Evolution and Christianity/the other Abrahamic Religions

This is a question for believers specifically... I wondering if you believe evolution is a factual, observable process resulting as a natural function of living organisms' survival and propagation of offspring over time, despite your belief system. If so, what's your thought process reconciling the potential for those beliefs clashing?

If you don't believe evolution occurs, what's your reasoning there as well? How exactly does what it says in the Bible or your Holy text make the two beliefs so mutually exclusive, and why? Typically, when it comes to believers that reject the existence of evolution as a process, like with my mother, I really can't understand why she isn't capable of simply accepting both things. I know it typically has to do with how literal one's interpretation of the account of the Book of Genesis is, but the more literal that tends to be the more confused I get because most Christian theologians themselves believe Genesis to be one of the more highly metaphorical/symbolic books the Bible includes. If the people who devote their entire lives to their faith and the study of it don't even think it should be taken literally, why exactly should anybody take it literally?

I'm really just asking this out of curiosity. Being raised Christian, losing faith, and then here lately regaining a much more uh... psychoanalytical, spiritual, symbolic/interpretive, and generalized form of faith, it's interesting to see and try to understand how and why others who believe aren't capable of accepting the "supposed" reality of evolution. I know in a lot of cases people tend to conflate the process of evolution with the Theory of Evolution, despite the latter merely being the proposed mechanism explaining the factors and driving forces behind the former based on evidence... in other words, the proposed mechanism is "just a theory", but the process itself is decidedly not just a theory, but instead is an observable phenomenon. For whatever reason that misunderstanding is one of the biggest reasons, with the others being typically limited to an overly literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis, with the remainder being more or less an unacceptance based on what appears solely to be the rejection of evolution by their peers/community within their faith without any clear and definite reason for why the two beliefs can't coexist ever being stated or even consciously addressed or understood by those who can't believe both.

I believe God created every living organism originally. Then from there species have adapted and changed in many ways (behavior, physically). But the origin of life was not a random thing that just happened and no way that from some kind of primitive cells all these different species evolved even into humans. No, every creature was designed purposefully by God.

Obviously there are many reasons, I just thought of one now that seems fairly obvious, but at the same time is often ignored, so I figure I'll share.

It's partly a matter of not really caring... For lots of people, entertaining questions like that of the origin of the species, as well as philosophy is of little importance. More important is self preservation, work, family, social matters, being a good person, politics or sports... whatever really... Obviously for these people the only reasonable choice would be to go with religion, or another distributed framework of reality presented by something/someone perceived as an authority on the nature of reality. Scientism included. A huge amount of diehard "evolutionists" can not explain or define natural selection in any meaningfull degree. I struggle myself with how much my framework relies on science I don't understand. It actually makes me a bit physically uncomfortable when I think about it. It's a pragmatic leap of faith, trusting in the narrative, and for reasons I can't seem to conceptualize properly it feels deeply wrong. :paranoid: Am I missing something? Why does it feel bad!?

Anyway... back to the point...The alternative to the acceptance of a distributed framework as explained above is too time consuming, and brings long lasting paralyzing existential crisis at the cost of things perceived as more important.

Also, it is obvious to see that spiritual pride comes as easily to those who spend hardly any time thinking about the nature of our world, as it does to those who made a home in the rabbit-hole and entertain such questions as a hobby. Spiritual pride feeds itself through many means, confimration bias included. And once given the right incentive the one "posessed" will present a face of certainty as a defense mechanism.

What I am saying is that the answer to your questions: "what is the thought process behind...? what is your reasoning...? etc" might dissapoint you.

Believers don't need the things you are asking them for. As demonstrated by the answer you received above. Reason is not a priority, belief is enough. And honestly I don't have a problem with that. Other things in life are more important to them. Pride can be a problem though.. being a deadly sin and all.

Bit of a stream of consciousness, but it makes sense to me at least. .

And again no offense to flybynight. For all I know you might have plenty of reasoning for the beliefs you presented... and if you don't then that's fine too.. so long as you don't make things difficult for yourself by taking pride in too many understandings you don't understand..

Hi snoop it has been a long time , I think your questions are a voice from the deepest part of you soul I know that you are always denying that you are a very sensitive person makes you reject all religions , it's a way to say that you are above our simplistic beliefs or our complete happiness of belonging to our creator wich for me as important as every Breath I take ,without a religion without a god I would think l will Be lost ,why should I believe in a theory that somebody a human like me proposed or exelled in his philosophies that I don't accept for the mere reason that's his own idea his own explanation for not being as great as God he is just try in a way brainwash the believers I don't refuse or judge anybody I'm a free spirit but hands off whenever somebody tries to change the nature of thinks and in the they dies unhappy because they never find the answers they are looking so their legacy is a never ending doubt
So for myself I will pass not every book I read leaves an impact I don't reject evolution or reject any religion but I follow my heart and my instinct and most of all what makes more sense. :alien:

Snoop

That is a big, Big, BIG question. I will answer it as succinctly
As I can ...

