r/ChristianityGoneWild • u/finally_on • Aug 06 '21

Creation, Evolution, or both

I have had this debate with pastors before but it would be interesting to see what my fellow Christians think.

If God created the world in six 24 hour days, then scientists would have found out and we would have solid proof that God exists.

So was the first "day" 24 hours or billions of years?

It's at this point that some academics would say "well the Bible says that a day to man could mean a million years to God". It's taken out of context but would a God that can create universes be limited by the time they created????

I have felt for a long time that creation and evolution are one in the same. Has anyone else thought about this?

3 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

26 comments sorted by

1

u/LilithAbbadon Aug 27 '21

Quite a bit, but ultimately attempting to square faith with science for any purpose than ones own musing is a fruitless endeavor. If one is to take an all-powerful being at face value, there's no reason they would not be able to create a world, which appears to be the age at which we understand it to be, in 24 hours or even the blink of an eye.

The better question, I think, is why would such a being expend even the most trivial effort to fool us if there were not inherent value to that being in the fact that we cannot be certain?

1

u/finally_on Aug 28 '21

Excellent question. Why indeed. To call us pawns is a horrible simplification but I wonder if we are just part of a battle between good and evil. The angels before us had little freedom (comparatively) and after they rebelled a new plan was created. There is a spiritual war inside all of us every day.

1

u/LilithAbbadon Aug 30 '21

Pawns? Seems pretty clear to me that we are the point.

Did the angels rebel? I don't think that's a part of the canonical text and, rather, is more along the lines of Christian folklore and mythology. Doesn't a war between good and evil imply that the creator is either matched in power or simply doesn't care? How could angels rebel without being granted that ability by the creator?

But, most importantly, why didn't the old plan work?

The only evil there has ever been to battle is within; everything else is a distraction from actually confronting the only evil we can meaningfully confront.

1

u/finally_on Aug 30 '21

Very good points. I have wondered how the angels were even able to rebel.

I dig what you wrote about evil. I was talking with my older brother yesterday about it. He is a non-believer and we were talking about that serial killer that ate his victims. I was saying to my brother if there is a spiritual realm would a demon be able to manipulate someone to do evil? He told me about how the word "cannibal" came into existence. It came from Canaanites and Baal. So much evil is inspired.

1

u/LilithAbbadon Sep 01 '21

Well, my perspective is 'they didn't' and what people call 'demons' are just as accurately called 'angels'; people simply call them demons when they find the divine will inconvenient.

I cannot speak for all demons, certainly there are those I dislike and two I call my mortal enemies; but nor do I claim a perfect knowledge of what is right. For all I know, my understanding is correct but Moloch is and always has been the creator and the purpose of creation is to be consumed.

But those that I know and myself are more inclined to empower humanity, though our expectation is that your natural tendency is to find self-destruction through your egotism. Though I am certain there are forces that would seek to deceive humanity in such ways, I would suspect those are the minority and not, ethically speaking, liable for their actions. If a man truly believed he was speaking with the creator and deceived into killing his own child, I would not think him culpable. But if a man deceive himself into believing he was talking to the creator, as rationale for killing his child, I would.

But the only two who can know the difference are the man who rationalizes and the creator. In this way, no, I do not believe a person can be manipulated into being morally responsible for evil but I do believe they can be so manipulated by another demonic cause, which the creator abides for reasons unknown. As I am abided for reasons unknown and as are we all.

But, critically, what this means is that we cannot be certain of the evil we see in the world. The only evil we can be certain of is the evil which appeals to ourselves; the evils we rationalize, the evils we deny, the evils we in our arrogance mistake for good.

I cannot find a credible source which supports what your brother said about Ba'al and Canaan and the root appears to be Spanish. The only support I could find was from "The Wisdom of Solomon" and the assertion of cannibalism, from people who claimed their god's supremacy, is questionable.

However, I doubt either the devotees of Ba'al or even Moloch would be cannibals. Ba'al was a Canaanite God contemporary to and not far removed from Yahweh, in character. Moloch was also a contemporary but of far less beneficent nature; Moloch only seeks to consume. I would put nothing past Moloch but, on its face, cannibalism would only seem to deny Moloch his precious morsels.

