If You Believe in God and evolution...

[LBR]

I have a sincere question. It can be your religion's view or your personal view (please state which one it is).

When do you think people started having a spirit or soul? What was the benchmark that had to be crossed? Was it "Lucy"? Otzi? What do you base your answer on?

Another question is, if certain animals that posess great intelligence--i.e. primates, porpoises, etc.--were to keep on "evolving", will they eventually have a soul as well? If not, why not?

I believe the Bible, so I don't believe in evolution, but I am curious to know how those questions are answered.

Chad

[Aught Six]

I believe in God and think evolution (i.e. selection and mutation) is a viable theory.

I think man had a soul when God breathed it into him, starting with Adam, and not before. That's what makes us human. God puts each soul into each person as He creates him/her. A soul isn't something that can evolve.

Genesis wasn't written down until at least a thousand years after the Creation of man. I don't take every verse literally, as it was written in a very ancient Hebrew literary tradition after being passed down orally among the Jews, but it's clear that God specifically and deliberately created mankind.

Whether or not He is the so-called "missing link", in that He took the plant and animal life He created and molded it into man, I don't know. I suppose that could one way of looking at it. But like many things in the universe, it is a divine mystery that we weren't created or need to understand. What we do know is that evolution has occured and is occuring in other forms of life.

Probably not what you'd hear from a bona fide evolutionist (I suspect many would deny the existence of an immortal soul, for starters), but I think science and religion are two sides of the same coin, and they compliment one another perfectly.

[DaveH]

Anyone that has ever followed my debates on this topic knows how I feel. I don't believe in evolution at all. I do believe that animals can adapt somewhat to their environments over time, but nothing like the whole scale changes that have been taught as if they were factual for the last 40 years.

God clearly stated that He created Adam in His own image and made him capable of living and caring for himself in the garden. That doesn't sound like something becoming man over billions of years. Likewise, I believe that the soul and spirit were placed there at his creation -- just as I believe it is today at the moment of conception.

[LBR]

I think man had a soul when God breathed it into him, starting with Adam, and not before. That's what makes us human. God puts each soul into each person as He creates him/her. A soul isn't something that can evolve.

Evolution and Adam are incompatible. According to the Bible, Adam was the first man--period. There was no "Lucy" or whatever leading up to Adam.

I see you trying to incorporate religion and evolution to fit your personal mold, while not sticking strictly to either one. Would that be correct? If it is, how do you determine what parts of the Bible are correct and what parts are not? Where do you get that authority? I mean this sincerely--it's something I've never understood, and never had anyone try to explain.

Dave, I see it like you do. All or nothing.

Chad

[Aught Six]

Originally Posted by LBR

I see you trying to incorporate religion and evolution to fit your personal mold, while not sticking strictly to either one. Would that be correct? If it is, how do you determine what parts of the Bible are correct and what parts are not? Where do you get that authority? I mean this sincerely--it's something I've never understood, and never had anyone try to explain.

No, I'm not trying to fit anything into any mold. I'm calling it as I see it. Science and religion are two ways of looking at God's Creation. If anything's going to be fit into a mold, it'll be me into the mold of Christ.

Like I said, I don't know the whole story and probably never will in this lifetime. What I do know is that the Bible is not to be taken literally. The original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts were rich with idiom and metaphor, and written according to the traditions of their times. I'm not a worker in a vineyard, and my faith isn't a mustard seed, yet I am an adopted child of God.

Reading Genesis, going to Judges, and then on to Isaiah, for example, would be like going from Chaucher, to Shakespeare, to Dickens. Each age had a different style of writing, with different literary traditions. Each book has been translated into English and other languages for our use, but every translation is a compromise between the literal and literary. Being interested in linguistics, I've seen this happen in translations of books I've read in modern languages.

IMHO, there are three parts of the deposit of faith: Sacred Tradition (what was done and taught before being written down, both in the OT and the NT; see 2 Thess 2:15), Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium of the Church. You take one away, like the leg of a three-legged stool, and the others come crashing down.

I'll go out on a limb and guess that you believe that the Bible alone, read literally, is all a Christian needs to follow Christ as He commanded. If so, I think you've been greatly misled. Even Luther realized that folly later in his life.

