If Evolution is True, why do Humans need a Savior but the Great Apes do Not?

[lilpixieofterror]

Sure. Anthropomorphic expressions. I can buy that.

Maybe the same is true when the authors of the Gospels spoke about the "Resurrection" of Jesus. They didn't intend to mean that God reanimated a dead body. They knew that the early Resurrection belief was originally based solely on visions and vivid dreams, not on sightings of a real walking/talking/broiled-fish-eating body. It is anthropomorphic language, signifying that God figuratively "raised" Jesus, in spiritual sense, to spiritually uplift mankind.

Sounds reasonable.

Yes, that must be why the followers of Jesus described Jesus as being physically resurrected and the following generations agreed with that idea too. I see your fundy brain is simply incapable of absorbing the idea that one can accept scientific consensus and still remain a Christian. Do keep arguing against strawman though because I'm sure it's easier than trying to actually understand what your opponents believe.

[Gary]

Educating myself is tough. I'd rather remain an ignorant fundie.

It's also not a book; it's a blog post available online.

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011...in-part-i.html

Here is how another moderate/liberal Christian attempts to make Christianity and evolution compatible:

"The coming to be of “higher” or more complex forms of life, and eventually of humanity, is not brought about by the specific and conscious planning of what is sometimes called “intelligent design.” But neither is it random and therefore inherently without meaning. It is rather the result of an inbuilt movement within the whole of being, the underlying dynamism of existence striving to be manifest [emphasis in original] ever more fully in minds that it brings forth and inhabits, through the emergence of increasingly complex and reflective selves." ---Arthur Green

- See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rationa....72kd4VEn.dpuf

Wow! Heavy man!

Problem is, it's baloney. Christian theism and evolution are NOT compatible.

The secular humanist author of the article above responded to Green as follows:

"That’s some pretty heady stuff. And the rest of the piece isn’t much easier to comprehend. But when I wrote to the magazine to point out that evolution leaves no room for any teleology, he called me angry for pointing out that humans are no more complex than sharks. And this is coming from someone who is not exactly a classic theist. What Green and many less wordy theologians believe is that God, however he’s conceptualized, employs evolution to create the kind of complexity that must inevitably result in beings like us.

...The theory of evolution’s real challenge to religious faith is that it has completely removed humanity from the center of the universe.

...A desire to be important and central to the universe is what stands at the center of both Green’s oddly imaginative ideas and the more pedestrian notions of people like Zimmerman and his supporters. When we realize that we’re an accident and that our entire existence is completely contingent upon circumstances that could just as easily have come out another way, then we are no longer beloved. Not to God and not to an indifferent universe.

...And they (Christians) have not recovered from that (Darwin's discovery of evolution and the natural selection of species). Instead they deliberately misunderstood his theory, pretending that what he uncovered was the fact that creatures evolved. Well we already knew that. What Darwin actually figured out was that we evolved completely and entirely due to natural and random mutations selected by nature for their survival value. This utterly impersonal process makes no room for any divine teleology, no matter how mystically it is framed. The notion that intelligent life was inevitable is just dead wrong.

[lilpixieofterror]

Oh, my, goodness. You are back. How I have missed your thoughtful insights, Little One!

I came here to watch you bumble up TE views as you bumble up Christians views in general. Please, show where I am wrong. Thanks!

[lilpixieofterror]

Here is how another moderate/liberal Christian attempted to make Christianity and evolution compatible:

"The coming to be of “higher” or more complex forms of life, and eventually of humanity, is not brought about by the specific and conscious planning of what is sometimes called “intelligent design.” But neither is it random and therefore inherently without meaning. It is rather the result of an inbuilt movement within the whole of being, the underlying dynamism of existence striving to be manifest [emphasis in original] ever more fully in minds that it brings forth and inhabits, through the emergence of increasingly complex and reflective selves."

- See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rationa....72kd4VEn.dpuf

Patheos atheist section is full of stupidity as this and this post is no exception. It's pretty much a fundy atheist that doesn't like the idea of Christians agreeing with evolution because they can't use it against Christianity anymore, so they make up things to attack because they don't understand it. Do tell how modern science has refuted this idea. I'll be waiting.

Wow! Heavy man!

Problem is, it's baloney. Christian theism and evolution are NOT compatible.