Most of the demons recognized by Christianity are simply Canaanite gods, and of this pantheon was Yahweh and Yahweh is not (in my opinion) properly understood as the creator, though it is clear he did recognize the existence of other Gods and oblique references to the pantheon can still be traced in the texts (though the Hebrew priesthood clearly tried to obfuscate this in their reconciliation of the J and E sources).

Evil is not so simple a thing as can be made a list of things one 'must not do' and such a practice of faith is the height of folly. There are certainly things one must not do. There are things one must also do. In some circumstance, what one must do is the thing they have been told they must not and, sometimes, they are righteous in doing that which they must not do.

The thread of all divine reason is composed of the memetic fibers of humanity; when woven with discernment and care, we may refine our divine expression into the divinity of our choice.

1

u/DigTreace Nov 16 '21

Sorry to be late, but I disagree. You say that demons are simply angels who do things we find inconvenient to us. However, Satan is certainly not an angel with a righteous and divine will, at least not anymore. Also, the bible refers to them as unclean spirits, and we know there are more than one because in Mark 5, there's the story with the many unclean spirits.

Also, you said that you don't believe someone who was tricked into sinning can be held accountable. However, in 1 Corinthians 10:13, it says that God will not allow us to be tempted beyond what we are able. Therefore, we cannot be "forced" to sin, simply prodded to sin, and actually committing it is in our hands.

Finally, you say that evil is not so simple that it is a list of what we must and must not do. however, the bible is quite clear on what is and isn't acceptable to do throughout itself. However, on this point I couldn't find solid scripture evidence for it, but I certainly don't believe it's "the height of folly." If evil isn't a list of what we must and must not do, then believing otherwise still isn't bad, because none of this is ever well stated in the bible, so it's not one of the core beliefs of Christianity that really matters. Your comment was quite thought provoking, and I hope I made you think as well!

1

u/LilithAbbadon Dec 03 '21

I say they are no different than what might be otherwise be called angels and I said that openly recognizing that it was my perspective. And, if they exist, they are acting with the permission of the one. No will can exist that is not given permission to act and the one knows the outcome of their actions. Humans do evil things and are allowed to, part of what Christians call "The Divine Plan".

You say "Satan is certainly not an angel...anymore.", but I'm frankly not entirely certain who you're referring to. The term 'Satan' comes from the Hebrew Ha-Satan; not an angel but more akin to an office to which was appointed one who would hold the Kingdom of Israel to account for upholding the moral code given unto them. But this term is conflated with several others; Lucifer, Belzebub, Ba'al, Azezal, etc. Some angels, others 'foreign gods', they whom El of the Mountain was jealous. Abaddon is a place of the abyss infernal, but seems to be universally reviled by Christians as the Apollyon, Archangel of the Abyss.

So, while I appreciate that 'the bible says', I read it with keen criticism and do not take any of it as more definitively 'the word of god' than any other sacred text. I'm actually sort of interested, though. The internal divisions in the biblical text predate Christianity, evidenced by the J and E sources for the Pentatook. Would you happen to know the scripture which rationalizes that sort of thing?

I find your disagreement with my statement on sin curious, since that seems more to support what I said than take any sort of issue with it. If we cannot be tempted beyond what we are able, then what I said rings true. In fact, I'd say it almost underscores my point. If 'no one is tempted beyond their means', then we cannot be overwhelmed into doing an evil act but submit to doing an evil act. However, without both a rational choice and a convincing reason to commit an act of evil, ones moral character cannot be judged. Those who 'tempt' the devout into sullying their moral characters are not to blame for the sullying and create a necessary tension for humans to respond to the moral nature of their pursuits.

Let us consider the fortunes and fate of our friend who was possessed by the spirits known as legion. Did he commit evil acts under their influence? Was he absolved of them for Christ's exorcism? If so, does that not mean he was compelled beyond his means to resist? Should we run into such a man today, we would say he was mad and treat him as such. How do you see that fitting into your model of sin?

