Can you combine christianity and the belief in evolution?

Can you combine christianity and the belief in evolution?

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    With a lot of carefully crafted israeli bullshit artistry.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Haha yeah
      This describes Christianity in general.

  2. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, and most natural scientists and were christians or deists for most of history. Its only in modern protestant/fundie moron land that basic observable processes of the material world become irreconcilable with the God that created the material world.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Just wondering but do trad Caths in Europe ever post memes like this related? This is a Sede meme.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        What would you tell people who say that it's Vatican 2 that caused people to believe in things like evolution? Pic related from Sedevacantist.

        So Sedevacantism is blatantly anti-reason and anti-science? Wow, brilliant advertisement. Sedes are basically the Lutheran Missouri Synod of Catholicism.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Missouri Synod are the best of the Lutherans

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Sedes are on to the New World Order.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Orthodoxy is also heavily anti evolution etc. Its just that 98% of orthodox content is not in english

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            I've been an Ortho all my life in a Slavic country. Never heard anyone speak against evolution except one weird non-Orthodox student club.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Regular people =/= theologians/monastics

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            The church is the people. And while I can't offer you testimonies of speaking to theologians and monastics, I can tell you that when both advise people about dangers of the world, belief in evolution is never mentioned.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Can confirm

            I've been an Ortho all my life in a Slavic country. Never heard anyone speak against evolution except one weird non-Orthodox student club.

            In my country also Slavic orthodox I have never heard anyone being anti evolution except some schizo politician. Some priests even say it is absolute true though they are accused in ecumenism because they are also pro catholic

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Wait so are you confirming that Orthos are anti-evolution or that you never heard them being anti-evolution?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            He's saying he's never heard of them being anti evolution.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      This. The big bang was thought up by a Catholic.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        What would you say to people who say accepting evolution is a Vatican 2 thing?

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          the position is still the same as pius XII's from before vatican 2 - that the faithful can either believe or not believe in evolution

  3. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    No.

  4. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Augustine told Christendom not to go full moron 1600 years ago and the moronic evangelicals still somehow didn't get the memo...

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous
    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      What would you tell people who say that it's Vatican 2 that caused people to believe in things like evolution? Pic related from Sedevacantist.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >shake hands with Baal
        >the near eastern fertility god
        >the god of reason

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          The reasoning is pretty sound. The Vatican today is allied with the demonic.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            moron

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >Pic related from Sedevacantist.
        Muh forced altcatheter meme

  5. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Yes

  6. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    I don't remember his name but there was some ancient philosopher who said that there are 4 ways to understand Bible like literal, figurative etc. So there are a lot of christians who just understand scripts differently

  7. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Not really especially if you include the books of Enoch in your study which clearly state the earth is thousands of years old, not billions.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Yes. If you can't, you're either a rural African or a Burgerland prottie.

      Enoch is some of the most esoteric literature, if things like Genesis get a symbolic pass, Enoch gets it without question.

      What if you consider every humanoid before Adam and Eve to be literally soulless beasts of the field?

      Based moron

  8. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Evolution disproves Christianity.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      evolution is false though, mythology for atheists.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Quoting Darwin on evolution is like quoting Freud on psychology. A cokehead move.
        >abrupt appearance
        This has been solved.
        >the only point halfway through the video
        Not watching the rest, sorry

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          >Quoting Darwin on evolution is like quoting Freud on psychology.
          It's because they model all beliefs as being like theirs- taken on faith because a supposed prophet said it. So they assume if you can prove the original prophet wasn't valid the whole thing collapses.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          You are not watching because you have no intelectual honesty.
          Obviously if darwin says that if we dotn find the fossils that originated the known families of species his theory is bankrupt, and to this day not only we didnt find the fossils but plenty of new advanced families spring forth with no previous 'evolution' record, then the theory failed.
          So lets stop pretending the evidence is there.
          There is no evidence for the primordial soup nor evolution. Only for basic adaptation, not fish turning into lizards and monekys and men.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Do you even understand how clades work? By definition every fossil we find is a missing link in itself.

