Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why evolution and Christianity cannot logically mesh
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 61 of 75 (351892)
09-24-2006 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by iano
09-24-2006 5:52 PM


The question of whether animals suffer is impenetrable for want of being able to look at it from the animals perspective.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by iano, posted 09-24-2006 5:52 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by iano, posted 09-25-2006 6:37 AM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 62 of 75 (351893)
09-24-2006 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by GDR
09-24-2006 7:01 PM


GDR writes:
I would come at that from an entirely different perspective. I wouldn't agree that it has anything at all to do with God's wrath. We have been given guidelines for life which are based on loving all of our neighbours and wanting the best for them. It's like telling a 2 year old not to play in the street. If he follows the guidelines it keeps him safe, whereas if he plays in the street he is likely to get hit bay a car.
When individuals, nations or mankind in general operate outside of the guidelines things will go wrong as a natural consequence, not because of God supernaturally intervening to punish those that live outside the guidelines.
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:
KJV writes:
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.
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Eph 5:6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.
Col 3:6 For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience:

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by GDR, posted 09-24-2006 7:01 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by GDR, posted 09-24-2006 8:01 PM Faith has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 63 of 75 (351895)
09-24-2006 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by iano
09-24-2006 5:52 PM


quote:
I think the wrath of God poured out on mankind because of his wickedness is fairly well established myself.
I'd say that it is at best widely believed. I haven't seen any serious arguments that deal with the problems. In my opinion it's just another apologetic assertion that doesn't really stand up.
quote:
"Even allowing for my view" can work both ways. It is highly questionable that animals suffer if one has first accepted (for that is the grounds on which we must investigate the thread title) that man is a species completely apart
You're confusing two different things. I am temporarily accepting your assertion for the sake of argument while pointing out that there are good reasons to doubt it. As Faith says we can't access the persepctive of other humans either, but even allowing for the risk of anthropomorphising animals I think that it is quite clear that the more "advanced' animals act as if they are self-aware and feel pain. You can argue that "really" they just act that way while not really having any awareness but it's a view that isn't supported by any actual evidence.
quote:
I don't see any imperfection in God because of the fall of man. He allowed man a choice and allowed man to reap the consequences of that choice. He warned them there would be consequences too. God is vindicated no matter what the outcome for individuals.
If God intended the Fall then He is responsible for it. If He did not then we have to ask why it occurred at all. Did God fail ? Is this failure one that God could not be reasonably expected to anticipate and prevent ?
quote:
God made it that Adam would pass on that which made him man to his offspring. Like breeds like. We all got our mankindedness from him. That was the order set up. Now if Adam goes and makes a mutant of himself with his rebellion then all his offspring will be mutants.
i.e. this God who supposedly hates sin deliberately arranged to create lots of unnecessary sin. No, it isn't plausible that the Christian God would do anything of the sort.
quote:
The only person who can decide how bad sin is is God. We cannot. We can debate all we like but patently this is the way it is and it is fairly clear from the Bible that that is the view he takes. Any argument about it being too severe stumbles over that fact.
As I said the Bible also makes it clear that the suffering on Earth is NOT allocated on the basis of sin and some people do suffer more than they deserve. That is what Job is about. So my argument does not stumble over your "alleged" fact unless you wish to refute the Book of Job. Indeed even without that your point would stumble over itself. If it could be reasonably held to be true there would be no need to invoke it.
quote:
I know the the good die young and that the wicked prosper but we must remember that this life of ours is but a blip. It is a temporary arena where eternal destination is figured out.
And of course this is another view which is not really defensible, but could be used to justify pre-Fall suffering.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by iano, posted 09-24-2006 5:52 PM iano has not replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 64 of 75 (351898)
09-24-2006 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Faith
09-24-2006 7:21 PM


Faith writes:
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:
None of your references make any distinction as to whether they are referring to this world or the next.
Whether it is referring to this world or the next when an individual or a society moves away from the model that God has given us then bad things are going to happen. God's wrath is that he allows the natural consquences of what we have done to take place.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Faith, posted 09-24-2006 7:21 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Faith, posted 09-24-2006 8:21 PM GDR has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 65 of 75 (351901)
09-24-2006 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by GDR
09-24-2006 8:01 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by GDR, posted 09-24-2006 8:01 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by GDR, posted 09-24-2006 10:35 PM Faith has not replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 66 of 75 (351927)
09-24-2006 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Faith
09-24-2006 8:21 PM


