[bigwoody]

Here is the spinoff from the other thread that has gone off-topic in that direction.

w/r/t Christianity
Bible literalists will say the two are not compatible. Genesis states 7 days and anything contradicting that therefore is mutually exclusive with belief in Christ.
Many other Christians say that the Bible is the be taken as metaphor, and that evolution could be the mechanism God used to create man.

PLEASE NOTE: This is not a topic that demands scientific rigor. This is a philosophical debate, act accordingly.

This post has been edited by bigwoody: 10 November 2009 - 03:51 PM

[edikroma]

For the love of Darwin... do we really need another one of these threads?!

[Foggers]

Yes they are compatible. The Bible is not literal.

But I am curious to hear about other religions apart from Christianity for a change.

[edikroma]

Not sure about other religions, but Hinduism, for the most part, is not to concerned by the entire evolutionary theory. Hinduism revolves around cycles of death and rebirth and a constant spiritual evolution towards reaching moksha.

Another interesting note I'd like to make is of the avatars of Vishnu... he starts as a fish, then comes back as a turtle, then a boar, then a man-lion, then a dwarf human, a human, and then a God (further reincarnations are supposedly Buddha and Kalki, a figure somewhat similar to the coming of the Messiah at the End of Days). It may be a stretch, but you could say Vishnu's forms "evolve" (Yes, I know fish didn't turn into turtles who then became boars).

But maybe that's just Hinduism has always been such a strange religion when it comes to its relationship with science... flying vehicles, weapons of mass destruction...cross-species cranial transplants...

[PrinceCaspian]

Yes, evolution is compatible with religion. God could have easily made humans, animals, and plants using evolution.

Genesis should not be taken literally. There wasn't even a written language when it was happening, it was written down after years and years and years of oral tradition. Now, tell me things could have changed, right?

[edikroma]

PrinceCaspian, on Nov 10 2009, 04:28 PM, said:

Now, tell me things could have changed, right?

You mean they could have...wait for it...evolved?! EH?! EH?! Hmmmm....

[Foggers]

Someone mentioned it in another thread... if God can create gravity and the other forces etc... then why not evolution as well?
However people may say "but if God is omnipotent, why didn't he create ready made humans?" well if he created the laws that govern our Universe it works. Plus when you are a timeless being, a few billion years here and there doesn't count for much.

This post has been edited by Foggers: 10 November 2009 - 04:30 PM

[Sal Paradise]

I believe that Genesis was meant to be taken literally and the only reason people say it's metaphorical is because it is so obviously wrong and they desperately want to believe in Biblical inerrancy. I don't think that Judaism or Christianity is proven false by this either.


People arguing about Biblical literalism is to me like arguing over whether or not people age in Neverland. Peter Pan fundamentalists will say that nobody ages in Neverland as evidenced by the fact that the play says it outright and neither Peter Pan nor Captain Hook nor anyone else in Neverland is ever seen aging. But, as we all know, there is no scientific evidence that stopping the aging process is at all possible. The story of Peter Pan does not occur over a long period of time. The characters would not have shown any noticeable signs of aging, so it's obvious that people do in fact age in Neverland, to suggest otherwise would be too literal. And then there's the question of the crocodile that chases Captain Hook. A fundamentalist would say that the crocodile is nothing more than an inhabitant of Neverland. But according to a more liberal interpretation, the crocodile represents the irresistible approach of time and ultimately death represented (1) by the danger the crocodile poses to Captain Hook and (2) by the ticking clock he's swallowed. Naturally, a Peter Pan fundamentalist would say this interpretation is a dangerous compromise meant only to appease Alice in Wonderlandists.

[edikroma]

Sal Paradise, on Nov 10 2009, 04:40 PM, said:

I believe that Genesis was meant to be taken literally and the only reason people say it's metaphorical is because it is so obviously wrong and they desperately want to believe in Biblical inerrancy. I don't think that Judaism or Christianity is proven false by this either.


People arguing about Biblical literalism is to me like arguing over whether or not people age in Neverland. Peter Pan fundamentalists will say that nobody ages in Neverland as evidenced by the fact that the play says it outright and neither Peter Pan nor Captain Hook nor anyone else in Neverland is ever seen aging. But, as we all know, there is no scientific evidence that stopping the aging process is at all possible. The story of Peter Pan does not occur over a long period of time. The characters would not have shown any noticeable signs of aging, so it's obvious that people do in fact age in Neverland, to suggest otherwise would be too literal. And then there's the question of the crocodile that chases Captain Hook. A fundamentalist would say that the crocodile is nothing more than an inhabitant of Neverland. But according to a more liberal interpretation, the crocodile represents the irresistible approach of time and ultimately death represented (1) by the danger the crocodile poses to Captain Hook and (2) by the ticking clock he's swallowed. Naturally, a Peter Pan fundamentalist would say this interpretation is a dangerous compromise meant only to appease Alice in Wonderlandists.

