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

[wegs]

You're far far too nice, but I appreciate the kind words nonetheless. We don't see people praising each other much around here. It's more like an epic battleground with limbs flying left right and center, and I spend most of my time here right in the thick of it. But like I've said before, you really are like the sunshine. A rare jewel in terms of your humility, open-mindedness and just the general manner in which you choose to interact with everyone. So, thank you

Maybe everyone just needs a hug


Thanks for the sentiment, too.

Principles, beliefs, and hope are unnecessary. They only cause problems. You don't see animals caring about these things, they interfere with the natural functioning of the body. The expectation that we need to hope for something in the future is what creates hopelessness in the present. I say chuck it all out the window.

I think animals have their own "code" of conduct. They do live much less complicated lives than we do, but even they have their own "system."

Regarding hope. Hope is good. Don't hope in the impossible...have hope in the possible. All things are possible, with hope.
I believe that, anyways.

 

[spidergoat]

Why is hope good?

 

[wegs]

Hope moves people...encourages people. Martin Luther King Jr had hope...a vision...
Hope by itself is useless...but hope combined with effort...can bring about positive change.

 

[Robittybob1]

Why is hope good?

Is it like having faith in the things hoped for. Some things on the surface of it seem impossible, but if they are a matter of faith, they are worthy of hope.
I wonder if I got that the right way around but that was my rough and ready attempt.

Let X be a seemingly impossible event.
I have faith that X will happen
X seems impossible
I hope X will happen.

You can continue to hope X will happen for you have faith.

 

[Robittybob1]

Hope moves people...encourages people. Martin Luther King Jr had hope...a vision...
Hope by itself is useless...but hope combined with effort...can bring about positive change.

Effort for some, but in scripture there was more connection to faith. I may have to refresh my memory on that though.

 

[wegs]

Effort for some, but in scripture there was more connection to faith. I may have to refresh my memory on that though.

Paul said..."Faith without works is dead."

 

[paddoboy]

Wow! Quite a lengthy thread.
I reckon the answer to the opening post though is yes. Afterall even the Catholic church now recognise Evolution and also the BB.
Of course unlike science they put both down to the work of God, since science at this point in time are unable to explain the hows and whys of either.

 

[Robittybob1]

Paul said..."Faith without works is dead."

I see where you are coming from, but are those "works" trying to achieve those things you hope for, or more like "good works" for example charity, compassion, reason, forgiveness, and genuine love for your fellow Christians. These more general works as opposed to trying to become immortal or something like that. Immortality may be the thing you hope for but you can't work your way directly toward it. What are you going to do to achieve that immortality, run around the block a few times?

 

[wegs]

Those "general" works you list? Those are the hardest things of all, friend.

 

[Robittybob1]

Those "general" works you list? Those are the hardest things of all, friend.

How do you answer the question a Darwinist may ask: "I too do all those things 'charity, compassion, reason, forgiveness, and genuine love for your fellow man/woman', why should you have hope of salvation and not me?" I find that question the hardest to answer. For then it comes down to belief in Christ as our saviour and all that which then becomes dependent on the Genesis fall story (in our current theology).
Can you then believe in evolution and believe in the saving grace of Jesus Christ at the same time? You and I might have done so but it seems to result from the rejection of a literal Genesis but maintaining the literalness of the Gospels.
Do you have the answer please?

 

[wegs]

How do you answer the question a Darwinist may ask: "I too do all those things 'charity, compassion, reason, forgiveness, and genuine love for your fellow man/woman', why should you have hope of salvation and not me?" I find that question the hardest to answer. For then it comes down to belief in Christ as our saviour and all that which then becomes dependent on the Genesis fall story (in our current theology).