I'll repeat what I said before. "God's wrath is that he allows the natural consequences of what we have done to take place."
If God intervenes supernaturally in this life to punish sin then it seems to me that free will is no longer free.
Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Faith, posted 09-24-2006 8:21 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by iano, posted 09-25-2006 6:29 AM GDR has not replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 67 of 75 (352017)
09-25-2006 6:29 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by GDR
09-24-2006 10:35 PM


I'll repeat what I said before. "God's wrath is that he allows the natural consequences of what we have done to take place."
If God intervenes supernaturally in this life to punish sin then it seems to me that free will is no longer free.
Romans 1:18 The wrath of God is being poured out (or revealed) against all the ungodlieness and wickedness of man who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.
Now one could argue about a translation which says "is being" ie: is currently being. But you only have to read on in the passage to have that confirmed. The effect of Gods wrath being poured out is that God hands man over to his sin. When a man supresses the truth about God revealed to him (in nature and conscience) then God says "Ok - off you go" and withdraws his hold tending a man away from sin. Read on to what happens to a man to whom that happens
Very much present tense, very much the effect of the wrath of God
Free will is an illusion GDR. Adam had free will from the moment he was given a choice. Once expressed he had no free will anymore. Sin entered him and he became a slave to sin. That is how Paul describes mankind at large. Slaves to sin. A slave doesn't have free will regarding whether to sin or not. He is like an addict. He will inject - unless God draws him away from it.
Nor is it that the slavery motief is Pauls alone. Did not the son come to set us free and if he did we would be free indeed. Free from what? Slavery to sin of course.
See it perhaps as two competing opposites: Sin compelling a man to sin, God, through conscience compelling a man away from it. Your conscience is very much a supernatural thing. It happens every day (if a person is still bless enought to have one operating on them)
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by GDR, posted 09-24-2006 10:35 PM GDR has not replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 68 of 75 (352018)
09-25-2006 6:37 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Faith
09-24-2006 7:15 PM


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.
Topic is TOEvo+God. Assuming God mean we all are men. Fallen but made quite apart from the animals. Because we are all men what applies to one applies to all. If I suffer as a man other men suffer as men - because we are all men. We can all comment on suffering and compare notes.
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.
We see machines reacting to certain stimuli the way the machine aspect of us react to same stimuli. But there sits something else atop us as machines. That we are men. Because we cannot separate our that unique aspect from the machine aspect we cannot say that suffering is completely a function of machinery. We suffer precisely because we are we's. Without the we's attached what can we say about suffering. Nothing either way I suggest.
I am making a logical point to counter the 'cannot logically mesh argument' Post-fall people might agree that 'suffering' for animals is warranted. But pre-fall (evo-territory)they would say God is cruel. My point is that we cannot say animals suffer at all. Thus God is not cruel.
{AbE} may I say that infering them suffering because they express similar mechanical reaction to stimuli as our machines aspect whilst ignoring the central difference between us..er.... suffers from the same leap of logic that the evos makes elsewhere in their reckoning. And one you frequently pull them up on
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Faith, posted 09-24-2006 7:15 PM Faith has not replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 69 of 75 (356032)
10-11-2006 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by robinrohan
09-21-2006 11:26 PM


One more thing, Robin, before you go...
Robin writes:
Man came late in the evolutionary process. For billions of years before that, life forms battled each other on a killing field in the pre-Fall world. This was so because life was set up in such way that the only way creatures could survive was by feeding off other life forms.
What manner of God would produce such a system? A cruel God, not the God of Christianity.
...
Hence, evolution and Christianity (of the traditional sort) do not mix.
Hi, Robin. We discussed this privately, but I hope you won't mind me sharing some of it publicly, because I think something of your essence is in it.
You'll recall that I asked you, what difference does it make if we arose by evolution or by a creator's fiat?
The world is "red in tooth and claw" now, however it arose. Whether this struggle for survival has contradicted the notion of a loving God for merely six millennia or for billions of years makes only a difference of degree. The contradiction, Sir (I said, knowing you would appreciate the Victorian rhetoric and commas), is absolute--only the length of its existence is in question.
You sent me a rare smilie for that, and as you know, I treasure smilies because we are often too grim a folk.
You were a beautiful boy, Robin, and in the pictures of your later years I see the same poet's eyes, shadowed a bit by the largeness of the light and dark a boy could not suspect but a man must necessarily discover.
You once impatiently told jar that beauty was no longer a sufficient reply to suffering, but I have seen you now with your loved ones, and I know that beauty, and its handmaidens, love and truth, were enough. They are always enough.
That's all, Rob. You were wrong. You were right. See you soon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by robinrohan, posted 09-21-2006 11:26 PM robinrohan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Faith, posted 10-11-2006 11:59 PM Omnivorous has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 70 of 75 (356039)
10-11-2006 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Omnivorous
10-11-2006 11:16 PM