I would totally sig this if I could...

[Aeternos Astramora]

Sal Paradise, on Nov 10 2009, 04:40 PM, said:

I believe that Genesis was meant to be taken literally and the only reason people say it's metaphorical is because it is so obviously wrong and they desperately want to believe in Biblical inerrancy. I don't think that Judaism or Christianity is proven false by this either.

This is a perfect summary of my opinion.

[KainIIIC]

Foggers, on Nov 10 2009, 04:05 PM, said:

Yes they are compatible. The Bible is not literal.

Why is it only 2 millennia later that the bible isn't supposed to be taken literally?

edit: D'oh! I kept this sitting around, and Sal beat me to it

This post has been edited by KainIIIC: 10 November 2009 - 04:39 PM

[Bob Janova]

Of course it's compatible with 'religion'. There are plenty of religious biologists. Certain fundamentalists may stick literally to ancient text that contains claims which are demonstrably untrue, and the personal religion of these people is incompatible with various aspects of reality, including evolution.

[Foggers]

KainIIIC, on Nov 10 2009, 10:44 PM, said:

Why is it only 2 millennia later that the bible isn't supposed to be taken literally?

Because what you said is actually wrong. At first they had a symbolic approach but over time they actually took more of a literal understanding of it. I have notes on it somewhere....

[Lamuella]

the only real answer here is: "it depends on the religion".

[KainIIIC]

Foggers, on Nov 10 2009, 04:59 PM, said:

Because what you said is actually wrong. At first they had a symbolic approach but over time they actually took more of a literal understanding of it. I have notes on it somewhere....

I have an extremely hard time believing that the Council of Nicaea and the Byzantines who formulated the bible would take a "symbolic approach" to the bible. In fact, all available evidence in Byzantine history suggests that quite the opposite is the case, and even more so than the Papal authority, the Eastern sect interpreted the bible in a literal sense.


Also, isn't the bible supposed to be 'infallible'?

[King Diamond]

bigwoody, on Nov 10 2009, 01:56 PM, said:

Here is the spinoff from the other thread that has gone off-topic in that direction.

w/r/t Christianity
Bible literalists will say the two are not compatible. Genesis states 7 days and anything contradicting that therefore is mutually exclusive with belief in Christ.
Many other Christians say that the Bible is the be taken as metaphor, and that evolution could be the mechanism God used to create man.

PLEASE NOTE: This is not a topic that demands scientific rigor. This is a philosophical debate, act accordingly.

I doubt those are written to be construed as Earth days.

[Iserlohn]

Leviticus time!


Religion: Compatible with Lobster?

[PrinceCaspian]

KainIIIC, on Nov 10 2009, 11:08 PM, said:

Also, isn't the bible supposed to be 'infallible'?

Where did you pull that from?

Humans are fallible. The Bible is fallible - it's not some sort of god.

[Sal Paradise]

KainIIIC, on Nov 10 2009, 03:08 PM, said:

Also, isn't the bible supposed to be 'infallible'?

That part wasn't meant to be taken literally

Iserlohn, on Nov 10 2009, 03:18 PM, said:

Leviticus time!


Religion: Compatible with Lobster?

I lol'd

King Diamond, on Nov 10 2009, 03:17 PM, said:

I doubt those are written to be construed as Earth days.

Exactly. They were obviously meant to mean Venusian days, which are 243 Earth days long.

[Foggers]

KainIIIC, on Nov 10 2009, 11:08 PM, said:

I have an extremely hard time believing that the Council of Nicaea and the Byzantines who formulated the bible would take a "symbolic approach" to the bible. In fact, all available evidence in Byzantine history suggests that quite the opposite is the case, and even more so than the Papal authority, the Eastern sect interpreted the bible in a literal sense.

The Council Of Nicea decided the Biblical canon based on what early Christians believed. It isn't anything to do with the Bible being literal or symbolic.

Quote

Also, isn't the bible supposed to be 'infallible'?

Not for Catholics. It is a bit tricky to explain and I can't remember all the details, but the Bible is an account of God's revelation to man. However it isn't as straight forward as it sounds. The Bible was written by men, in a variety of languages and in many different writing styles.