Here's what I think, but of course...don't have certainty with...
I believe that God's love is unfathomable, because he is...unfathomable. You know, it's ok robittybob to tell people who may ask you this...'I don't know.' Because honestly, you don't know. I don't know what God is completely about. We have the Bible, parts of it seem to be outright made up stories...some of it seems like a beautiful holy book and guide for life. Men put it together and mankind has proven over the centuries, he can't be trusted with 'religion.' But, that is not what God is completely about, to me. He is beyond a book. He can't be contained in a book. If we can only explain God in this way, then we actually think we can contain him. And we can't. There is comfort to me, in knowing that I don't have the answers. My faith isn't based on the bible or my upbringing to be honest. It started there, but it didn't end there.

Can you then believe in evolution and believe in the saving grace of Jesus Christ at the same time?

yes, why not?

You and I might have done so but it seems to result from the rejection of a literal Genesis but maintaining the literalness of the Gospels.
Do you have the answer please?

Evolution with all of the evidence that supports it, is not 'hard' to believe. lol Christians who think it's a conspiracy theory ...I mean, really? It is silly to argue against all the historical evidence that supports the theory. Jesus being the Messiah, honestly has nothing to do with evolution. It doesn't detract from it nor add to it. Likewise, believing in evolution doesn't detract from one's spiritual beliefs at all...whatever they may be. To me, that's a sound 'argument.' No?

 

[Robittybob1]

Here's what I think, but of course...don't have certainty with...
I believe that God's love is unfathomable, because he is...unfathomable. You know, it's ok robittybob to tell people who may ask you this... ...Likewise, believing in evolution doesn't detract from one's spiritual beliefs at all...whatever they may be. To me, that's a sound 'argument.' No?

So much good stuff there. Do you know how I feel right now? Is there anyone else that can explain it quite like you do?

 

[wegs]

So much good stuff there. Do you know how I feel right now? Is there anyone else that can explain it quite like you do?

 

[Robittybob1]

Hug-Emoticon-1-.gif I was needing that, thanks. There was a song about that.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Rav,

Your talking out of your arse again instead of reading the scripture as it is written.
Jesus was in very nature God.
He was in the form of God. And he did not consider that something to exploit.

Here are the verses...

6 Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!

This not only shows your ignorance but the ignorance of the person who inserted ''[a]''. One cannot become ''a God'', God always IS. Take out the ''[a]'' and what you have is ''Who being in the very nature God'', meaning that his nature was the same as God.

''1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.''

Here's the root of you misunderstanding. The ''Word'' was with God in the begining, meaning it was separate to God, but also the the ''Word'' was God. It goes on to say that ''he was with God in the begining.
So Jesus was the same as God (the same nature), but was also separate to God.

It say's nothing about him being ''in the form of God''. He took the form of a human being. It does NOT say he became a human being.
And seeing himself in human form, he voluntarily decided that death could act upon him (if HE felt like it).

Regarding his life....

John 10.18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”

Simple. Straightforward. At least for the person who isn't desperately trying to defend a ludicrous theological position that was clearly initially formed out of ignorance by constantly neglecting to adhere to his stated methodology regarding the interpretation of scripture.

Your analasys is dumb, uninformed, without knowledge, and basically wrong as I have pointed out to you many times.

Of course God cannot die. But physical bodies can obviously die. And that doesn't change just because God inhabits one, especially when he does nothing to prevent it (he made himself obedient to death of a cross, remember, which is a decidedly physical affair). And this has been established clearly, from scripture, several times.

Where does it say he obtained ''a physical body''?
And where does it say that God inhabited a physical body?
And what is so ''obvious'' about allowing death to act if one chooses?
Get your head out of the arse of Christianity and actually read and understand for yourself.

Your initial interpretation (which is infallible, according to you) was: "a)His body was crucified, so it appeared to some people that he himself had been killed."

But here the Qur'an is clearly saying instead of crucifying him, another was made to resemble him. Looking forward to your elaboration on scripture, as always.

Firstly it wasn't an interpretation, the words clearly said what they said. You posted the text, not me, and now you've decided to post a different wording of the text, and again the text says what it says. It still alludes to the notion that the killers thought they had killed Jesus because it appeared to them that way, so I'm not sure how this changes anything.

It is claimed that Judas was the one that was killed in the place of Christ, that God made him to look like Jesus at the time when he betrayed him with a kiss.
Jesus says in Matthew 26:24: “The son of man goes as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born”.

