televangelists that have a problem.

There's stuff in the bible that can be read metaphorically. I think the creation is one of those things.

Yup.

It's all based on interpretation I guess. I've heard some people make the argument that Leviticus is a book of Jewish culture and that it should not be taken as the word of God. I've heard other people say that the Christian God exists but that the Bible was written by man, who corrupted the word of God to fit with their laws and beliefs. There's all kinds of shit you can reconcile if you go down that road.

Its been done many times
Many people say, especially with evolution that god was tinkering with biology for a long time trying to naturally attain an image that pleased him. Something like himself.

>Evolution
Why does pop sci love this topic more than anything else

Yeah, now they can. But they weren't written as metaphors.
I think that just goes to show human progress. Now you can not only change your religion at will, or have none at all, but you now have the power of interpretation only the highest priesthood had just centuries ago.

They're right about Leviticus, it's explicitly stated in Galatians we aren't bound by the old law and that those who do return to it are returning to being bound to original sin. Christian's follow the word of Christ, so the New Testament.

There is nothing in the Bible that invalidates evolution. Genesis is filled with parables. Not to mention that legend holds that Adam's sons emigrated to different cities, meaning that there were other humans living around this time.

The answer is a resounding NO

Do not listen to the """Christians""" here and elsewhere who wish to make everything a "metaphor" or a "myth" To deny Genesis as truth and to relegate it to the position of a nice "just-so" tale, is to defy the authority Christ who confirmed it. His Knowledge is perfect.

>Genesis 1:27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

>Matthew 19:4 Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’

>Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female.

God made Man. He made him directly. He made him in in his image. He did not make ape, or Lucy or Australopithecus or what have you then let this abstraction bake into an oven until he came out just right. There is NO room for evolution in true Christianity. May all those who say so be led back to the rightful path,

Proof that Veeky Forums is the christcuck board

He's either some fundamentalist who's managed to justify browsing here, or just baiting for (you)'s. Either way, ignore him, there's no interesting discussion to be had there.

not an argument

You fucking morons, the Hebrew word for "day" (yom יום) is used to signify an ambiguous period of time, not necessarily a 24 hour day.

Since scientists have already proven Jesus made all life on earth via evolution, I assume they're reconcilable

"Hello, good people. I am Dr David Menton, a molecular biologist, and I'm gonna tell you that Lucy is just a knuckle-walker."
youtube.com/watch?v=matJ3MkikDc. (Be prepared, it's like an hour long.)

>molecular biologist.

So someone who does not study bones for a living commenting on a related field, but not his specialty and disagreeing with the vast majority of experts

>A rationalization that's growing in popularity among more pragmatic Christians is that, to paraphrase, god creating the earth in a week could mean much longer in real life and a week is only from god's perspective.
>growing in popularity
False
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

Biblical literalism is a recent(~250 years) phenomenon in Christianity started and maintained chiefly by Anglicans and Protestants. I guarantee you most of the retarded and backwards shit you hear Christians claim or about Christianity come from branches of those two groups.
>. I've heard some people make the argument that Leviticus is a book of Jewish culture and that it should not be taken as the word of God.
Leviticus literally means "For the Levites".

Pretty much. Also, I think there's a gynecologist who writes quite a few articles relating to human evolution. As per usual, the articles done by both of these people are heavily biased. They believe that any "ape-men" as they put it are one of three things:
1) Combining Men and Apes, 2) Making Man out of Apes, and 3) Making Apes out of Man.

>But they weren't written as metaphors
Are you saying Jesus literally cursed a fig tree (literally) because it didn't have edible fruit on it?

>Biblical literalism is a recent(~250 years) phenomenon in Christianity started and maintained chiefly by Anglicans and Protestants
No it isn't. There were some notable figures in the past who spoke out against biblical literalism, but their ideas were not terribly popular and they didn't start cropping up until a few hundred years after Jesus croaked.

youtube.com/watch?v=BIThwuOHrJw

>There were some notable figures in the past who spoke out against biblical literalism,
Yeah like Augustine, Origen, and many other of the earliest and most influential Christian figures?

Scriptural literalism has been heresy in the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church since they were founded.

For the most part, it is solely a "certain groups of American Evangelical-Protestant sects vs literally every other Christian sect" sort of thing. I cannot stress how new it is. The vast majority of Christians do not, and have never historically, taken the Bible literally.