I think the garden of Eden still exsists
In another dimention (maybe)

Look at Genesis chapter One verses 29 to 31

1:29* And God said, Behold,
I have given you every
⚘herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every
⚘tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed;
to you it shall be for meat.*

1:30* And to every
⚘beast of the earth, and to every
⚘fowl of the air, and to every thing that
⚘creepeth upon the earth, (Land animals and creepy-crawly insects etcetra)

wherein there is life,
I have given every
⚘green herb for meat: and it was so.*

1:31* And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.*

⚘Man was orded to eat only
⚘herbs, ⚘tree fruits and ⚘tree nuts.

Every other creature was ordered to eat ONLY grean grass and grean herbs. So lions and tigers and sharks grazed and browsed.

Nothing hurt or killed anything
And everything lived forever
Nothing dies.

God himself, personally killed
the first animals
to cloth Adam and Eve.

⚘⚘⚘

In chapter 2 verses ...

21*And the*Lord*God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

22*And the rib, which the*Lord*God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

23*And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

24*Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

25*And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were ⚘not⚘ ashamed.

The first interesting thing about this is that God never woke Adam up. Some believe thad Adam is still dreaming.

Second, Adam had no mum and dad.
He was prophecizing (see the future)

Third, They could see each others genitals
But at this point
Befor thay ate the forbidden fruitof enlightenment
They were not ashamed. Very, very important ...

Anyway ...

Heres the bit where God himself sacrifices the very first poor animal to clothe Adam and eve.

Genesis chapter 3 verse ...

21*Unto Adam also and to his wife
did the*Lord*God make coats of skins,
and clothed them.

Thats all for now but the story is sooooo deep
It speaks of much more than is dared taught from the pulpit.

Bye for now (bfn)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EbbTide000

Ebbtide

---

Are you saying that god created the species, Adam saw them and was therefore enabled to dream about them when God put him to sleep... Adam's sleep creating a new dimention, the one we are currently inhibiting? :)

Quote:

---

Post 6 ) - LighrkVader
Are you saying that god created the species,
Adam saw them and
was therefore enabled to dream about them
when God put him to sleep...
Adam's sleep creating a new dimention,
the one we are currently inhibiting?*

---

That is an interesting idea LighrkVader

Some believe that. A whole international church, I forget which.

But hey, its deeper than that, to me.

Continuing from Post 5

Before the creation of our material universe
God created a lot of non-material, eternal, beings.
I dont know how long before
But I think I know the reason why
God had to build
the material universe.

Here is a question being answered.
The question is

When were the Angels created?

⚘⚘⚘

https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/..._stewart_6.cfm

⚘⚘⚘

Why did God have to?

Ok LighrkVader

The entire Angelic host would gather together and
Send all the gratitude
And deep heart-felt love to God
in worship
regularly.

Lucifer
Is
The most beautiful
The most intellectual
With the highest EQ

His duty was to stand behind and slightly above
The Throne of God
He is "The Light Bearer"
He shone his beautiful light around the Throne of God

He closed his eyes during worship
Adding his own genuine adoration for God.

But one fatefull day
In the middle of worship
He opened his eyes

He opened his senses to all that Love
Meant for his creator
The effects of sensing all that love
Turned Lucifer into the FIRST addict

And the rest is history (His story)

Like a junky who would sell his our mother
For his next fix

He bagan lobbying
All the angels
To help him dethone God
So he, Lucifer, could ascend the throne
And get his fix of endless love

After he had lobbied all the angels
Two thirds asked God to kick out
The one third who had become
Selfish, Greedy, Angry, CRAZY
followers of the Love, and Power Addict "Lucifer"

God was ok with that ... kicking them out

BUT

There was no OUT to kick them into.

Bye bye for now (bbfn)

⚘⚘⚘

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer

⚘⚘⚘

That's an interesting question, Snoop, and it may be most interesting because not long ago it didn't occur to anyone to ask it.

I was born and raised Catholic during the '60's and '70's, and went to Catholic schools straight through college. In all those years the subject of "believing in evolution" never came up; not even once. Also, in my early adult life in the '80s I circulated among people of many faiths, and we had many a theological discussion -- some of them pretty heated -- and yet evolution still never came up. Evolution was, through all those years, simply an accepted fact. Sure, there were always creationists, and will always be creationists, but society in general had come to see evolution as a real thing, and there was little debate about it, much less people choosing to believe in it. Then the '90's, and the rise of the christian right, came, and creationism once again regained popularity ( I think it started in Kansas), and evolution eventually morphed into a theory that you had to believe in. In short, the U.S. (and other parts of the world, I imagine) is in the middle of another cycle of religious fundamentalism, and evolution simply does not fit in the fundamentalist formula. In another 20 years, after society has swung back to one that takes their Bibles a bit less literally, people will probably wonder what the fuss was all about.