When Judas came with the soldiers to arrest Jesus, they all fell to the ground upon Jesus identifying himself as the one they sought, it is claimed that this was the moment the switch took place. They carried Judas (looking like Jesus) away to be crucified.

Jesus was resurrected. To resurrect is to "restore to life". Thus, tonights bible study topic will be, you guessed it, resurrection!

How could he die, if he wasn't born? That makes no sense.
Death acts upon a material body, a body made of matter, yet Jesus' body was not made of matter. That is it wasn't made in the same way material bodies are made. To add to that Jesus allowed death to act upon him. I'm sure you know that nature does not discriminate, it acts how it should act in every given scenario, and would have taken his life like any other. There were loads of instances where Jesus performed acts where the laws of nature were, what we would term violated.

In short, nothing suggests that Jesus actually died, and therefore could not have been resurrected. In the same way there is nothing to suggest that he was seen after the event, to those who did not see him, or believe what he taught (like you). Every one sees and knows according to their level of understanding.
You are merely parroting the Christian religious idea, which is but one way to look at it.

"At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life." - Matt 27:51-52

"Six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus lived, whom Jesus had raised from the dead." - John 12:1

Just wanted to double-check. Yup, we're definitely good to go!

Why do you persist in quoting these verses that you do not understand? A holy person, still has a material body, so they cannot escape the laws of nature. Jesus didn't have a material body (as explained in the Philippians text). If you persist in this I will ignore it in the future.

"And he said, 'The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.'" - Luke 9:22

Definitely, I'd say. But just for good measure:

Was Jesus actually the Son of Man?
Or was he accepted as such by people who didn't know his real identity?
Was Mary and Joseph his biological parents?
Have we not established that Jesus is the same nature as God (his proclaimed father), who incidently is NOT A MAN.?

"After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken." - John 2:22

Who witnessed him being raised from the dead? It is obviously assumed that he died which according to the Qur'an, it was made to look like that.

"This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross." - Acts 2:23[/I]

Here is the Qur'an text you posted earlier...

"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)

Oh, and by the way, Jesus was raised from the dead (just in case that part wasn't clear).

Oh, and by the way, Jesus didn't have a material body, so could not really die, so he couldn't have been resurrected. No one witnessed him being raised from the dead. And finally the Qur'an confirms that he did not die nor was he crucified (just in case it wasn't clear).

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Never suggested otherwise. I'm not trying to debate you, Jan. I'm trying to understand you, just two people talking on here. I grew up reading/learning Scripture. I won’t get into the thick of it, because I’ve shared my views on evolution with you. That said, Jesus died a physical death. The Scriptures tell us this. Second, are you of the belief that God is triune? (Father, son, holy spirit) I ask, because how you describe Jesus in relation to God, is that of a part of him. So, I’m just wondering for my own curiosity, what you believe in that realm. I’m merely curious, is all, Jan. If you feel like sharing…

The relationship of God and Jesus is explained in philipians 2. 5-8 and John 1.
And all the references Jesus makes about his Father (not Joseph if Rav is watching ).

jan.

 

[wegs]

Rav,



Here are the verses...



This not only shows your ignorance but the ignorance of the person who inserted ''[a]''. One cannot become ''a God'', God always IS. Take out the ''[a]'' and what you have is ''Who being in the very nature God'', meaning that his nature was the same as God.

''1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.''

Here's root of you misunderstanding. The ''Word'' was with God in the begining, meaning it was separate to God, but also the the ''Word'' was God. It goes on to say that ''he was with God in the begining.
So Jesus was the same as God (the same nature), but was also separate to God.

It say's nothing about him being ''in the form of God''. He took the form of a human being. It does NOT say he became a human being.
And seeing himself in human form, he voluntarily decided that death could act upon him (if HE felt like it).

Regarding his life....

John 10.18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”



Your analasys is dumb, uninformed, without knowledge, and basically wrong as I have pointed out to you many times.



