Why evolution and Christianity cannot logically mesh

Where has Iano said anything about New Age Christianity? That's robinrohan's term. And it refers to Liberal Christianity basically, as I get it anyway, but with a 60s-70s PC terminological twist. Nothing to do with New Age, but I outgrew the above after the first couple of years of seeking. Although I love Teresa of Avila in particular, she's just too Catholic to stick to. Francis has a touching relation to Brother Animal, and I like him too. But Hildegard and Meister Eckhart and Thomas Merton are all way over the line into heresy.I now return you to your discussion of human versus animal pain.

I agree completely with Robin on this. Evolution and Biblical Christianity just do not logically mesh. His main point has to do with the contradiction between the implication in Genesis that death was introduced to the planet with the disobedience of Adam and Eve, including death to the creature when God cursed all creation for our sake, versus the evolution-based idea that death is part of the whole natural cycle that has powered evolution from one type to another. If evolution is true then the Fall can't have happened, and vice versa.

OK, sorry for sticking my nose in. But I think all I said, bro, was basically what Robin himself has said about the illogic. Well, I think "surely die" meant death in both senses, the physical simply taking longer to come about, but it too no doubt started immediately with some sort of physical disease process at some level. Yes, humans died spiritually at the Fall and animals have a different life than humans do, but I think it's clear that they didn't die either -- physically in their case, including vulnerability to diseases -- until God laid the curse on them for our sake, and I do believe they suffer, no, not like us, but they suffer in the simplest sense, in that they feel pain, and scripture counsels kindness toward them too you know.I don't think immortality is the same as spiritual life, Ian. After all God withheld the tree of life from Adam and Eve because they had sinned, and they could have had immortality in that condition, as the fallen angels do, but it would ultimately be a living death as hell must be, and the ultimate fate of Satan and his demons will be. Or maybe worse, because it would be a perpetual decaying of the body without death that sheds the body. Or something like that. Spiritual life, or eternal life, or the life in Christ, is real life, but that doesn't mean that they won't be sentient in hell.{Edit: I think that all needs some ironing out, but bottom line is I don't see any justification for thinking animals died before the Fall. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But in the same sense we can't even know that other human beings suffer, it can only be an inference from our own experience, and an assumption that they are the same as we are.But we also know the expressions of suffering and see them in others and that confirms the knowledge of their suffering.I don't understand your argument that animals don't suffer just because human beings have a special role. We see expressions of suffering in them too, and there is a place for empathy from us with them. I'm sure you feel it too. You are making an academic point.

What do you do with the Biblical references to "the wrath of God" as punishment and as the state of fallen man then? As in:

I see. You interpret it into the future then. But the phrase IS "wrath of God" nevertheless, not the more ambiguous "bad things are going to happen."I read all those texts in the present tense as they are written, but this one in particular seems hard to read any other way:Jhn 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.He that NOW believes not, shall NOW not see life OR then (both the life that comes with believing in the now AND the future life after death, which is really just the same life continued anyway); but the wrath of God NOW abides on him ...is how I read that.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Excuse the intrusion, Omni, but I don't see Robin's thoughts here, only yours. He didn't believe in the Fall, but he did recognize the Christian explanation of the Fall, and unlike others here did take it as an answer to the idea of a cruel God. He didn't believe in evolution with any more certainty it seems to me. It was merely in a sense the default position he went back to.

I'm sorry, I didn't think of it as correcting, but in the spirit of debate. It seemed to me that you misrepresented his position. I'm SO sorry he isn't here to make it clear.Why are you so angry? I'm sorry if I seemed to be taking away from your relationship with Robin. I'm glad you had a relationship with Robin. I thought you two seemed to have a lot in common. Perhaps you might have been the one to worry about his not posting and tracked him down. I would have been happy not to have all that responsibility.From the sound of it, Robin must have misrepresented his thoughts and feelings about me quite drastically to me. He must have lied to one or the other of us. People don't expect to die, do they? How about in chat?Or in email?That is, if it is me you want to tell and not the whole world.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.