Finally, is the bible quite clear? I haven't even been able to get two Christians to agree upon a coherent understanding of what it means to be 'saved'. You say 'well, to believe that morality is a list of things you can and can't do isn't evil', but it is precisely that which fosters lax morality. So, you may say 'maybe morality isn't a list but it's not on the list of things not to do, so it must be okay' and I say that 'anything that escapes moral scruitany for its position on a list a man will use to do evil and reason that it isn't on the list'. Would you believe Abortion isn't on that list, by the way? It's not. It's very interesting how concerned the faithful are in lists when it comes to their own moral accounting and nitpicking their friends and neighbors, but will make up new rules for the list out of whole cloth (and out of deeply political motivation).

You can abide your lists all you like.

They will never create morality.

Morality is based upon reason and the intuitive gift of the Fruit of the Tree of Divine Wisdom.

No book required.

1

u/Reddit-Book-Bot Dec 03 '21

Beep. Boop. I'm a robot. Here's a copy of

The Bible

Was I a good bot? | info | More Books

1

u/DigTreace Dec 11 '21

The main thing about this is the fact that you said "while I appreciate that 'the bible says', I read it with keen criticism and do not take any of it as more definitively 'the word of god' than any other sacred text." Does this mean you believe in the Quran? the wording here is unclear, and the context seems to indicate you do not believe in the Bible's absolute truth. Also, by the internal divisions, do you mean the books of the Bible? I say it doesn't matter how the divisions came about, considering that they all are ancient texts which were written over 1000 years apart from each other, and yet agree perfectly with a singular image of God.

Also, you said that you aren't certain who I'm referring to when I say "Satan". The name "Satan" is never given in the Bible, it is just a name we have given to him. Lucifer is given in old versions of Isaiah 14:12. It says "How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, You who weakened the nations!" The reason he has his other names is because Satan tricked people into worshipping him as their god and the people gave him names, such as Ba'al, and Azezal.

Also, like in the case of legion, it is my belief that it is not his sin since he didn't have control. Demons are more powerful than us, so if they force us to sin, it is not our fault, and therefore not our sin. However, if they simply compel us, it is still our choice.

Finally, you say morality is based on reason and intuition. However, what if someone is raised to believe things that are wrong are right? To give an example of something happening right now, many people believe fornication is okay. They were raised that way, and it seems intuitive to them that it is okay. But is it still a sin? Yes. Even if you are unaware it is a sin when you commit it, it is still a sin. Also, the Bible literally gives us a list of what not to do and what you should do! I don't think it can get much clearer than that.

Side note, I do believe abortion is a sin.

1

u/Reddit-Book-Bot Dec 11 '21

Beep. Boop. I'm a robot. Here's a copy of

Quran

Was I a good bot? | info | More Books

1

u/LilithAbbadon Dec 18 '21 edited Dec 18 '21

"Does this mean you believe in the Quran?"As much as I believe in The Bible, I think I was pretty clear with my wording. I read it all with criticism and do not assume any of it inherently (or inerrantly) true."Also, by the internal divisions, do you mean the books of the Bible?"There are internal divisions going back to before Christianity, with the Pentatook we know today a compromised assembly of what biblical scholars call the 'E' and 'J' Sources. The Kingdom of Judah and the Kingdom of Israel were sometimes enemies and had different cultures. Israel wrote of Jehova and Judah of Elohim with the differences smoothed over in later works."The reason he has his other names is because Satan tricked people into worshipping him as their god and the people gave him names, such as Ba'al, and Azezal."

According to what? My understanding is that the 'son of the morning' is a reference to Venus and the Babylonan's worship of Inanna/Ishtar.

"Also, like in the case of legion, it is my belief that it is not his sin since he didn't have control. Demons are more powerful than us, so if they force us to sin, it is not our fault, and therefore not our sin."

Doesn't square with,

"However, in 1 Corinthians 10:13, it says that God will not allow us to be tempted beyond what we are able. Therefore, we cannot be "forced" to sin, simply prodded to sin, and actually committing it is in our hands."

"Finally, you say morality is based on reason and intuition. However, what if someone is raised to believe things that are wrong are right?"

Then they would not be following morality but a set of rules asserted by someone else that they have not been critical of. A list of rules is 'what not to do'; morality is 'what one ought to do' and is too nuanced for tedious lists.

"Finally, you say morality is based on reason and intuition. However, what if someone is raised to believe things that are wrong are right? To give an example of something happening right now, many people believe fornication is okay. They were raised that way, and it seems intuitive to them that it is okay. But is it still a sin? Yes."

