Was just reading this link and thought it was an excellent idea!

bob

---

Good article.

---

i like the idea of scientists being given the chance to talk to congregations but im curious how these clerics actually think about the genesis. it is stated in the article that science (especially evolution) and religion is "indeed compatible" but it is definitely not.

in every christian church (from rome to those obscure protestant splinter churches in the US) the biblical truth is regarded as a foundation (or rather fundament cause they arent called foundationists eh?) of their faith. so if any cleric is about to accept the theory of evolution as truth (or to be more precise as the current valid scientific theory that is highly probable true) then he or she obviously omits the biblical truth of the genesis and (to a certain degree) breaks a fundament of his/her faith.

the article states that there are many among the clerics who are ready to accept the theory of evolution and therefore render the story of genesis to pure metaphors. this clearly shows how obsolete the genesis is when even clerics are ready to abandon it in the name of common sense.

i just want to point out that science and religion is indeed incompatible. when this article speaks of "science and religion equally next to each other" it really means "skip the parts of religion that dont match with science".

like this:
i am a christian.
christianity tells me to live according to the bible.
the bible tells me to stone homosexuals and witches.
i refuse to stone homosexuals and witches.
am i christian?

you see. in this case its not even science but common sense that stops me from acting like a christian.

---

As has been stated a number of times in other threads in this forum, Genesis was not written as modern scientific or historical prose. It was written in the style of Hebrew poetry, so any attempt to analyse it as anything other than poetry is (a) very poor academically, and ( bound to lead you up the garden path. There is no incompatibility between being Christian, believing the bible, and being a scientist, including one that agrees with evolution.

Please would we also stop the silly argument about stoning homosexuals and witches? The Christian world is the world of the new covenant, the new treaty between God and man, instituted in Jesus, and described in the New Testament. Nowhere does the New Testament call for the stoning of homosexuals or witches. If that's all that is keeping you from being a Christian, you are not far from it. If you want to know what being Christian is all about, read the Bible's accounts of Jesus' life and teaching, and the early record of the Christian church in the book of the Acts of the Apostles (it is actually a companion book to Luke's gospel). Christmas is a good time to do it!

---

I get into this kind of argument a lot (so what else is new? ) I suppose the stoning of the heretics and witches (the non-religious sound bite) is just for special effects...but I usually have this longstanding discussion with some extremely religious people that science is anti-religion, evil, the devil's instrument, promotes materialism and moral corruption and decay, hedonistic, everything just for the moment etc..

Sometimes though I hear real concern from christian parents whenever they think that some of the teachers teaching evolution in science class are really vocally denying the existence of God. And their children who have been brought up along religious tradition start asking questions etc. I know, I know..they should then go to private religious schools but who can afford them? This is really touchy all around. But there should be a way. Can evolution be taught in classrooms without touching on God/religion/belief?

---

dear swanny
erm well according to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PP.HTM

"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."

and further:

The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.




it says old and new testament. ok thats the roman catholic church. those guys are bound to be oldfashioned
but still dont you think that most protestant churches would agree with these words regarding "the whole bible" to be written "under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit" and therefore 100% perfectly true? i only quoted the catholics here because they have a were elaborate catechism (= what they believe) that most protestant churches are lacking.

im a protestant myself and i know about the new covenant. and yeah the stoning is my exaggeration of choice when arguing with christian fundis but it is of course an extreme exaggeration that should be taken with a grain of salt.

but still its a good example cause when you are supposed to believe "that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach(es the) truth which God, for the sake of our salvation" you are obviously in what the americans call a catch-22 situation eh? like witches, genesis or the fact that according to the bible rabbits are ruminants. by the way: has there ever been a lawsuit in the US about children should be thought in school that rabbits are ruminants? i wonder

you are right at the end of the day. i totally agree with you that for being a christian one should only focus on 1 what Jesus did and 2 what Jesus said and 3 live according with that. you wrote: There is no incompatibility between being Christian, believing the bible, and being a scientist, including one that agrees with evolution. well it should be like that but no apperantly thats not possible because people expect you to believe the whole thing like genesis with it. its like if you just want a sprite(jesus) but you can only buy the whole mcdogma meal togehther with a McGenesis and lies.

and if being a christian would really be about jesus only contemporary christians would not care about the old testament at all and there wouldnt be so much fuzz about evolution in the first place.

so to make a long story short: being a christian (catholic, protestant, orthodox, whatever) requires you to believe a lot of things beyond jesus. if you decide to skip all of that (as you write) hebrew poetry you are in fact an atheist.

---

Hey coastal,

Yeah you can sort of say we are old-fashioned , you should browse the catholic encyclopedia...a really fun read..dogma, scholarly works, the jesuits. Although our beliefs are strongly grounded on the bible, let's just say that the church doctrines as well as traditions are also the foundation of our faith. But that's not to say that there are no dissidents within our ranks. In fact we have a choice..it's not as if we would be be "stoned" or anathematised if we have doubts or start asking questions. I like swanny's description of religious faith..it's not only belief in face or inspite of doubt..it's when we reach out and take hold of it...but I usually add my own twist ...not exactly to accept it wholeheartedly but at least to have that chance...


enough rambling,

casandra

---

this topic is being moved from evolution and darwinism to the philosophy page. discussion about the aspecs of religious dogma, whilst interesting, does not pertain to the topic of evolution. does anyone have objections to the move?

V

---

see wiki for a description of atheist, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
to quote the great Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

V

---

Well, erm, maybe, but you are also supposed to use your brain, and a part of that is putting things in their context. As Don Carson often says "A text without a context is a pretext for a proof-text". I would suggest you don't get too hung up over the taxonomy of the ancient Hebrews, and don't let anybody else get hung up about it either!!!
Just because somebody says I *have to* believe X, Y and Z, does not mean that I actually do have to believe those things, particularly if the people forcing my beliefs are not Christians themselves. Having said that, we can't just cherry-pick what parts we accept. If someone wants to force you into a certain position, ask them if you'll be going to hell because you hold a different view. If it ain't about Jesus, it ain't a matter of salvation!

... but we believe that the OT informs our understanding of the NT. Like we agreed earlier, we are under the rules of the new covenant, not the old. We are not under law (do this, don't do that...) but grace.

I don't suggest we skip the Hebrew poetry. We just need to treat it with due respect and not try to force it into a different framework. No matter what slant we want to place on a text, remember it must have made sense to the original readers and hearers.
Sorry, but I can't agree with your summary. In any case, "atheist" is a relative term. Early Christians, on the way to their executions, were frequently heckled by the local citizenry as being atheists, because they didn't believe in the pantheon of Roman gods. It kind of makes sense, doesn't it?

---

Good article, indeed.

Well, I agree with most of the follow-up responses.

You are absolutely entitled to keep your faith and doing something may not fit well with your faith at the same time, thats your own business. However to argue about scientific fundation of the evolution theory, or trying to mislead the public, like those Dover folks did, based on certain faith alone is kind of funny to me.

---

is there genetical proof of the existance of adam and eve? i.e did humanity branch out from a single couple of human beings?

---

there is the "7 daughters of eve" theory, which is very interesting and you can even find out which "daughter" you are descended from here.

---

Go to the forum page   Printer Friendly Version

© 1999-2006 Protocol Online, All rights reserved.