The secular humanist author of the article above responded to Green as follows:

"That’s some pretty heady stuff. And the rest of the piece isn’t much easier to comprehend. But when I wrote to the magazine to point out that evolution leaves no room for any teleology, he called me angry for pointing out that humans are no more complex than sharks. And this is coming from someone who is not exactly a classic theist. What Green and many less wordy theologians believe is that God, however he’s conceptualized, employs evolution to create the kind of complexity that must inevitably result in beings like us.

That's some grade A stupidity there because it all depends on what your defining as 'complex' as not 'complex'. Sharks are better swimmers and stronger than humans, but are not nearly as intelligent either. Sharks have some pretty small brains that are mostly dedicated to smell and sight and can't really think in the way humans do. So what is he defining as 'complex' and 'not complex' and why? TE isn't based on humans being 'the most complex' creations my fundy atheist friend, but is based on humans being the only animals that understand our own sinful nature. Something you can't seem to grasp or just don't care. Why is it because your entire belief system is based on a refutation of YEC principles and views so non YEC principles and views can't be allowed to stand?

...The theory of evolution’s real challenge to religious faith is that it has completely removed humanity from the center of the universe.

Do support this statement with some actual evidence please. Thanks!

...A desire to be important and central to the universe is what stands at the center of both Green’s oddly imaginative ideas and the more pedestrian notions of people like Zimmerman and his supporters. When we realize that we’re an accident and that our entire existence is completely contingent upon circumstances that could just as easily have come out another way, then we are no longer beloved. Not to God and not to an indifferent universe.

Evidence for this assertion is...

...And they (Christians) have not recovered from that (Darwin's discovery of evolution and the natural selection of species). Instead they deliberately misunderstood his theory, pretending that what he uncovered was the fact that creatures evolved. Well we already knew that. What Darwin actually figured out was that we evolved completely and entirely due to natural and random mutations selected by nature for their survival value. This utterly impersonal process makes no room for any divine teleology, no matter how mystically it is framed. The notion that intelligent life was inevitable is just dead wrong.

Your evidence for this assertion is...

Please stop posting soundbites already. Most of us are capable of reading, but this assertion is just plain silly because I'm pretty sure a God that spoke the entire universe into existence is perfectly capable of guiding evolution in a specific direction or even building in the beginnings of the universe an animal with enough intelligence to understand their own nature. If anything, it is you and your fundy atheist buddies that try to fit God into a little box, but God is far bigger than any box you want to try to trap him into.

[Gary]

Yes, that must be why the followers of Jesus described Jesus as being physically resurrected and the following generations agreed with that idea too. I see your fundy brain is simply incapable of absorbing the idea that one can accept scientific consensus and still remain a Christian. Do keep arguing against strawman though because I'm sure it's easier than trying to actually understand what your opponents believe.

The hysterical, uneducated Galilean peasants who had dreams and visions of a dead Jesus appearing to them THOUGHT that they had seen a real resurrected body...in their dreams and visions...and that is what gave rise to the early Christian Creed found in First Corinthians 15. That doesn't mean that the educated Greek-speaking Gentiles who wrote the Gospels many decades later believed these visions and dreams to be literal. It is quite possible that they did not. It is quite possible that the educated authors of the four gospels invented their stories of Empty Tombs, angels, dead saints roaming the streets, and Jesus appearing in Upper Rooms and on sandy sea shores, as anthropomorphic language, meant to express deeper theological themes, not for writing literal history.

[lilpixieofterror]

The hysterical, uneducated Galilean peasants who had dreams and visions of a dead Jesus appearing to them THOUGHT that they had seen a real resurrected body...in their dreams and visions...and that is what gave rise to the early Christian Creed found in First Corinthians 15. That doesn't mean that the educated Greek-speaking Gentiles who wrote the Gospels many decades later believed these visions and dreams to be literal. It is quite possible that they did not. It is quite possible that the educated authors of the four gospels invented their stories of Empty Tombs, angels, dead saints roaming the streets, and Jesus appearing in Upper Rooms and on sandy sea shores, as anthropomorphic language, meant to express deeper theological themes, not for writing literal history.

So more idiotic assertions of yours that they were all stupid. No evidence, just bald assertions just as we should expect from Gary and his usual rants. Keep make up those bald assertions, without a care to any facts at all.