"There are as many sects now and beliefs as there are heads. This fellow has nothing to do with baptism. Another one denies the sacraments. A third believes there is another world between this one and the last day. Some teach that Christ is not God. Some say this, some say that. There is no rustic so rude that if he dreams or fancies anything believes it must be the whisper of the Holy Spirit and that he himself must be a prophet."

"If God had not closed my eyes, and I had foreseen these scandals, I would never have begun to teach the Gospel."

–Martin Luther, writing on the decline of faith and morality resulting from the Protestant Reformation

May God bless you!

[LBR]

Science and religion are two ways of looking at God's Creation.

Two completely different ways. Miracles are not compatable with science.

What I do know is that the Bible is not to be taken literally.

Parts of it are not, and that is made clear. For example, when Christ spoke in parables. It's not hard to see the difference. The Biblical account of Creation was not given as a parable.

I'll go out on a limb and guess that you believe that the Bible alone, read literally, is all a Christian needs to follow Christ as He commanded. If so, I think you've been greatly misled. Even Luther realized that folly later in his life.

The Bible alone all one needs to follow Christ--that is in the Bible. Every part of it literall? No, as I already stated--it's clear what is literal and what is parable. What Luther believed doesn't matter to me.

Without getting further off-topic, I'm curious to know when anbd where you think souls came into the picture. If you don't believe the Biblical account of Creation, why would you believe in Adam? When did Adam come about, and what do you think is the "real" story? Who or what was Adam's predecessor?

I believe God is powerful enough to ensure His Truth survived, even before being written down. I don't believe He would lie to us and have us believe in a fable. I believe He spoke the Truth when He said "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness." I Corinthians 3:19

But, again, it's getting off topic. It's not about what I believe.

I want to get some kind of understanding as to how folks who try to incorporate the theory of evolution and religion get to that point. I can't understand how you determine what parts of the Bible to believe, and how you can believe parts but not all, and how you feel you have the authority to make that decision.

Chad

[cataway]

Originally Posted by LBR

Two completely different ways. Miracles are not compatable with science.



Parts of it are not, and that is made clear. For example, when Christ spoke in parables. It's not hard to see the difference. The Biblical account of Creation was not given as a parable.




The Bible alone all one needs to follow Christ--that is in the Bible. Every part of it literall? No, as I already stated--it's clear what is literal and what is parable. What Luther believed doesn't matter to me.

Without getting further off-topic, I'm curious to know when anbd where you think souls came into the picture. If you don't believe the Biblical account of Creation, why would you believe in Adam? When did Adam come about, and what do you think is the "real" story? Who or what was Adam's predecessor?

I believe God is powerful enough to ensure His Truth survived, even before being written down. I don't believe He would lie to us and have us believe in a fable. I believe He spoke the Truth when He said "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness." I Corinthians 3:19

But, again, it's getting off topic. It's not about what I believe.

I want to get some kind of understanding as to how folks who try to incorporate the theory of evolution and religion get to that point. I can't understand how you determine what parts of the Bible to believe, and how you can believe parts but not all, and how you feel you have the authority to make that decision.

Chad

souls are a product of procreation

[Aught Six]

Originally Posted by LBR

Two completely different ways. Miracles are not compatable with science.

That's right, one focuses on the natural, and the other on the preternatural/supernatural. Both look at and study the same Creation by the same God.

And, like it or not, science is strong because it can be proven. To be sure, there are more theories out there than laws, but the geological and fossil records clearly show that the earth is more than 6,000 years old. That leads me to wonder what a day was to God in the primordial mass, before humans were even created, let alone made calendars. He created the sun before there was an earth to revolve around it, and thus no 24 hour solar day.

It also leads me to wonder how exactly plants and animals grew and evolved. Genesis does not make those details clear. That's where science comes in.

Parts of it are not, and that is made clear. For example, when Christ spoke in parables. It's not hard to see the difference. The Biblical account of Creation was not given as a parable.

Of course, parables are a simple example of the literary. But what about the metaphors Christ used, for instance, gehenna. Gehenna was a giant, perpetually-burning trash dump on the outskirts of Jerusalem, not hell itself. He said that the damned will be cast into it, but obviously he wasn't speaking literally.