Get buttblasted you pathetic normy. Darwin knew he was wrong.

t. Louis Agassiz

>Origen
Oh you mean the one the early church considered a heretic?

I believe the Bible to be the true Word of God

His words are more precious than gold. So you should take everything literally.

If there is a problem with the Word of God, we know it cannot be a problem with God; so it must be a problem with man.

>we know it cannot be a problem with God
How do you know this?

Anyone who thinks you can interpret the whole bible literally or that you shouldn't interpret any of it literally should off themselves

literal is not synonymous with true

God is perfect, thus incapable of making a mistake.

Now you have to prove she exist.

alright, first you gotta prove God exists, and then that God has the quality of "perfect"

>Oh you mean the one the early church considered a heretic?
You mean 300 years after his death?

Don't need to prove God is real to show that God would possess the quality of perfection. God is by definition ultimately good, and therefore possess every quality that is good. Perfection is the ultimate quality that can be considered good. Since God has every good quality, and perfection is a good quality, it only follows that God is perfect. You could have figured this out yourself if you possessed intelligence. Considering you deny our creator, by extension neither of you are intelligent.

>Considering you deny our creator, by extension neither of you are intelligent.
ok, so your god is going to send me to hell because I'm not smart enough to see any amount of logic in the argument you just gave. perfect also implies a perfect sense of justice. God will send people to hell for being dumb. eternal torment for being dumb is unjust. therefore God is not perfect

define "perfect"
define "good"
define "God"

God doesn't send people to hell, you go to hell by turning away God, who is the source of all things that are "good".

This is true. However, there isn't any honest way of reading Genesis such that Adam's fall didn't bring death into the world.

Evolution requires death before the Fall. The Bible links death to the Fall. You can read the creation account as metaphorically as you want, but you cannot reconcile this contradiction. Either evolution is true, or the Bible is true, or neither. But both cannot be true.

You send yourself to hell. Quit blaming God for your infantile perception of what you think the Bible says.

Go out and buy a dictionary if you really don't understand how these words have been defined for hundreds of years.

>you go to hell by turning away God
How can I turn away from someone I don't even know exists? certainly not with conscious awareness of the act at least, which brings us back to how just the eternal torment is. You said that I am not intelligent for not getting your argument, which means I lack the mental capacity to believe. I am essentially the same as some Down Syndrome retard then on this matter. Does God also send retards to hell? That certainly isn't just

"I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture."
John 10:9

You worship a slab of wood with a handle.

personally I prefer to imagine him as the demiurge

Not me, that was someone else. Though our answers are similar in ways, they are not the same. It takes many years of dedicated study to understand. The fact of the matter is we are flawed, you don't have the knowledge to determine what is just and what is not. Nor do I, only God does.

Oh believe me, I have the "many years of study", though admittedly not a formal education on the matter. honestly I find the logical arguments for God quite uninteresting. I prefer to get to the heart of the matter: you aren't arguing for a vague creator in the deist conception, you are arguing for YHVH, god of the Jews, as the creator of the universe. That i can disprove with near 100% certainty.

No, you can't. If that were so all of the Atheist scholars would have done so many years ago. Lying will get you no where, and I see you will be nothing but a waste of my time. Take care.

Not even gonna ask me to try? let me give you one little thing first. I haven't heard a christian apologetic argument on this passage yet so I'm curious what your response will be: What are your thoughts on Chronicles 7:20-29?

The descendants of Ephraim:

Shuthelah, Bered his son,

Tahath his son, Eleadah his son,

Tahath his son, 21 Zabad his son

and Shuthelah his son.

Ezer and Elead were killed by the native-born men of Gath, when they went down to seize their livestock. 22 Their father Ephraim mourned for them many days, and his relatives came to comfort him. 23 Then he made love to his wife again, and she became pregnant and gave birth to a son. He named him Beriah,[a] because there had been misfortune in his family. 24 His daughter was Sheerah, who built Lower and Upper Beth Horon as well as Uzzen Sheerah.

25 Rephah was his son, Resheph his son,[b]

Telah his son, Tahan his son,

26 Ladan his son, Ammihud his son,

Elishama his son, 27 Nun his son

and Joshua his son.

28 Their lands and settlements included Bethel and its surrounding villages, Naaran to the east, Gezer and its villages to the west, and Shechem and its villages all the way to Ayyah and its villages. 29 Along the borders of Manasseh were Beth Shan, Taanach, Megiddo and Dor, together with their villages. The descendants of Joseph son of Israel lived in these towns.