            Best example I can think of is homosexual erectus, whose fossils are basically labelled homosexual erectus “stricto sensu” or sensu lato now considering how minor evolutionary variations can be tracked from one fossil to the next as they migrated east.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            evolution deniers are moronic
            >why don't fish wake up one day as lizards
            >why don't monkeys give birth to humans
            frick, it's not a hard concept

  9. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, the word “day” used in the original Hebrew version of genesis can also be translated as a general period of time and the process in which God creates things seems to follow the path of evolution, first fish in the sea and plants then all the crawling things on earth and finally humans.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      you
      See -->

      With a lot of carefully crafted israeli bullshit artistry.

      Fpbp

  10. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Yes
    Quite easily if you don't consider Genesis to be literal.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      You don't think that's a dangerous slippery slope toward discarding the entire Bible?

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        No

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        You know Jesus spoke in parables, why are you sure his Father never does?

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          That's a stupid fricking bullshit way to communicate. Shoot straight or frick off.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Christ's teachings are not for everyone. The Gospels are filled with spiritual content for those seeking Deliverance, but most will only find a rather rudimentary form of Salvation in them.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Before I am misunderstood, I will say that of course his teachings are for everyone. But, in practice, very, very few men are sufficiently spiritually inclined to get everything out of them.

  11. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    What if you consider every humanoid before Adam and Eve to be literally soulless beasts of the field?

  12. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Yee, Catholics do it erry day mutha fricka
    EZ

  13. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Obviously, you just need to cope

  14. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    watch this. It refutes evolution.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >one five-minute video of a guy talking at a camera
      >refuting an entire field of evidence
      Lolno

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        His points refuted the things you learn about evolution in school

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Maybe if you live in a trailer park and your science teacher's name was Cletus.

  15. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    If so, who were Adam and Eve?

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      me and my wife nazrin

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Symbols.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      A man named "man" and a woman named "life". Not really building a case for a literal interpretation, buddy.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >A man named "man"
        Even more than that, he's named basically Earthling, Adamah is clay/dirt/earth.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      An allegory about how women are easily swayed by temptation

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Adam and Eve were the first humans to be given consciousness by God. Before them the proto-humans were philosophical zombies.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        doesnt work because there was suffering and death in the world before their sin then. Whihc woudl render invalid the whole theology of hte OT and NT.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          How so? Other humans can't suffer if they're not conscious.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Not that anon but tbh the cartesian notion that all animals are p-zombies doesn't sit right with me.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >animals are p-zombies
            I will never understand how people are willing to bite that bullet
            Makes God the greatest deceiver, created the world such that it appear like animals are suffering. While really nothing is going on in their head (just to mess with us?)

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Yep, that's basically my reasoning for rejecting christian notions of animal p-zombies too.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Yep, that's basically my reasoning for rejecting christian notions of animal p-zombies too.

            What about insects, do you believe they're p-zombies?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            No?
            Because it doesn't even look to me like they are suffering (in the same capacity as I've experienced suffering myself)
            making them literally NOT p-zombies
            I don't know really how to articulate this

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            To clarify
            in

            No?
            Because it doesn't even look to me like they are suffering (in the same capacity as I've experienced suffering myself)
            making them literally NOT p-zombies
            I don't know really how to articulate this

            I just mentioned suffering
            because I had forgot the point of p-zombies.
            But I don't think it appears like insects have any kind of experiences or qualia, in the same way I do
            I'm perfectly happy thinking of them like "mechanisms" without experiences. That seems true to me.

            If you want to flip the question on the head. And ask me if I could be persuaded to think insects have qualia.
            I could probably be convinced of that, but I would need reasons. Reasons I don't currently have.

            THEN, you could ask me the question again.
            And I would answer: No I don't think insects are p-zombies, but I could be wrong about that. Even if I think that's unlikely.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >in the same way I do
            Why would it have to be the way you do? Why would some functions of perception be experienced and others not? Why would there not be some qualia of being a worker ant that is very different to the qualia of being a human?

            If you come to the conclusion that ants do have qualia then why not tardigrades, then why not plants, then why not computers? And if you come to the conclusion that they don't, then in the opposite direction why do fish, then why do lizards, then why do mice, then why do humans?