Re: One more thing, Robin, before you go...
The world is "red in tooth and claw" now, however it arose. Whether this struggle for survival has contradicted the notion of a loving God for merely six millennia or for billions of years makes only a difference of degree. The contradiction, Sir (I said, knowing you would appreciate the Victorian rhetoric and commas), is absolute--only the length of its existence is in question.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Omnivorous, posted 10-11-2006 11:16 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Omnivorous, posted 10-12-2006 12:12 AM Faith has replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 71 of 75 (356043)
10-12-2006 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Faith
10-11-2006 11:59 PM


Re: One more thing, Robin, before you go...
Faith writes:
Excuse the intrusion, Omni, but I don't see Robin's thoughts here, only yours.
No, I don't think I will excuse your intrusion, Faith. It is tasteless and ignorant. I know you think otherwise--but then, you cannot resist intruding into someone else's goodbye, can you?
Robin did not only speak privately to you, Faith. Your urge to discount and correct others is the facet I most often see of you.
You might be surprised to learn that my discussions with Robin included--at length--his thoughts and feelings about you.
Would you like to know more? A great deal more? Via direct quotes?
No?
Then butt out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Faith, posted 10-11-2006 11:59 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Faith, posted 10-12-2006 12:24 AM Omnivorous has not replied
 Message 73 by PaulK, posted 10-12-2006 2:16 AM Omnivorous has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 72 of 75 (356045)
10-12-2006 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Omnivorous
10-12-2006 12:12 AM


I'm sorry for the rudeness, I just thought you were wrong
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?
You might be surprised to learn that my discussions with Robin included--at length--his thoughts and feelings about you.
Would you like to know more? A great deal more? Via direct quotes?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Omnivorous, posted 10-12-2006 12:12 AM Omnivorous has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 73 of 75 (356061)
10-12-2006 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Omnivorous
10-12-2006 12:12 AM


Re: One more thing, Robin, before you go...
I have a strong feeling that Robin wished to limit Christianity to YEC or YEC-like views to discredit it. He certainly didn't seem to greatly care if the Fall was a valid explanation or not.
I suspect he viewed Faith as a "useful idiot" - a Christian (or at least a nominal Christian) who was willing and happy to aid in an assault on Christianity, without understanding what she was doing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Omnivorous, posted 10-12-2006 12:12 AM Omnivorous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by mike the wiz, posted 10-12-2006 8:47 AM PaulK has not replied

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 74 of 75 (356103)
10-12-2006 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by PaulK
10-12-2006 2:16 AM


Re: One more thing, Robin, before you go...
What you suspect, is highly convenient to your position. Atheists who want to show how absurd the YEC position is, will support it as the only viable ideology to have, to their own end. Since Robin never enforced that end, it's then not reasonable to assume he was using Faith to that kind of end.
If anything, he was saying that a Christian must be YEC, because of his own views on the big picture.
Unfortunately Paul, I think you're going to have to accept that an atheist took part in the popular false dichotomy so often regurgitated by YECS. The famous, evolution and atheism, or Christian and creationist. Perhaps you think that your ideology doesn't allow the possibility of an atheist not observing reason? On the contrary, I've known many, many, un-informed atheists who are proponents of the same YEC dichotomy.
Faith might have drastically different opinions from yours, but the insult was unnecesary. If anything, Faith used Robin, albeit on benevolent terms.
I'm not going to speak ill of the dead, but in my opinion You have a superb opportunity to speak ill of the alive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by PaulK, posted 10-12-2006 2:16 AM PaulK has not replied

AdminPhat
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 75 (356106)
10-12-2006 8:57 AM


This thread was started by Robin Rohan, and has gotten off track.
Rather than argue about what Robins intentions were, I am closing this thread out of respect for Robin.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024