You might want to include your criticism next time, pal.

I thought it would be obvious: Ephraim and all his descendants are in Israel according to this when they should be in Egypt. How do they become slaves in Egypt and leave Egypt with Moses when they already lived in Israel?

Why do Americans insist the earth is only 6000 years old? why do they reject billions of years of earth history?

>Americans
about 40% of Americans. not the majority but certainly not an insignificant minority

>about 40%

40
4
0

top kek

How did this happen?

Faith is a powerful drug, friend. You convince people from a young age that their choices are to believe the Bible is 100% correct or go to hell it's going to be hard to convince them that it's not literally true no matter how much you show them how definitively wrong it is

>God is by definition ultimately good
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/god
Not seeing any definition like that.

This question is very interesting. I think people who reconcile them don't really think very hard about it.

Christianity only makes sense if people are somehow soul-body constructs. The soul part has to be outside the physical world, and has to account for free will. So biology can't fully explain humans. The soul must be inserted into this world at some point after conception.

So maybe you could believe that evolution created soulless bodies that started receiving souls?

>wiki

Read the summa you scrub.

Not really, because it makes Adam and Eve fictional which in turn makes original sin unexplainable. If there was no ancestral sin by which all are judged, then why does God require a blood sacrifice to assuage said sin?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

still no answer since there evidently isn't an easily accessible apologetic website that has come up with an excuse yet. I actually own a Jimmy Swaggart study bible that's full of bullshit on nearly every fucking line of the bible (I'm not exaggerating) yet he is completely silent on this. orthodox jews already have come up with an apologetic excuse, it's quite easy to come up with on your own. it's not anything more outrageous than what you guys have already come up with to reconcile the two accounts of Judas's death and Jesus's failed end time prophecy in Matthew 24:34. Just say that Ephraim and his descendants spent all this time in Israel, then finally traveled to Egypt at the last possible second to become slaves before they would be freed. Come on, fundies, I'm disappointed in you

Most Jews accept that the whole of Exodus is a myth. Doesn't really matter from a Jewish pov, but of course it's pretty devastating for a literalist Christian pov.
haaretz.com/jewish/the-jewish-thinker/were-jews-ever-really-slaves-in-egypt-or-is-passover-a-myth-1.420844

>about 40% of Americans.

sauce?

human evolution throws outside the window every religion that has a creation myth

youtube.com/watch?v=MlnnWbkMlbg

I dont know why it cannot be

Protestants are retarded, true
rest of christians generally accept evolution as fact

Bible was never supposed to be history book

Priest from our parish told us that many stories of bible are specially written to seem ridiculous and unreal so people wouldn't take them literary, but I guess God underestimated human retardation

Christianity is the highest form of human evolution
it explains how you can reach the top

actually many protestant denominations reject young earth creationism and 'creation science', these are 19th century american adventist and later baptist doctrinal developments stemming from adventist prophet ellen white who recorded purported visions of what the world was like thousands of years ago (so much for sola scriptura).

Only retarded american redneck prods deny evolution

letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/2015/07/09/exposing-the-roots-of-young-earth-creationism/

What is this? They straight up say "yhwh is the god of gods", implying there are other gods - as well as naming specific other gods and referencing the existence of other unnamed gods

that's because Jews are generally more secular. there's still plenty of Jews that believe exodus is true. the only Jews that reject it are those who have already abandoned following the Law and are essentially just deists who read the bible simply because it is their cultural heritage.

...

Catholics are actually just as retarded on this issue, they just hide it better.

Catholic teaching is that humans are an "ontological leap" beyond other apes. In other words, Catholic teaching DOES NOT believe in evolution. They just throw in a smaller spanner, but still betray the whole idea.