Where does it say he obtained ''a physical body''?
And where does it say that God inhabited a physical body?
And what is so ''obvious'' about allowing death to act if one chooses?
Get your head out of the arse of Christianity and actually read and understand for yourself.



Firstly it wasn't an interpretation, the words clearly said what they said. You posted the text, not me, and now you've decided to post a different wording of the text, and again the text says what it says. It still alludes to the notion that the killers thought they had killed Jesus because it appeared to them that way, so I'm not sure how this changes anything.

It is claimed that Judas was the one that was killed in the place of Christ, that God made him to look like Jesus at the time when he betrayed him with a kiss.
Jesus says in Matthew 26:24: “The son of man goes as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born”.

When Judas came with the soldiers to arrest Jesus, they all fell to the ground upon Jesus identifying himself as the one they sought, it is claimed that this was the moment the switch took place. They carried Judas (looking like Jesus) away to be crucified.



How could he die, if he wasn't born? That makes no sense.
Death acts upon a material body, a body made of matter, yet Jesus' body was not made of matter. That is it wasn't made in the same way material bodies are made. To add to that Jesus allowed death to act upon him. I'm sure you know that nature does not discriminate, it acts how it should act in every given scenario, and would have taken his life like any other. There were loads of instances where Jesus performed acts where the laws of nature were, what we would term violated.

In short, nothing suggests that Jesus actually died, and therefore could not have been resurrected. In the same way there is nothing to suggest that he was seen after the event, to those who did not see him, or believe what he taught (like you). Every one sees and knows according to their level of understanding.
You are merely parroting the Christian religious idea, which is but one way to look at it.



Why do you persist in quoting these verses that you do not understand? A holy person, still has a material body, so they cannot escape the laws of nature. Jesus didn't have a material body (as explained in the Philippians text). If you persist in this I will ignore it in the future.



Was Jesus actually the Son of Man?
Or was he accepted as such by people who didn't know his real identity?
Was Mary and Joseph his biological parents?
Have we not established that Jesus is the same nature as God (his proclaimed father), who incidently is NOT A MAN.?



Who witnessed him being raised from the dead? It is obviously assumed that he died which according to the Qur'an, it was made to look like that.



Here is the Qur'an text you posted earlier...

"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)



Oh, and by the way, Jesus didn't have a material body, so could not really die, so he couldn't have been resurrected. No one witnessed him being raised from the dead. And finally the Qur'an confirms that he did not die nor was he crucified (just in case it wasn't clear).

jan.

Hi jan;

Two questions on this:

1) what do you believe the "son of man" to mean when you run across it in scripture? I'm of the belief that that was "proof" for his "human" form/physical body.

2) Edit, (I asked if you were using the Qur'an to verify your own belief about Jesus' crucifixion. I think you were just replying to Rav, and are not using the Qur'an to point to anything that you believe about Jesus' crucifixion, correct?)

The relationship of God and Jesus is explained in philipians 2. 5-8 and John 1.
And all the references Jesus makes about his Father (not Joseph if Rav is watching ).

jan.

Ok.

 

[R1D2]

Darwin may have came up with a good "theory" of evolution, of animals. That can be accepted.
And YOU may believe in a Form of a God.
Both have good points, and combined xplain a lot. And some things that can't be explained is attributed IMO to Gods way. Darwin tried to explain one thing God did, creation of all animals. So you can throw some caution if you want. But you can believe in both.
The big bang can't be fully explained. So chalk one up to something God made hard to explain. Animals evolution is slightly explainable.
We humans are Made according to the Bible, in gods image. So maybe we are slighly "minor gods" of our domain and can come to a theory of how things are made close to how a God really made it. We can clone animals, that IMO is god like...

 

[Jan Ardena]

Rav,

Can you tell if someone is a theist, given that people can say they believe, even believe that they believe, do not actually believe? In fact let me just answer that question for you. You can't.

I'll say it again: "Jan is effectively declaring that not only is he the ultimate arbiter of scriptural truth, but that the vast majority of Christians and Muslims aren't real theists (since by extension his criticism of me as a person who approaches scripture merely to appease my own personal whims, which is made on the grounds of how I am reading it, necessarily applies to anyone else who reads scripture in the same way.