[DesertBerean]

-Six day creation
-young earth
-world wide flood
-the earth is the center of the universe; the sun revolves around the earth.
-large exodus of hundreds of thousands if not millions of Hebrews from ancient Egypt, who wander in a nearby desert for 40 years until all but two of them are dead.

How in the world are these considered supernatural?

[Gary]

How in the world are these considered supernatural?

---only a supernatural being can create a universe in six days, etc., on down the line.

[Sparko]

Gary this thread was over in post number 2. rogue06 said that my answer was correct. the rest of this is you being a jerk and trying to trap TE's somehow. if you have genuine questions just ask them without the arrogance and snark and maybe rogue06 will answer you and expound.

[KingsGambit]

If the implication here is that evolution implies that there is no difference between animals and humans, I'd have to question that. Most atheists have no problem eating meat, for instance.

[rogue06]

Sure. Anthropomorphic expressions. I can buy that.

Maybe the same is true when the authors of the Gospels spoke about the "Resurrection" of Jesus. They didn't intend to mean that God reanimated a dead body. They knew that the early Resurrection belief was originally based solely on visions and vivid dreams, not on sightings of a real walking/talking/broiled-fish-eating body. It is anthropomorphic language, signifying that God figuratively "raised" Jesus, in spiritual sense, to spiritually uplift mankind.

Sounds reasonable.

Except that the Bible makes it clear that numerous people encountered Jesus after He rose and even tested to see that He wasn't a vision or something (the "Doubting Thomas" account).

[DesertBerean]

---only a supernatural being can create a universe in six days, etc., on down the line.

Well, ok. The next question: how is science able to 'prove' something that cannot be proved?

You see, Gary, what you're describing are what happened, not why. If the data showed that the world was indeed created in six days...how is that proof of the supernatural when it was in fact natural?

The question remains, I think..."What does evolution have to do with the need for salvation?"

[psstein]

Yea, right...

Why don't you just admit it: you are trying to dress up an ancient superstition with a lot of "intellectual-ese".

Admit the obvious: The supernatural claims in the Bible are just as probable to be true as the supernatural claims about Zeus and the gods of Mt. Olympus. No amount of intellectual psycho-babble makes ancient Greek, Roman, or Christian supernatural tales more believable.

Folks: If you really want to believe something, no matter how preposterous and out-of-this-world, you can always make up intellectual sounding theories to support it. We see this phenomenon all the time in the world of conspiracy theories. I suggest we start with the evidence and accept the conclusions that the evidence points to instead of starting with an ancient superstition and trying desperately to invent intellectual-sounding theories to support its believability.

Gary, this is why people don't want to bother with you. You have a very wooden sense of doctrine and the Bible, and every interpretation that doesn't conform to your fundamentalist understanding is "intellectual-ese" or some type of contortion.

Folks: why don't we all admit it? Gary is clueless.

[psstein]

The hysterical, uneducated Galilean peasants who had dreams and visions of a dead Jesus appearing to them THOUGHT that they had seen a real resurrected body...in their dreams and visions...and that is what gave rise to the early Christian Creed found in First Corinthians 15. That doesn't mean that the educated Greek-speaking Gentiles who wrote the Gospels many decades later believed these visions and dreams to be literal. It is quite possible that they did not. It is quite possible that the educated authors of the four gospels invented their stories of Empty Tombs, angels, dead saints roaming the streets, and Jesus appearing in Upper Rooms and on sandy sea shores, as anthropomorphic language, meant to express deeper theological themes, not for writing literal history.

Dreams are not a likely explanation for the Resurrection belief of the disciples. I can name scholars who have suggested visions as the cause of the belief. I cannot find a single one who supports the "dream" theory.

[DesertBerean]

The hysterical, uneducated Galilean peasants who had dreams and visions of a dead Jesus appearing to them THOUGHT that they had seen a real resurrected body...in their dreams and visions...and that is what gave rise to the early Christian Creed found in First Corinthians 15. That doesn't mean that the educated Greek-speaking Gentiles who wrote the Gospels many decades later believed these visions and dreams to be literal. It is quite possible that they did not. It is quite possible that the educated authors of the four gospels invented their stories of Empty Tombs, angels, dead saints roaming the streets, and Jesus appearing in Upper Rooms and on sandy sea shores, as anthropomorphic language, meant to express deeper theological themes, not for writing literal history.

Bwhahahaha. ....

DREAMS? .....oh help me...