The Church does not argue with scientists on matters such as the age of the earth and the authenticity of the fossil record, seeing such matters as outside its area of expertise. Papal pronouncements, along with commentaries by cardinals, indicate that the Church is aware of the general findings of scientists on the gradual appearance of life. Indeed, Belgian priest Georges Lemaître, astronomer and physics professor at the Catholic University of Louvain, was the first to propose the theory of expansion of the universe, often incorrectly credited to Edwin Hubble. In the 1950 encyclical Humani generis, Pope Pius XII confirmed that there is no intrinsic conflict between Christianity and the theory of evolution, provided that Christians believe that the individual soul is a direct creation by God and not the product of purely material forces.[29] Today, the Church supports theistic evolution(ism), also known as evolutionary creation,[30] Under Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the International Theological Commission published a paper accepting the big bang of 15 billion years ago and the evolution of all life including humans from the microorganisms that formed approximately 4 billion years ago.[31]The Vatican has no official teaching on this matter except for the special creation of the human soul.[32] The Pontifical Biblical Commission issued a decree ratified by Pope Pius X on June 30, 1909 stating that special creation applies to humans and not other species.[33]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptance_of_evolution_by_religious_groups

seems more compatible than proddy teachings

Whats the orthodox view on all this stuff? All i see on topics like this is the Catholic/proddy view

they're split on it

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptance_of_evolution_by_religious_groups#Eastern_Orthodox_Church

orthodoxwiki.org/Evolution

>seems more compatible than proddy teachings
Actually it isn't. There is no interesting difference between "human behaviour cannot be explained by biology alone" and "the earth is only thousands of years old".

The whole point of evolution is to explain things like humans and human behaviour using only reference to physical law.

Only via amusing mental gymnastics. That seems to be the popular approach these days since outright denial is widely recognized as absurd even by uneducated morons.

Try telling that to ~40% of Americans.

Rural Americans are a special kind of ignorant. The ones you're referring to, anyways.

>this is what creationists actually believe.

That's true, though. The theory of evolution, if understood by a person who can easily override their emotions, basically tells them they might as well do whatever they like.

I mean we all know that it feels bad to kill someone because of empathy, which is a biological response. But then again, we are also told to overcome and ignore things like anger and jealousy, because they're "just" biological responses.

We're told to overcome and ignore things like anger and jealousy because they're not typically conducive to our successful functioning as social organisms.

Yeah, but that does not mean that one has to immerse themselves in all acts that would be trifled as "sinful," because their biology allows them to. We have certain morals and ethics for the very reason that it would do mankind some good not to kill or not to sexually assault each other. In the long run, systems which prescribe these ethics are usually so that humans can survive longer, rather than implementing all of their worst behaviors and doing because "they simply can." There are still ramifications for all things, even if not by a deity.

>because they're not typically conducive to our successful functioning as social organisms.
Well sure. But if you could get away with a murder, and would get a lot out of it, it wouldn't interfere at all with your functioning. You'd probably just be happier afterwards.

I'd say jealousy is fairly conducive to evolutionary fitness. Without the ability to covet others' goods and mates, many primitive (and ancient, and medieval, and modern) humans would never have gotten the motivation they needed to pass on their genes.

Social abilities combined with moderate amounts of selfishness are quite important to climbing up the hierarchy of one's peers.

>In the long run, systems which prescribe these ethics are usually so that humans can survive longer
This is obviously true, but as soon as people find that out, they might as well choose to be the exception that benefits from the herd.

Imagine there was a vaccine that wards off a bad disease, but causes terrible symptoms. Why should YOU take the vaccine? The society is already immune. That vaccine is morality.

You wouldn't because humans are biologically empathic and we know that people feel like shit after (for example) killing someone in a car crash even if they "got away with it" (e.g. hit and run)

But you see, you're just saying why it wouldn't happen under a model of humans as robots.

So the only thing you could possibly say to a murderer is "you malfunctioned".

This account of humanity takes away everything that prevents us from falling into despair. It's only by a great effort that we've managed to not notice this.

We already thought of this and that is why laws exist.

So in fact, when atheists say "of course you can be moral as an atheist!" you in fact mean "of course you can be part of a system that punishes individual behaviour that is bad for the group!"

That's not what morality is. Just come out and say it: morality is nothing at all.

Yeah, we know that most of the mass shooters in America were legitimately mentally ill. Just look at James Holmes for example. Or look at our prison system that judges criminals to be unable to function in society in their current state of mind. That's why they are kept separate.

>morality is nothing at all.

Finally you understand, my property.

I didn't know you had a script for me, I thought it was obvious.

>a system that punishes individual behaviour that is bad for the group
but isn't that morality anyway?

No, morality would be acting according to some overriding rule (often against your own immediate interests) for some good reason that isn't connected to the material world.

>deontology is the only morality

Pleb.

Yup.

>Priest from our parish told us that many stories of bible are specially written to seem ridiculous and unreal so people wouldn't take them literary
Making me laugh like this should be a crime.