            To me, either all perception is experienced or humans are special and graced by God.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >why not computers?
            Because they are not alive.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            So if a computer ran an atom-for-atom simulation of a human brain it wouldn't have qualia?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            I don't think so. Still, I'm not super confident about that.
            Do you think a computer that runs an atom-for-atom simulation of the weather, is wet when it rains?
            I don't. I think the material composition of things truly matters for what they are. That's not to say a computer cannot be conscious. I just think that is more likely achieved by being shaped like a human brain, not just simulating one.

            The post made a dichotomy out of either all perception is experience. Or human experience is magic.
            Which I don't agree with.
            I took that to say even stuff like a web camera's perception is qualia, or human experience is magic. That just seems very very likely false.
            If you wanted to qualify this, and say only stuff that is similar to myself that perceives, have qualia. Then you could get me on board.

            Anyway, I think the word 'Perception' is just being abused in some way, to beg the question. It ain't real perception, unless there's qualia. Something like that.
            In which case, the word is just totally uninformative.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >I just think that is more likely achieved by being shaped like a human brain, not just simulating one.
            Computationally, I don't think there's really a difference?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Computationally, I don't think there's really a difference?
            Yeah, and even then. Let's just suppose anything a human brain does, can be simulated by a classic computer.

            What I was thinking is a really simple idea

            If you built a physical "human brain", but replaced the neurons with semiconductors, etc.
            I think it's very possible for this computer to be conscious. Because it's basically just a biological brain with "metal parts".

            But if you built this thing with ones and zeroes as a simulation on a regular computer.
            Then I'm suddenly more sceptical about it actually being conscious. And not just simulating something that looks like consciousness.

            Now, I have not provided any arguments for why I think this. Except the story about a weather simulation not actually being wet, when it simulates rain. But a lot of people would agree with that.
            This is a position I hold mostly for intuitive reason. I'm still somewhat confident in it being true.
            It's not like I'm ignoring arguments that would prove me wrong, I don't know of any that are very strong.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Maybe consciousness itself is merely an illusion.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            I don't really know what you mean by "illusion"
            if you mean like "doesn't exist", I think that is really implausible, because I'm so confident in being conscious myself (whatever we mean by that word, conscious..)

            if you just mean in the sense of us being confused about what consciousness is fundamentally made of
            I have no idea what that would be, I've just been saying that I think there are things such as physical material, that plays a role at some level

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Here's another argument for why I think the physical material of the brain matters:
            You can do this computations with a highly intricate systems of cogwheels and rods, right? Or water pipes and vales.
            And even with by hand, with pen and paper. Writing out the computations manually

            I just very unwilling to say that ink and paper can be conscious. Where is that consciousness located?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            In some conjunction of the pen and paper, the person's brain who's doing it, and the algorithm they're following. That said, it would be so slow it would probably take them a year at least to compute a second of subjective consciousness.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >the person's brain who's doing it
            You could split up the computing task between thousands of peole, in such a way that no human really has anything meaningful inside their minds.
            Sorta like a china-brain, that's a famous thought experiment.
            You could conceivable have blind monkeys do it, and just luck out the symbols by chance. Now the computations are on the paper, but they have never been inside anyone's mind.
            Or any other implausible mechanical system.

            Still, wouldn't that just ironically make my position seem more true?
            My original point, was that I think consciousness is more plausible, if whatever process is doing it, is materially similar to a human brain.
            If the consciousness is located inside the brains of the people that are doing computations. That's entierly compatible with my initial post. (even if I don't really think it's true)

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            I'm sure you're familiar with indirect realism. When it rains in your dreams, you can experience being wet despite not actually being wet. Qualia is entirely made of perceptions, not of reality.

            Here's another argument for why I think the physical material of the brain matters:
            You can do this computations with a highly intricate systems of cogwheels and rods, right? Or water pipes and vales.
            And even with by hand, with pen and paper. Writing out the computations manually

            I just very unwilling to say that ink and paper can be conscious. Where is that consciousness located?

