christians who believe in evolution theory
I'm catholic and i'm in the mood for philosophizing.
I believe in both evolution and God. Then i saw this while i was browsing the net:
'If man evolved from apes, how are we made in the image of God?'
|
3
points
While I'm not a christian myself... What does 'created in his image' mean, exactly? The 'image' in question may not refer to our physical form, so much as our mental capacity for reasoning. It would seem strange for a God that existed prior to a physical universe to have a form specifically shaped for bipedal walking across a surface that did not then exist, particularly when walking would not be a necessity for said God. 1
point
The real issue with accepting both evolution and christianity is that the entire foundation of the religion collapses once you do so. It goes like this: If you accept evolution then by default you must not believe MOST of the genesis story including the adam and eve parts. If you dont accept the adam and eve story then there is no fall of man. If there is no fall of man there is no original sin/inherited sin. If there is no original/inherited sin there is no basis for a LOT of the bible following that but more importantly there is no longer a need for a savior. No need for a savior means the entire christ sacrifice doctrine collapses and christianity no longer has any meaning. Not to mention that just by saying you believe god created life through evolution you are essentially pulling that entirely out of your ass. Im not saying the bible is proof or anything but if you cant even back up your beliefs with a holy book then what basis do you have for your beliefs anymore? Normal christians can at least point to the bible but these liberal evolution accepting christians have a blind belief based on absolutely nothing. While i certainly appreciate christians who are more liberal and rational and who accept plain facts when they see them i will continue to be baffled by the mental gymnastics these people need to overcome to hold on to the rest of their religion. 1
point
All or nothing? No. The bible as we know it is an anthology of works by numerous different authors, all supposedly divinely inspired. It may or may not be reasonable to apply 'all or nothing' to the individual books themselves, but not to the work as a whole (although there are certainly those who assert otherwise). There are sufficient inconsistencies between the different books that make up the bible that 'all or nothing' simply cannot be- but the individual books themselves tend to be internally consistent for the most part. Remember, the bible as we know it is the result of a 'filtering' process enacted by the early church (the canon) where countless volumes were reviewed and most were rejected. That early church certainly had an agenda, and was certainly working under assumptions that have since proven untenable. Among other things, I would definitely question including works attributed to Paul of Tarsus (who had the amazing, unprecedented experience of having his knowledge of god/jesus 'beamed' into his head somehow), while not including works attributed to some of Jesus' own disciples. SOME of those who choose to cherry pick the bible have the right general idea, in my estimation, even if I don't generally agree with most of their religion. |