Going back to Genesis, which was Hebrew historical narrative, not Greek memoir, like the Gospel of Luke, for example. Many, many details are not fully explained, largely because they're not important. It doesn't matter so much how long ago the earth or man was created as it does that man worship, praise, and obey God.

If you really want to talk about metaphor, we could go to the prophets. Isaiah in particular was one who employed more symbolism than literalism.

Do you take John chapter 6 literally? That seems one of the clearest literal passages that so many people take as metaphor. Even though Christ's (Jewish) disciples left Him in droves after He commanded them to eat His Body and drink His Blood, so people today miss that point. Not to mention that He commanded us to do so in His memory.

The Bible alone all one needs to follow Christ--that is in the Bible. Every part of it literall? No, as I already stated--it's clear what is literal and what is parable. What Luther believed doesn't matter to me.

Well, we'll have to disagree on that one. The Bible doesn't contain the whole story. Liturgical tradition not found in Sacred Scripture goes all the way back to the ancient Hebrews and continues to this day. If you'd like to cite the passage that states that the Bible alone is all one needs, I'd appreciate it, but I guarantee you're missing the bigger picture found elsewhere in the Bible.

Likewise, the teaching authority of the Church, found in the Magisterium, goes back to the Seat of Moses. Also keep in mind Matthew 16:18 and 18:17, and Ephesians 5:21-31, to name a few passages, namely that there is ONE church which Christ founded and left to his disciples. There are tens of thousands of churches created by man, but only one created by Christ. It has survived nearly 2,000 years since His public ministry, and as He said, the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Without getting further off-topic, I'm curious to know when anbd where you think souls came into the picture. If you don't believe the Biblical account of Creation, why would you believe in Adam? When did Adam come about, and what do you think is the "real" story? Who or what was Adam's predecessor?

You might've misunderstood me. I believe that Adam was the first human, and regardless of how exactly (physically, chemically, biologically, etc.) or from what he was created ("clay", which is often used as a metaphor for the matter a potter uses to create his works), he was created directly as a result of God's Hand and His Holy Spirit. The soul is immortal and comes from God, not earth. I believe the soul is only created by God at the very moment that the He breathes life into the human zygote.

To make a long story short, I believe in the Biblical account of Creation, I just don't know if it's to be understood literally word for word or not. What we've discovered about the earth and humankind tends to make me think otherwise.

I believe God is powerful enough to ensure His Truth survived, even before being written down.

Absolutely! That's where Sacred Tradition came and comes into play.

I don't believe He would lie to us and have us believe in a fable. I believe He spoke the Truth when He said "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness." I Corinthians 3:19

Of course not, God cannot lie. He is Truth. But as we read in the Bible (Luke, chapter 8, re: the Parable of the Sower, comes to mind, and I think I'm overlooking other passages), He doesn't always give us the whole story down to the last detail, hence His Mysteries. We hear Him, and believe in Him, but we don't know exactly how or why He does the things He does. Those details aren't essential for our love of Him or the salvation of our souls.

You're absolutely right about the wisdom of men. That's something I took a while to figure out. Atheist intellectuals drive that point home every day. But that doesn't mean that the faithful can't understand the Truth and become wise in it. You look back at the great figures in salvation history, for example Moses, David, Simon-Peter and many others. They did some stupid things and disobeyed God many times, but He still called them and enlightened their feeble minds with His Truth.

Don't discount all of science simply because a few intelligent idiots miss the big picture.

But, again, it's getting off topic. It's not about what I believe.

I want to get some kind of understanding as to how folks who try to incorporate the theory of evolution and religion get to that point. I can't understand how you determine what parts of the Bible to believe, and how you can believe parts but not all, and how you feel you have the authority to make that decision.

Chad

Like I said, that's where the Church comes in. Founded by Christ, built by Peter and the Apostles, and sustained through Christ's Grace and the apostolic succesors that have existed up to this day.

No disrespect, but taking into mind your verse from I Corinthians, who is any one individual to take the authority away from God and interpret the Bible himself?

And even if one could hypothetically do so, the Bible wasn't compiled and published until almost four centuries after Christ's death. Even if you were one of the 10% of literate people back then, it would still cost about three years wages to buy a copy, which required roughly 1,000 sheep or deerskins to produce. Which means that most people didn't have and couldn't read Sacred Scripture.