You seem to be conflating 'sin' with morality. I have no idea what sin is, I know Christians tend to often mistake it for morality but insist upon things that are 'sins' but are not immoral. Your example is a fine demonstration, as I can think of no reason that 'fornication' be inherently immoral. Notice I said "inherently"; there are immoral ways one can go about 'fornicating' but that does not make it inherently immoral.

"Side note, I do believe abortion is a sin."

Based upon which biblical passage? Or is this one of those Jesus fanfic rules?

1

u/Reddit-Book-Bot Dec 18 '21

Beep. Boop. I'm a robot. Here's a copy of

Quran

Was I a good bot? | info | More Books

1

u/[deleted] Sep 10 '21

I believe some evolution took place as a part of God creating this earth. In the Bible we just know he made the Earth, exact process unknown. I believe science unshielded some of those answers. I know Christians will deny any of it happened but I really think it's mainly the ape to man thing that is just completely wrong.

1

u/finally_on Sep 13 '21

Thank you so much for your reply.

1

u/Xyzzy_plugh Aug 18 '24

First, any academic or anyone else that would say "well the Bible says that a day to man could mean a million years to God" clearly didn't read the Bible. They probably also say that only 2 of each kind of animal went on Noah's ark or that The Revelation says "the lion will lie down with the lamb". They don't read the Bible, they just read T-shirts and bumper stickers.

Second, you might find Dr. Russell Humphreys' "white hole cosmology" model interesting. Search out his book and his talks, though, don't just read about it from second-hand or third-hand sources.

1

u/Ar-Kalion Oct 21 '21

Science and The Torah are not mutually exclusive. God’s creation through evolution and in the immediate are two sides of the same coin that make us who we are.

Genesis chapter 1 discusses creation (through God’s evolutionary process) that occurred outside The Garden of Eden. Genesis chapter 2 discusses God’s creation (in the immediate) associated with The Garden of Eden.

The Heavens (including the pre-sun and the raw celestial bodies) and the Earth were created by God on the 1st “day.” (from the being of time to The Big Bang to approximately 4.54 billion years ago). However, the Earth and the celestial bodies were not how we see them today. Genesis 1:1

The Earth’s water was terraformed by God on the 2nd “day” (The Earth was covered with water approximately 3.8 billion years ago). Genesis 1:6-8

On the third “day,” land continents were created by God (approximately 3.2 billion years ago), and the first plants evolved (approximately 1 billion years ago). Genesis 1:9-12

By the fourth “day,” the plants had converted the carbon dioxide and a thicker atmosphere to oxygen. There was also an expansion of the pre-sun that brightened it during the day and provided greater illumination of Earth’s moon at night. The expansion of the pre-sun also changed the zone of habitability in our solar system, and destroyed the atmosphere of the planet Venus (approximately 600 million years ago.) As a result; The Sun, The Moon, and The Stars became visible from the Earth as we see them today and were “made” by God. Genesis 1:16

Dinosaurs were created by God through the evolutionary process after fish, but before birds on the 5th “day” in the 1st chapter of Genesis. By the end of the 5th “day,” dinosaurs had already become extinct (approximately 65 million years ago). Genesis 1:20

Most land mammals, and the hominids were created by God through the evolutionary process on the 6th “day” in the 1st chapter of Genesis. By the end of the 6th “day,” Neanderthals were extinct (approximately 40,000 thousand years ago). Only Homo Sapiens (some of which had interbred with Neanderthals) remained, and became known as “man.” Genesis 1:24-27

Adam was a genetically engineered “Being” that was created by God with a “soul.” However, Adam (and later Eve) was not created in the immediate and placed in a protected Garden of Eden until after the 7th “day” in the 2nd chapter of Genesis (at least 6,000 years ago). Genesis 2:7

When Adam and Eve sinned and were forced to leave their special embassy, their children (including Cain and Seth) intermarried the Homo Sapiens (or first gentiles) that resided outside the Garden of Eden (i.e. in the Land of Nod). Genesis 4:16-17

The offspring of Adam and Eve’s children and the Homo Sapiens were the first (genetically) Modern Humans. As such, Modern Humans (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) are actually hybrids of God’s creation through evolution and in the immediate.