            You're looking at it the wrong. Consciousness isn't something our brains have, it's not located inside, it's something our brains do. I don't see any reason why water pipes or pen and paper can't also do it.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Qualia is entirely made of perceptions, not of reality.
            I think qualia is made up of stuff that exist in reality
            on my definitions, things that doesn't exist in reality, does not exist

            >Consciousness isn't something our brains have, it's not located inside, it's something our brains do
            I can agree with this. I just think this action is reducible in terms of physical stuff. That it's dependent on them.
            I don't think water pipes would be capable of doing the same things our brains do. I don't think it's just computation. I think the material really matters.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >it's something our brains do
            We don't know that.
            All we know is that our brain does the things that end up in our consciousness, such as thoughts, emotions, memories, ideas etc.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            I'm saying that I don't think they "qualia" in any sense of the word. I don't think they have a first person experience, of anything.
            If you see an insect acting like it's in pain, I don't think it's ACTUALLY experiencing pain. That's just us anthropomorphizing what it looks like.

            I'm rejecting both horns of them being "p-zombies" (I don't think this word makes sense in the context)
            I don't think it looks like they have qualia
            I don't think they have qualia
            So there's nothing to contrast them with, no non-zombie insects that have real qualia.

            But of course, there is no way for me to *prove* that insects don't have qualia. Same way I can't prove rocks don't have qualia, etc.
            It's just that I think it's highly unlikely.

            >If you come to the conclusion that ants do have qualia then why not tardigrades, then why not plants, then why not computers? And if you come to the conclusion that they don't, then in the opposite direction why do fish, then why do lizards, then why do mice, then why do humans?
            I could say something about this, right? But it's not going to be useful, just speculation.
            I have no problem with biology being fuzzy, and there being different kinds of qualia. But, that's not incompatible with animals either having qualia (some kind of qualia) or not. That this is a true dichotomy.

            I think this problem is fundamentally caused by human language.
            You have just the same thing with the concept of a.. chair. If I add 10 atoms to this chair.. is it still a chair? What about 100 000 000 billion trillion atoms, still a chair? Some concepts don't have real defended cut-off points, or beginnings.

            I'm a nominalist, I don't believe there is such a thing as chairness. So this doesn't bother me too much. It's just humans using language with varying degrees of success at getting their points across.
            Same thing with qualia

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Almost no Christians would want to say that.
            For the same reason young-earth creationists don't want to say God just made it appear like the world is 6 billion years old, in order to "test" us, etc. Heh, would solve any evidential problems neatly, right? But they don't do that.

            The idea that God want us to be able to have accurate knowledge about, has been a pretty big deal in multiple different doctrines since forever ago.
            It isn't just the idea that God is not a liar or deceiver.
            On the top of my head: Catholics have been saying that we are supposed to be able to know God through nature. And we couldn't do that if nature was different that how it appeared.

            Now in reality, with sciences ever increasing in complexity, nature is starting to look a bit deceptive to me (quantum stuff, relativity, etc)
            I don't know what they have to say about that? It's probably cool as long things are not fundamentally deceptive at the deepest levels.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        The idea has occurred to me that Genesis might be representing a collective memory of something like that. As Epicurus said, death is no harm to us, because when we are, death is not, and when death is, we are not. But to be an intelligent being is to understand that you will some day stop existing. Dumb animals never experience death, because Epicurus's statement applies more fully to them, but we experience the terrible understanding that we will die. So that's what the fruit of knowledge symbolizes- becoming a self-aware being and therefore fully understanding your own mortality.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        How so? Other humans can't suffer if they're not conscious.

        What you are proposing is called the Flynn-Kemp hypothesis but it leaves many theological and scientific stones unturned

        See: https://www.angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley/kemp.html

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      the first people with rational souls

  16. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    God created evolution. Duh.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Correct, simple as

  17. 2 years ago
    Victor from Harvard

    You can. The theory of evolution is taught or widely known in secular terms, that is devoid of design by God. At the divergence from theology, the point of return to and from experiment or design evolution by natural selection occurs by approximation to an ideal logical standard. Heaven, God, and absolute law are flatly perfect maximums. Therefore at these ordinances the theory of evolution seems to fit in quite adequately, if not only accurately.

  18. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Not really, and not even because of creationism as such, but because of original sin. Even the Catholic Church, which is one of the most open to evolution, holds that nevertheless the faithful need to believe that all humans came from two specific individuals, whatever their shape, who deliberately sinned and brought death upon the world where it didn't exist before.

    Basically even "evolutionary" Christianity needs to hold that there were two immortal humans who lost their immortality after a sin and who are the ancestors of all of humanity.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >need to believe that all humans came from two specific individuals
      Nope.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Yes.