I for one still have a lot of trouble with the debate, because I'm one of those people who have no problem with evolution being a process of creation. After all, if, say, an artist wants to paint a picture, he doesn't just look at the canvas and have the picture instantly appear. No, he must go through a long process of sketching, priming the canvas, mixing paints, waiting for layers to dry, scraping off mistakes, etc., before the picture is finally done; and that process could take a very long time. Imagine the processes involved in setting an entire universe in motion, then making it amenable to life, and then finding just the right formula for biological life, and then working that life into beings that can appreciate His existence.... that sounds like a very long process indeed, and evolution certainly could have been a tool for helping it along.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sageous

I for one still have a lot of trouble with the debate, because I'm one of those people who have no problem with evolution being a process of creation. After all, if, say, an artist wants to paint a picture, he doesn't just look at the canvas and have the picture instantly appear. No, he must go through a long process of sketching, priming the canvas, mixing paints, waiting for layers to dry, scraping off mistakes, etc., before the picture is finally done; and that process could take a very long time. Imagine the processes involved in setting an entire universe in motion, then making it amenable to life, and then finding just the right formula for biological life, and then working that life into beings that can appreciate His existence.... that sounds like a very long process indeed, and evolution certainly could have been a tool for helping it along.

---

I'm mostly silently observing this discussion but I'd like to add something here, since I'm an artist myself.

There is a massive differentiation between the work of (a) God and the work of an Artist. Divine work is considered to be that of creation because it has no origin, it comes from nowhere. Artistic work is exceedingly rarely considered to be creation because most of the time we, as artists, draw from our imagination or from what we see; which invariably, has already existed. There is an origin to nearly all artistic work, even if that origin is sometimes not understood by its own creator - I know I've painted things with origins I didn't understand, I still wouldn't call them "original" in this sense of creation. One might argue that artistic work, or indeed any Human labour, can never be a work of creation.

The idea of novel things, such as most technology developed over the last few centuries, is really just many different things that already existed, which have been combined. Artists are more like inventors in this sense, because we combine old ideas, thoughts or imaginations into something that appears new; but that almost always can be deconstructed into something else at a more basic level.

Like my father used to say, if you can think of it, then it probably already exists (or is in the process of coming to exist). And anyway, this is all just my view on that. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snoop

This is a question for believers specifically...

---

I'm a believer from an Abrahamic religion. The little-known fourth one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snoop

I wondering if you believe evolution is a factual, observable process resulting as a natural function of living organisms' survival and propagation of offspring over time, despite your belief system. If so, what's your thought process reconciling the potential for those beliefs clashing?

---

I believe it is a factual, observable process, yes, but it's not "despite" my belief system, it's confirmed in my religion's writings.

Darkest Darkness
Well said, the difference between creating and making.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkestDarkness

There is a massive differentiation between the work of (a) God and the work of an Artist.

---

Of course there is; indeed, I was providing an example that I hoped might illustrate this massive differentiation.

Also, though I do like to think that humans are capable of truly novel ideas (there had to be an original thought about something somewhere in its history; where else did an idea come from?), and by no means do I say an artist's process of painting a picture is equivalent to God creating a universe, I think that your saying that humans are incapable of genuine creation only amplifies my example: Surely it must be way, way harder to create something from nothing than it is to paint a picture of the thing in front of you: doesn't your response above imply that the process to enable creation is infinitely more involved, and therefore might require vast amounts of time and perhaps extremely complex tools like evolution to be successful?

I disagree and would say that all art and creation is ultimately the creation of God, and that the division into two types of creation seems arbitrary to me for several reasons. But ignoring that, I would still say that there are ways that an artist can have the experience of creating art that is creative in the Godly sense.

I do this in music (My artist name is Pretentious Asshole:nodyes:). The process is completely improvisational. It requires two things.

1: The technique, knowledge and understanding of your artform accumulated through a long process of practice to the point where you master improvisation.
2: The ability to let go and let the art create itself through you without intention and interference from the artist.

I can do this only when I have settled into the right state of mind. And rarely in front of other people, or if I have some plan for the music. Even knowing that I am recording a session, will reduce the chance of this kind of organic creation taking place dramatically as it has the power to drag me away from the present moment. Once I am in the future or past I will try to create something specific and the end product will be lesser because of it. The music created is like that in a dream, for me, right now, and never again, and that liberates it. The experience is one of witnessing music being created by my body. But the the music does not belong to me. As soon as I take posession of it, it falters.

I would think that this could be done in painting as well. But it would be more difficult as a painting session is always recorded. Also paintings have a tendency to take on conceptual meaning and form loosing the open endedness of the divine and invoking the ego to regain control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sageous

Of course there is; indeed, I was providing an example that I hoped might illustrate this massive differentiation.

---

Sorry, just to be clear, I didn't mean to imply you had made some point saying otherwise. :)

I do like the points you and and LighrkVader have made.