It's obvious to anyone who studies history that tradition kept Christ's Church together, not the Bible. It wasn't until the Bible was mass-produced that the proud and foolhardy began to leave the Church and go their own heretical ways.

[LBR]

Both look at and study the same Creation by the same God.

Only one gives credit to God. The other relies on things like a "big bang", or whatever it takes to eliminate God from the equation.

And, like it or not, science is strong because it can be proven.

The theory of evolution cannot be proven. That's why it's a theory--a hypothesis--an educated guess. It never wil be a fact or law.

...but the geological and fossil records clearly show that the earth is more than 6,000 years old. That leads me to wonder what a day was to God in the primordial mass, before humans were even created, let alone made calendars. He created the sun before there was an earth to revolve around it, and thus no 24 hour solar day.

It's pretty simple. In the Biblical account of creation, day and night were separated before any living thing was created. If a "day" lasted for thousands of millions of years, followed by a night that was just as long, it would have cause chaos in the theory of evolution. The word used in the original language for "day" literally translates as a 24 hour day.

As far as "proof" that the earth isn't any older, God created a mature earth. He created mature humans and mature animals. It's not hard to figure out. God doesn't require thousands or millions of years to create a diamond--He can speak it into existence in an instant. The mistake people make is trying to put human restrictions on Him.

But what about the metaphors Christ used,...

Again, obvious.

It doesn't matter so much how long ago the earth or man was created as it does that man worship, praise, and obey God.

I agree. And it makes no sense for God to allow a lie in His book.

Do you take John chapter 6 literally?

I take it as it was written.

The Bible doesn't contain the whole story.

It contains the whole Truth.

If you'd like to cite the passage that states that the Bible alone is all one needs, I'd appreciate it, but I guarantee you're missing the bigger picture found elsewhere in the Bible.

What is the point? You discount it before I even offer it. How can man be wiser than God? What is more perfect than God's word? When you add to perfection, you can only get imperfection. Try Revelations 22:18 for starters.

I believe that Adam was the first human,...

How do you incorporate that with the theory of evolution?

To make a long story short, I believe in the Biblical account of Creation,...

You either believe in the theory of evolution, or the Biblical account of creation. They are totally different.

He doesn't always give us the whole story down to the last detail, hence His Mysteries.

A mystery is just that. It isn't a false or misleading fable.

Don't discount all of science simply because a few intelligent idiots miss the big picture.

I don't. I admire real science. I despise hypocracy and fallicies. The theory of evolution is this and more. Belief in it requires discounting established scientific law, one of which is the law of probabilities.

...who is any one individual to take the authority away from God and interpret the Bible himself?

Christians are commanded to "rightly divide the Word". That doesn't mean trying to put God in a box that the human mind can comprehend. That requires no faith at all.

It's obvious to anyone who studies history that tradition kept Christ's Church together,...

"Tradition" is man-made, and built to fit man's needs. A Christian doesn't base their faith on history or tradition, but rather God's Word.

Obviously I'm not going to get a straight answer here. I was afraid of that--it happens every time I ask questions like this. Looks like I'd know better by now.

I don't care about Luther, or someone's version of history, or someone's traditions, etc. I would just like a simple, scriptural answer to a simple question. It seems that answer doesn't exist, which is an answer in and of itself.

Chad

[Aught Six]

Originally Posted by LBR

Only one gives credit to God. The other relies on things like a "big bang", or whatever it takes to eliminate God from the equation.

Wait a minute, not all scientists are atheists. Look back over the ages at people like Roger Bacon, Ockham, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Pascal, Boyle, Newton, Mendel, Pasteur, Planck, et al. They were all Christians who took the philosophical tools of the ancients and founded science as we know it today.

Like I was saying, be careful not to confuse the godless heathens in science with the faithful.

The theory of evolution cannot be proven. That's why it's a theory--a hypothesis--an educated guess. It never wil be a fact or law.

That's what I said.

It's pretty simple. In the Biblical account of creation, day and night were separated before any living thing was created. If a "day" lasted for thousands of millions of years, followed by a night that was just as long, it would have cause chaos in the theory of evolution. The word used in the original language for "day" literally translates as a 24 hour day.

