Is it possible to believe in God, and be a darwinist at the same time?

God could have totally created the evolutionary process...
I think it’s important to not sweep the fact that the Bible was compiled by clergymen, of an early Catholic church, under the carpet. You can’t ignore who compiled the Bible. You don’t want to talk about religion, I get that. I don’t feel ‘religion’ is essential to believing in God. I agree with you there.

But, we can’t as believers, overlook the fact that the book believers hold up as a holy book, was put together by early church fathers who had an agenda at that time. That agenda being using religion as a tool to govern society. We can’t rewrite history, no matter how hard we try.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

wegs,

I can only assume it means what it say's.
I can only assume that Jesus went through the process of human likeness, and being born, and having died, for the purpose of those of us who see things in that way. In this way we could make sense of something that is otherwise inconcievable. And one day man would be able to comprehend it through a process of religion (by ''religion'' I mean a God-centered religion).

I believe scriptures, at least the part which are accessible to someone of my particular conscious level. I regard the Qur'an as a scripture, just as important as the bible and have no reason to believe it anymore or less. The important thing here is that my belief is not contingent on scriptures which is why I understand it to be a natural position as opposed to one that I have decided to hold.
Rav has brought this whole thing up, and I'm just responding to him, accepting the other side. For me it's just fun, and I get to delve into both scriptures, and learn more about them. I'm amazed at Jesus' character, even moreso with this discussion.

Have fun. There's no point in trying to affect something like your religion on the basis of these discussions. Change will occur naturally over time as you learn more.

jan.




Ok.[/QUOTE]

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

They can't. So pick one, either be religious and believe nonsense, or believe the scientific evidence.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Especially scientific evidence, abound in the Whale evolution movie.

jan.

 

Evolution doesn't contradict the bible; the bible, if Genesis is taken literally, contradicts evolution.

 

So what? Why should I care about what the Bible says?

 

Why should I care that u call faith in God..."nonsense?"

Edit to add; my comment is in reply to the premise of the thread, and in response to Jan saying above that believing in God and evolution can't be compatible.

 

Now you are just getting defensive. The Bible isn't a credible source of scientific knowledge. So the fact that it contradicts evolution is irrelevant.

 

Lol you are the defensive one

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

...I'm not at all.
I honestly don't care if you believe in God or not; it is you that has issues with ppl who follow a faith in God.
Why do you care one way or the other? As long as someone isn't pushing their beliefs on you, who cares? As long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others, who cares?
Just wondering.

 

Heh.

Actually the "[a]" is a reference, which points to an alternative translation. In other words instead of "in very nature" it could be translated as "in the form of", and often is in translations other than the NIV as I have previously shown. See for yourself: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians 2:6&version=NIV

If I forgot to remove that reference marker at some point when cutting and pasting text, it was nothing more than a simple oversight.

Trying to claim that this is merely my misunderstanding is ridiculous. Once again, your charge applies to anyone who has derived the same basic Christian theology from scripture, and that is pretty much the entire Christian world. They didn't invent the theology and then cite the Bible to try to support it (which is what you're doing), the Bible is Christian theology. It's the very core of it. It's where it all started. These doctrines have been perfectly clear to Christians since the Bible was canonized, and they are still clear to them now. Yet because you say they are wrong, they are wrong? It wouldn't be so bad if the arguments you used to try to demonstrate that weren't so weak (mostly due to being clear violations of your stated methodology in every single case) but they are.

Having said that, there is a context in which I could accept your position as being just as valid as any other in theological terms, and that would involve a relaxing of the requirement to interpret scripture literally. As I've pointed out, that clearly is the way you are approaching scripture anyway, so why not just own up to it?

What you have to do is interpret the verse literally, and see what comes out. And what comes out is that both things are true. The Word was both with God, and was God. So yes, I agree. That is what it says. In fact this theme where God is multiple things simultaneously is common:

"But about the Son he says, 'Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever'"

The Son is the Son, but the Son is also God, and this is God attesting to that.

Wrong! As demonstrated above (as well as earlier), that's an alternative translation, and it appears in many versions of the Bible:

"who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God" - NKJV

"though he was in the form of God, he did not consider being equal with God something to exploit" - CEB

Like I said, in cases like this it serves to narrow the interpretative scope. Obviously "in the form of" can't mean physical form, since God is not a physical being. So what we have here is a statement about spiritual nature, and how it was equal to that of God.