        >When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which through generation is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          This is not binding. Theologians (and popes) since have been fine with evolution and its implications for Adam and Eve.

          >Quoting Darwin on evolution is like quoting Freud on psychology.
          It's because they model all beliefs as being like theirs- taken on faith because a supposed prophet said it. So they assume if you can prove the original prophet wasn't valid the whole thing collapses.

          >if you can prove the original prophet wasn't valid the whole thing collapses
          Not in science. A good 2/3 of what Freud said was disproved, psychology is alive and kicking.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Right, that's my point- they model other beliefs as being like that when they aren't really at all.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >need to believe that all humans came from two specific individuals
            Nope.

            That guy you're talking to is right. See the Council of Trent (ecumenical) and its doctrinal decree about Adam (which I quoted here

            Leaving aside the topic of theistic evolution for a second

            If we are talking about Christian dogma and not individual theological opinions (e.g. "my priest/pastor says x") then I would say that for 'orthodox' (Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Mainline Protestants) theological acceptance of evolution is straitjacketed by the dogma of original sin and the first man, Adam, who Christian tradition asserts was created a) immortal (in body as well as soul) and b) as the progenitor of the entire human race.

            [...]

            >"we define that anyone who presumes henceforth to assert defend or hold stubbornly that the rational or intellectual soul is not the form of the human body of itself and essentially, is to be considered a heretic."
            - Council of Vienne

            >If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offence of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam, through that offence of prevarication, was changed, in BODY and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema.
            - Council of Trent

            >The doctrine of the infallibility of ecumenical councils states that solemn definitions of ecumenical councils, approved by the Pope, which concern faith or morals, and to which the whole Church must adhere, are infallible. Such decrees often have an attached anathema, a penalty of excommunication, against those who refuse to believe the teaching

            ), which is binding

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            What makes it binding, and who does it bind? Am I bound by this?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            If we are talking about individual theological opinions then you are completely free to believe whatever you like, as is your right.

            I was merely addressing your objection to the poster who wrote
            >the Catholic Church, which is one of the most open to evolution, holds that nevertheless the faithful need to believe that all humans came from two specific individuals
            since he is alluding to the decrees of ecumenical councils, and not what an individual pope says, or what someone 'has' to believe in

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Pic: "Evolution does directly undermine Catholicism"

            Not really.

            >Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing. (Vatican I)

            >Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

            >Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that “the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God” (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36)
            Source: https://www.catholic.com/tract/adam-eve-and-evolution

            To summarize. Belief in evolution is not incompatible with Catholicism as long as such belief is consistent with the above-noted strictures, i.e., one must maintain belief in the special creation of the human soul by God, that evolution proceeds under the guidance of God, etc. (e.g., Humani Generis appears to require belief in monogenism rather than polygenism).

            Further reading:

            Adam and Eve and Evolution
            https://catholicscientists.org/articles/adam-eve-evolution/

            Time to Abandon the Genesis Story? [discusses monogenism vs. polygenism issue]
            https://www.hprweb.com/2014/07/time-to-abandon-the-genesis-story/

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      They were never immortal, what they lost was the chance to eat from the tree of life and become immortal.

  19. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Yes especially if you read Gen. 1-11 in its historical literary context https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R24WZ4Hvytc&list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TUeQHe-lZZF2DTxDHA_LFxi

  20. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    If I were christian, I'd probably try to argue that original sin is essentially the first use of our evolutionarily acquired ability to make morally significant choices.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Sounds reasonable

  21. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    If you can accept god turning nothing into something you can accept god turning a monkey into man

  22. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Most of the old testament, especially genesis, is allegorical.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      if you were wrong about that, and you are meant to read it literally
      how would you know?

  23. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    I think genes and predestination can be combined
    considering fact that both are not that much different

  24. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    The belief of evolution precedes and is integral to Christianity.
    Lol

  25. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Evolution doesn't need magic to help it along. It would be like saying gravity is true but there's also magic in it.

  26. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    evolution of christianity

  27. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Read genesis line by line and have a rough idea of evolution handy on a piece of paper. You'll be pleasantly surprised.

  28. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Sure.