As far as "proof" that the earth isn't any older, God created a mature earth. He created mature humans and mature animals. It's not hard to figure out. God doesn't require thousands or millions of years to create a diamond--He can speak it into existence in an instant. The mistake people make is trying to put human restrictions on Him.

Well, it's not quite that obvious. The natural world contradicts your interpretation of Scripture. Yes, God can do whatever He wants when He wants it. But that doesn't mean He does so according to finite human logic and understanding like yours or mine. Goes back to your verse from 1 Corinthians. We can read Genesis, but we still can't comprehend Creation as God does.

I agree. And it makes no sense for God to allow a lie in His book.

If He speaks the truth and you misunderstand it, there is no lie committed. Just a man trying to comprehend the Almighty.

I take it as it was written.

It was written literally. Christ commands us to eat His flesh and drink His blood so that we may have life within us. His disciples, being forbidden from eating human flesh or drinking human blood under Jewish law, left Him and went back to their former ways of life, not believing in Him. The Apostles were the only ones who seemed to get that He was the Lord and must be obeyed.

It contains the whole Truth.

It is all true, but does not contain the whole truth, as Sacred Tradition and the teachings of the Church prove.

What is the point? You discount it before I even offer it. How can man be wiser than God? What is more perfect than God's word? When you add to perfection, you can only get imperfection. Try Revelations 22:18 for starters.

No, I may have confidence in my faith, but I am always curious to hear from another Christian and compare and contrast our beliefs.

The thing is that Tradition is perfect because it also comes from the Truth of God, and the teachings of the Church has never and will never change the Truth. Guided by the Holy Spirit, the teaching office of the church merely present the Truth in a way that new cultures can understand to the benefit of their faith and salvation, e.g. the contemporary culture of death (abortion, nuclear weapons, moral relativism, etc.).

As for Rev 22:18, yes, that's true. That says nothing of 2 Thess 2:15, though. Many traditions come from man, but some come from God.

How do you incorporate that with the theory of evolution?

I gave one possible incorporation above, that God took the creatures of the earth and supernaturally formed them into Adam. I don't think that's necessarily true, and seems like a stretch, but as I mentioned earlier, I don't know. All I can do is theorize, like anyone else.

You either believe in the theory of evolution, or the Biblical account of creation. They are totally different.

If you don't truly understand the power of God and didn't see how He created man, how can you honestly say that? The mysteries of God or no more comprehensible than the mysteries of science.

A mystery is just that. It isn't a false or misleading fable.

Just because you've been misled doesn't mean it was God who misled you.

I don't. I admire real science. I despise hypocracy and fallicies. The theory of evolution is this and more. Belief in it requires discounting established scientific law, one of which is the law of probabilities.

Ooooooook...you're losing me here. I'm starting to think that your bias in getting in the way of your logic.

Christians are commanded to "rightly divide the Word". That doesn't mean trying to put God in a box that the human mind can comprehend. That requires no faith at all.

Again, you're losing me. I don't see anyone trying to put God in a box. His Creation, yes, people have studied and contemplated that since the beginning.

"Tradition" is man-made, and built to fit man's needs. A Christian doesn't base their faith on history or tradition, but rather God's Word.

Not God's tradition, and not the history of His gift of salvation. You can't take a copy of the Bible written thousands of years after the fact and expect to understand it perfectly without understanding the history of the world, the history or man, Jewish tradition, law, and prophesy, ancient politics, and human anthropology and sociology.

Obviously I'm not going to get a straight answer here. I was afraid of that--it happens every time I ask questions like this. Looks like I'd know better by now.

???

I've given you straight answers. If you're not prepared to accept them or don't understand them, that's another story. If you want to start another thread, I'm all for it. I've answered every question that you've asked.

I don't care about Luther, or someone's version of history, or someone's traditions, etc. I would just like a simple, scriptural answer to a simple question. It seems that answer doesn't exist, which is an answer in and of itself.

Chad

You know, a couple posts ago, I almost wrote that you seem to be trying to simplify Truth for your own comfort. My friend, it will never be as simple as we would like. God is mind-blowing, if you'll pardon the expression. We can seek God, follow Christ, and obey His Commandments, but all the questions and answers will never fit inside our little peanut heads, not in theology/religion, and not in science, unless God chooses to reveal them to us.

Just wait. Once you're in heaven, you'll see the big picture.