Nope. I've asked you if you can tell if someone believes in God, and then proceeded to give the obvious answer which is you can't.

Your statement is a lie which you are trying to use to gain support for your weak position.

That's what the Qur'an says. The bible tells a different story.

Actually Jesus said ''forgive them Father for they know not what they do'', while they were thinking they were killing him. They weren't killing him just like it say's in the Qur'an, they only thought they were.

You know it really would have done you a whole lot of good to have actually bothered to read the NT before you started crapping on about it.

Ignorance on your part. I have read the NT, I just don't come to the same conclusion as you and your mainstream chums.

A rather transparent projection there.

Is that all you could say?

I meant the word in following sense: "The appearance of something remarkable or unexpected". Look it up. He was after all "appearing" to many people and freaking them right the fuck out. Apparently.

I get you. You didn't mean ''apparition'' you only wanted to glean the effect to bolster you weak position. What you meant to say was ''he appeared'', period. It is clear that is how you analyse everything.

An omnipotent God could do anything.

Good. Then He could have made it look like Jesus was being crucified, just like God said in the Qur'an

But what this actually boils down to is what becomes apparent from a literal reading of scripture.

Yes it say's Jesus was born of a virgin, meaning his body was not the same as a person who is born from the act of sexual intercourse.

It say's he is the same nature as God, although a separate person.

It say's that he was made to look like a human being.

He had complete control of material nature (just like God).

Nothing could kill him without his say so, and even then it would be nothing more than an act, not reality.

Thus your extracurricular "theories" are of no consequence (just as you say that those of the catholics are).

I said the Pope/Catholic institute contradict Jesus Christ (whose gospel they say they are committed to spreading) because accepts the genesis account as it is, and they don't.

The rest of this quote is nonsensical.

The case for Christian exclusivism is easy to make scripturally. Craig tackles it both scripturally and philosophically in his many articles on the topic.

Great! If we wish to discuss Jesus from a Christian point of view. I don't.

But if you're permitting us to interpret scripture literally, the job is easy. And we'll get to it eventually, as long as you refuse to give the catholics a break by remaining committed to your current stance anyway.

I've given evidence that THEY contradict Jesus by not accepting what he say's without quesion. Go see them about it.

It's not really your thread, as described at the beginning of this post. I would be willing to respect reasonable requests of course, but given the topic, your request is not actually reasonable. It's simply an attempt by you to try to restrict the number of ways in which your position can be challenged.

It is my thread, as I started it, and there was never any room for religious ideologies, not in my opening statement or the title. It is about theism, belief in God, not religion which could mean anything.

Having actually read the scriptures from a non specific position or ideology, and read the descriptions and meanings of darwinian evolution, i don't see how one can believe in God, and accept darwinian evolution at the same time, unless God' position is compramised. That being the case then He is not God as defined in every single scripture.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Darwin may have came up with a good "theory" of evolution, of animals. That can be accepted.
And YOU may believe in a Form of a God.
Both have good points, and combined xplain a lot. And some things that can't be explained is attributed IMO to Gods way. Darwin tried to explain one thing God did, creation of all animals. So you can throw some caution if you want. But you can believe in both.
The big bang can't be fully explained. So chalk one up to something God made hard to explain. Animals evolution is slightly explainable.
We humans are Made according to the Bible, in gods image. So maybe we are slighly "minor gods" of our domain and can come to a theory of how things are made close to how a God really made it. We can clone animals, that IMO is god like...

God explained how He made man, and animals (if you are a believer in God). Darwinian evolution contradicts that, it therefore contradicts Jesus. Nowhere does it even hint at the darwinian process, so how can we actually believe in both.
If we believe in God, we accept what God says, and God says He created man. If we believe in the darwinian process, it states that man evolved over billions of years through a process of natural selection and random mutation. They are two completely different positions, meaning completely different things. How can they ever be compatible?

jan.