    Evolution is just a biological version of the changing of the seasons. Or an extreme version of getting a tan in the sun. Nature changes depending on conditions.
    The soul endures.

  29. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah, just give up and say everything in the bible is a metaphor.

  30. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Leaving aside the topic of theistic evolution for a second

    If we are talking about Christian dogma and not individual theological opinions (e.g. "my priest/pastor says x") then I would say that for 'orthodox' (Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Mainline Protestants) theological acceptance of evolution is straitjacketed by the dogma of original sin and the first man, Adam, who Christian tradition asserts was created a) immortal (in body as well as soul) and b) as the progenitor of the entire human race.

    [...]

    >"we define that anyone who presumes henceforth to assert defend or hold stubbornly that the rational or intellectual soul is not the form of the human body of itself and essentially, is to be considered a heretic."
    - Council of Vienne

    >If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offence of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam, through that offence of prevarication, was changed, in BODY and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema.
    - Council of Trent

    >The doctrine of the infallibility of ecumenical councils states that solemn definitions of ecumenical councils, approved by the Pope, which concern faith or morals, and to which the whole Church must adhere, are infallible. Such decrees often have an attached anathema, a penalty of excommunication, against those who refuse to believe the teaching

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Adam was never immortal.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Based and Pelagianism pilled
        Which denomination are you?

  31. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Ignoring the questions of original sin, Adam and Eve, how the Church fathers understood Genesis, my personal view is that evolution by natural selection does undermine Christianity.

    If the emergence of the human race is merely the result of selective pressures then it has implications for natural law, e.g. human sex just being "the way it is" as a result of random natural selection and not having any intrinsic moral dimension.

    It also seems to pose a problem for the question of the soul. If the ability to reason is something that appeared slowly in the evolutionary timeline, in grades - going from less to more sophisticated in our proto-human ancestors - then this seems to undermine the idea of a spiritual soul (which you either have or you don't).

    Of course, you could argue natural selection doesn't really exist and that God has been guiding the entire thing.. but we are talking about a deity who can part the sea, turn water into wine, and resurrect the dead. To have such a deity decide to create humanity over billions of years through a long and very violent process that can be explained (as far as I'm aware) purely within a naturalistic framework just seems... odd.

    Are they totally incompatible? No, but you have to make serious compromises in at least one of them in order to try and reconcile them. You can see why tradcaths/conservatives don't like it while atheists treat as a win.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >human sex just being "the way it is" as a result of random natural selection
      Not necessarily random. Women control who mates, God controls what mutates.
      >reason
      >spiritual soul
      Those are two almost unrelated things. Rationality isn't a product of the soul/spirit.
      > spiritual soul (which you either have or you don't
      Or have inactive or have it darkened.
      >within a naturalistic framework just seems... odd.
      Existence of the entire universe seems odd in the naturalistic framework.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >Women control who mates,
        This still falls under natural selection

        >God controls what mutates.
        So God inserted things like sexual deviancy and psychopathy into the human genome? That is an odd concession to make about the god of the Bible and how Christians have understood his role in creation for millenia.

        >Those are two almost unrelated things. Rationality isn't a product of the soul/spirit.
        I'm pretty sure Aquinas (and most thomists) argue the opposite, i.e. that the ability to reason comes from the human soul. If early or proto humans could reason and make moral choices but didn't have a soul then that would pretty severely undermine the imago dei.

        >Or have inactive or have it darkened.
        So the soul is like a dimmer rather than a light switch? Did the first ensoulment ever take place, and if so how many early humans were ensouled? Did proto humans have rational-but-not-quite-fully human souls? Are there homosexual erectus in heaven? Do human embryos and people in vegetative states merely have their souls inactive/darkened? I am no theologian but to me this just raises more questions than it answers.