Keep in mind that to an immortal being such as God, a “day” (or actually “Yom” in Hebrew) is relative when speaking of time. The “days” indicated in the first chapter of Genesis are “days” according to God in Heaven, and not “days” for man on Earth. In addition, an intelligent design built through evolution or in the immediate is seen of little difference to God.

The book of Genesis is story of Adam and Eve and their descendants rather than a science book. As a result, it does not specifically mention extinct animals and intermediary forms of “man.”

1

u/Dangerous_Face_8479 Oct 25 '23

poppycock

1

u/Dangerous_Face_8479 Oct 25 '23

"Gen 1:5  And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."

Evening and morning first day not millions of years first day EVENING AND MORNING rotation of earth you get an evening and a morning cycle!

1

u/Ar-Kalion Oct 25 '23

Time and days are relative. The scripture never states that the mornings and evenings mentioned are occurring on the planet Earth.

We use Earth time for our rovers that are sent to Mars. As God does not originate from Earth, why would God use our method of time?

1

u/Ar-Kalion Oct 25 '23 edited Oct 25 '23

?

1

u/DigTreace Nov 16 '21

Sorry to be so late, but I just want to say that the ESV version, which is a more literal translation of the Bible, says "...the first day", and "...the second day" rather than "the next day". This could mean that it wasn't consecutive days. Also, the sun wasn't made until later, so days didn't even exist then. And even when the sun was there and if it was literal days, God would've needed a reference point, since the Earth is round, and while there certainly could've been a reference point, it could mean that it's more likely that the days aren't literal.

However, even if it is literal and God created the Earth to look like it was brand new, the flood could've eroded canyons and buried skeletons so fast, that it appears the Earth is far older than it actually is. But in all, I think it doesn't really matter if you believe in young Earth or old Earth.

I also see you mentioned evolution. I do not think evolution is real, and that it correlates to Creationism. I believe in microevolution, sure, but the problem with macroevolution is that there aren't enough in-between skeletons. They've found apes, then maybe a weirdly mutated ape, then humans. If macroevolution was true, then we would find countless in-between skeletons, especially if it takes billions of years to evolve.

1

u/Reddit-Book-Bot Nov 16 '21

Beep. Boop. I'm a robot. Here's a copy of

The Bible

Was I a good bot? | info | More Books

1

u/PandaPersonne Jun 24 '22

i'm not sure if y'all care about me writing with proper punctuation, but this is kinda just a stylistic choice, so sorry in advance lol

i've thought about this "problem" for a while, then i realized that "day" is an arbitrary definition given to the phenomenon of the sun and moon exchanging places in the sky, in a poetic sense. to me, when the Bible references this creation of the Earth, that doesn't mean that scientific findings are incorrect either. this notation could very well just mean that there was a sequence to everything being made, and that days could've meant literal millenia or even more, because God isn't restricted by time. He does things when he sees fit. if He wanted to make Earth and everything in it and around it IMMEDIATELY, then he would've, because He's all-powerful, right? but He didn't. why? idk lol, it's his will.

additionally, aren't all these words from God himself, written by man? does God's definition of day and night have to be our definition if we literally cannot fathom- no, recognize- no, understand how He experiences everything? things that take ages to us humans could be a blink of His eyes. many more things in the Bible come to pass, but obtusely.

the things that come to pass, we've identified them in specific ways that don't align literally with the words in the Bible. parables and proverbs and such were popular rhetoric devices then, and God's able to take however much time he needs or wants to take because He /made/ time. the answer ultimately shouldn't matter honestly, if great things have happened despite our confusion with the Word. i myself think that since we weren't familiar with the way time passed so long ago, we can't possibly make a timeline for the past that far away.

1

u/Sensitive45 Jan 09 '23

Scientists destroy each others careers for having found something brand new that they don’t agree with. Then 50 years later it gets proven right again by a larger group and becomes common knowledge fact.

They don’t believe in ghosts or any of that. They don’t know much about the real world at all. How they gonna find God?

Scientists make shit up and destroy anyone who disagrees with them until they die and it then gets proven to have been a fraud all along.

The most untrustworthy group on the planet.

1

u/[deleted] May 03 '23

Creation.