Agreed. God chose to place himself into a human body and then subjected himself to the realities of a fleshly existence.

Errr, sure. What's your point? Nothing there that is inconsistent with what I have been saying.

Yet another verse then:

"God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory." - 1 Timothy 3:16

How many do you fucking need before you actually follow your own stated methodology and interpret one literally?

The only time I used the word obvious in the quote you are replying to was in reference to the fact that physical bodies can die. And obvious it is. Pay attention.

You're clearly oblivious to the significance of your own error here. Let's review:

"They said (in boast), “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah”—But they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not—Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise." - Qur'an 4:157

And your interpretation: "It's as if Jesus is seeing them do something to his body, thinking that they are killing him, but in reality they were killing a body made up of matter" and "His body was crucified, so it appeared to some people that he himself had been killed."

In line with my previous statements about how looking at different translations can serve to narrow the interpretative scope, I subsequently posted this:

"And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain." - Qur'an 4:157 (Sahih International)

And after reading this, you totally change your tune, as below:

So which is it? Did Jesus actually suffer a physical crucifixion, or not? Which interpretation are you going with? And how is changing your mind based on new information compatible with your stated methodology for interpreting scripture?

I don't have to change my mind at all. Nor do the Christians. Nor do the Muslims. As additional verses and even alternative translations come to the fore such positions remain consistent. You, on the other hand, have to reinterpret everything.

Again, this is totally opposed to taking scripture at face value, and not embellishing it beyond what it clearly says just so you can make pet theories fit. I mean I just posted a shitload of verses that clearly talk about the death and subsequent resurrection of Jesus, and you're going to sit there and pretend that death doesn't really mean death, and resurrection doesn't really mean resurrection, all while insisting that literal interpretations are paramount?

Your intellectual integrity really is beyond repair.

Interesting comment. Am I to assume then that you accept that the view of God that Christian's derive from the Bible is a valid conception (albeit somewhat different from your own), and that if they are properly genuine in their worship then they are indeed real theists?

Fixed. I mean that is after all what you are saying. That your reading of scripture is correct and that of pretty much the entire Christian world is wrong, because the literal reading I am presenting is that promoted by them.

These are the sorts of things I refer to when I talk about "matters of record". Everything you say here is going to come back to bite you on the arse eventually, in one way or another.

The bible said he was going to die. The bible says he did die. The bible also says he rose again. Are you suggesting that the bible is wrong? Are you suggesting it was written by someone who made "assumptions"?

The bible says he did die (a physical death, of course), and in a whole lot more places than I've presented to you here as well. You're simply refusing to take it at face value, and are therefore employing an interpretative methodology that is in opposition to the one you claimed it was necessary to use. Thus your contributions here will remain an ongoing joke until you own up to it.

That people can come to different conclusions is part of what I am highlighting and you are a perfect example. You interpret biblical scripture differently from the overwhelming majority of the Christian world because you employ a different interpretative methodology (one that you have inaccurately characterized, but that doesn't really matter -- it is what it is). And what you get from this is a different idea about who God is, how he has interacted with man throughout the ages, and what he expects from human beings. You can't deny this because your position is clearly not consistent with Christian theology (which, in spite of your claims to the contrary, is all about embracing the authority of scripture). The key points are as follows:

1) For a Christian, to understand God properly is to understand that Jesus is God. You disagree.
2) For a Christian, the road to salvation lies in understanding and accepting that Jesus must be a central and primary focus of one's spiritual life. You disagree.
3) For a Christian, it is understood that we live once, die and are then judged by God. I assume you disagree with this too, given your vedic leanings.

So, who is right, and who is wrong?

And the Catholics could claim, with equal legitimacy, that you are contradicting the bible by denying the divinity of Jesus, and the reality of his death and resurrection. I mean again, if you're allowed to get all creative with your interpretation of what words like "death" and "resurrection" really mean rather than taking them at face value, then the catholics are allowed to get all creative about what might and might not constitute "creation". And if you're allowed to speculate beyond literal scriptural parameters to try to make sense of your argument, then so are they. You simply can't deny them that freedom with being a total hypocrite.

But you did just that. And thus you are. And this is now a matter of record too.

Nonsense. "Is it possible to believe in God, and be a darwinist at the same time? please discuss...."

How the fuck isn't their room for religious ideologies, since religion is all about the belief in and worship of, God!

Try to compel a moderator to enforce this preference if you like. If you succeed, then I'll abide. If not, too bad. My guess is, too bad.

It has already been established that this is only because you've bound God up with a creationist paradigm. Not all theists do that, therefore they don't all have your problem.

Further, as detailed in a post directed at wegs a little while ago, it's actually impossible for the sovereignty of an omnipotent God to be diminished, no matter what we discover about the nature of his creation. Or do you think God's omnipotence was diminished when Newton's conclusions about planetary orbits were overturned?

 

A society that isn't grounded in reality will collapse under the weight of it's errors. It wasn't so important in the past, but today our decisions affect the very ability of people to live on the planet.

 

Well...interestingly...spirituality in a variety of forms has been around since the Paleolithic era. I think if ppl's beliefs infringe on the rights of others, then I'd agree with you, for sure.

I think mankind will forever have a desire to connect with the possibility of something outside of time and space. Not all people have that desire, but you can't rid society of a natural curiosity of such things.
And a desire to explore those ideas.
Even some scientists wonder about "what might be."

 

I think it's only recently that "spirituality" has become "something outside of time and space" due to the increasing ability of science to show what is in time and space. I don't see how a person's beliefs can be limited to their own brains. Thoughts are spread around and become other people's thoughts, unless one is physically isolated.

 

Perhaps it is more "organized religion" you fear adversely affecting society as a whole, rather than spirituality and faith perspectives?
Maybe fear isn't the right term...

 

Not really, the basis of organized religion is personal faith. Faith makes a mockery of our reasoning abilities. You can't argue with it. I can understand spirituality, since it's seeking, and that's something I did too.

 

And did you find anything after all your seeking?

 

I think you are wrong their Jan - read Genesis looking for Evolution and it is there. Haven't got the time to do it now but I might during the weekend.

 

It appears that we may have won the current battle, but you can be assured that the war is not over.
http://ncse.com/news/2013/08/holding-line-texas-textbooks-0014959

 

I believe that organized religion was ‘formed,’ in response to a desire for community worship. Tied in with faith teachings of respective varying faiths, obviously not just Christianity, came with it a social aspect, as well as eventually a political aspect. As some organized religious groups became larger, the original tenets of why they came to be in the first place, started to fall away. I won’t name specific religions, but organized religion often has at its helm, not faith but rather legalism. As the Pharisees of Biblical times had, so too do some of the ‘members’ of many religious organizations, today. Following rules and regulations for many who follow organized religions, sometimes usurps the ‘authority’ of the very God of whom they worship. The RCC not only preaches from the Bible, but it also preaches the ‘Catechism of the Catholic Church.’ The CCC isn’t to usurp the teachings of the Bible, but I grew up Catholic, and let me tell you…many Catholics follow it more than the Bible. It is a wonderful moral guide…TO AN EXTENT. But, it is riddled with legalism, is my point.

So, when I think of ‘religion,’ I think of legalism. When I think of spirituality…my faith…I think of one’s own personal ‘relationship’ with God. (I don’t know how else to word that without sounding…new age, or something lol)

Legalism promotes brainwashing. Legalism promotes division. Legalism creates strife and wars. Legalism creates the many problems we see that stem from radical religious ideals.

To me…I can only speak for me, but I don’t think I’m too far off…the problem doesn’t lie in believing there is something beyond us, or believing in a Creator. Or believing in a Messiah. The problems lie in legalism. Legalism drives greed, lust for power, and so on. Not faith.

Faith is a pure thing. It’s tainted by legalism, which is dangerous because it is an ‘over emphasis on the discipline of conduct.’ (usually determined by people, and we know how that goes)

I hope I’m not offending, I’m just curious. Was your journey into exploring your own spirituality unpleasant, and therefore you are now an atheist?

 

In a sense, there was a vast silence of nothingness that cut through all the nonsense. I found the end of seeking, or rather it struck me for no reason in spite of my foolishness. I was deeply humbled by the extent of my stupidity, but it was also extremely comical. Also it felt like floating.
I was pursuing Buddhism at the time, reading a book by Alan Watts, when I turned the page and the next one was blank.