        >Existence of the entire universe seems odd in the naturalistic framework.
        This is a bit of a deflection - we aren't talking cosmology. My point was that evolution (long, wasteful, violent, meandering and random, yet as far as I'm aware totally explainable without appealing to divine intervention) seems an overly subtle and odd choice for the god of the Bible. A subjective point though, I will concede.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          control who mates,
          >This still falls under natural selection
          If you presume choices are purely natural, sure. Christians don't.
          > sexual deviancy and psychopathy into the human genome?
          Show genes.
          are two almost unrelated things. Rationality isn't a product of the soul/spirit.
          >I'm pretty sure Aquinas (and most thomists) argue the opposite,
          Aquinas may conflate the two, like many theologians do for purpose of time. But those Fathers that go in depth on the topic make a separation.
          >>Or have inactive or have it darkened.
          >So the soul is like a dimmer rather than a light switch? Did the first ensoulment ever take place, and if so how many early humans were ensouled? Did proto humans have rational-but-not-quite-fully human souls? Are there homosexual erectus in heaven? Do human embryos and people in vegetative states merely have their souls inactive/darkened? I am no theologian but to me this just raises more questions than it answers.
          No idea. But I'm pretty sure one can claim a faculty is inactive without having to elaborate on embryonic spirituality 🙂
          >This is a bit of a deflection
          My point is that naturalism isn't the default position here.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Show genes.
            There isn't a "gay gene" or a "psychopath gene" in the way you seem to be describing, but genetics does have a significant impact
            https://www.science.org/content/article/study-gay-brothers-may-confirm-x-chromosome-link-homosexuality
            https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02239409

            >Aquinas may conflate the two, like many theologians do for purpose of time. But those Fathers that go in depth on the topic make a separation.
            Show fathers. Do they contend that you can have a human being who can reason, make moral choices etc. but who does not possess a human soul? As I say, I think this would undermine the concept of the imago dei pretty severely if so.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >genetics does have a significant impact
            They absolutely do. But the implication in your post was that there are genes that appeared through mutation that can be characterized as psychopathic, which I don't think they can be. They may contribute to the condition of the person's will is corrupt enough, but that is like to claim that there is an "obesity gene".
            >Show fathers
            Unsurprisingly Gregory Palamas, my favourite anti-intellectual, Gregory of Nazianzus (conflates soul with attention but not with reasoning), St Isaac the Syrian and the mystical traditon.

            By the way, if you're referring to Thomistic use of the word "intellect" then that might not be limited to reasoning, afaik the term was a lot more profound in Western Christianity, but it might be that Aquinas covers everything by it, idk, haven't read a lot of him.

  32. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Yes. Only Protestant believe that the bible is to be taken literally

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous
  33. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    NO

  34. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    completely wipe christianity (except literally the existence of jesus an the fact that he was crucified but didn't die on the cross) from your mind an start over

  35. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    There's a finite number or souls reincarnating on the planet. It's very rare for new souls to come here or for someone who is alive now for this to be their very first incarnation though it does happen. 90% of us lived through atlantis, lemuria and now we are here in the earth project and we are only still here because after humans destroyed thierself an the planet before the pleiedains an the galactic federation made a pact where they would watch us more closely an not let us destroy ourselves an intervene when we come close to, that's why there's stories out there about ufo's an uap's showing up at nuclear facilities an disarming the nukes an they sit there like the dumbasses they are wondering how it was able to brake through five layers of security an do it. Aliens found earth and seeded it. Humans are alien hybrids but we existed before the creation of earth. I think humans are hybrids between pleiedians an lyrans. Humans existed in lyra before earth and we were brought here. There was a war between lyrans an the reptilians, reptilians live inside of our planet and they were put here so that we learn to coexist and your governments work with them and there are good reptilians also. Earth is a living library. Beings from all around the cosmos come here on like a tour or vacation like you would go to the zoo or aquarium because there is so much diversity here. Aliens, even reptilians know how to rearrange dna, all of our major jumps in evolution are because of them upgrading our dna not because we're evolving an walking out of the ocean or used to be monkeys. Our dna has recently been upgraded once more that's why humans now have the vibration that makes us able to hold the knowledge about chakras an telepathy an yoga an teleportation an space travel because we are upgraded humans. Religions don't want you to know this because then you would know they are liars and wouldn't fear them because they are meant to control you and they do it by fear.

  36. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Yes. If you believe God used evolution to express his power.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Is there any observation we could make, that is incompatible with it being an expression of God's power?

  37. 2 years ago
    Anonymous
  38. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >Can you combine christianity and the belief in evolution?

    Of course.

    “The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its makeup,
    not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the
    correct relationship of man with God and with the universe.”

    — Pope John Paul II —

  39. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Nope.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *