Anglicans oficially embrace evolution.

Also from the Anglican website:

http://www.cofe.anglican.org/darwin/bishopswindon.html


A welcome from Rt Revd Dr Lee Rayfield SOSc, Bishop of Swindon

Quote:

The anniversaries associated with the life, discoveries and writing of Charles Darwin will no doubt prompt many to take a different view. On the one hand, that Darwin's theories on the origin of species sounded the death knell for belief in a Creator God. On the other, that accepting a place for evolution in the development of homo sapiens is tantamount to atheism and flies in the face of Scripture. Such extreme and opposing voices are loud and hard to ignore. However, those using this site will find here a more balanced assessment of the role Charles Darwin has played in the conversation between the Church and the Academy.

I wasn't aware that the Church of England had become so liberal.

Quote:

Original post by JSoftware I got the feeling that creationism was mostly only practiced in America. But then again, I'm not that updated on the general practice of religion these days

I think you're right.

Anyway, it doesn't change anything. The Anglican church is a bit of a joke even to most young English Christians.

well the
'126 years after his death' is not why theyre doint it
126???! cause in a few months time feb next year, its in fact 200 years (feb 1809) since his birth, thus they are trying premeditate this occasion.
anyways good on them, it took number of years
for the church to say the sun travelled around the earth instead of visa versa thus this is a major step

Silly.

1. The first chapter of Genesis in the Bible explains the origins of everything in the universe.
2. The bible is always believed to be 100% true by Christians since it's the revealed word of God, which, by the nature of God, can never be false.
3. Science disagrees with biblical claims.
4. Now the church of England favors evolution over creationism, which means premise #1 and #2 are now wrong, by consequence of what follows.
5. Just to be extra clear, there is no interpretation except the literal interpretation of Genesis. One "day" of creation is one earth day -- not some indeterminate amount of time which could have spanned billions of years. (I hate when people try to change their interpretation in order to believe two contradictory beliefs. It's a dishonest way of dealing with cognitive dissonance and the dilemma it creates.)

I'm interested to know what the Angelican's think about premise #2 now that their church has accepted Darwins ideas of evolution and natural selection, comparing it to the mistake they made in persecuting Galileo? If even one part of the bible are false, then that throws into doubt the truth of all parts of the bible.

Quote:

Original post by slayemin 3. Science disagrees with biblical claims. 5. Just to be extra clear, there is no interpretation except the literal interpretation of Genesis. One "day" of creation is one earth day -- not some indeterminate amount of time which could have spanned billions of years.

Sorry that's not true. Just because your English version says "day" doesn't mean it's a literal translation. I don't know Greek or Hebrew, or understand exactly why it's difficult, but translators say it is hard and sometimes impossible to get a direct English translation.
Also, as you you say, the creation of the universe is covered in one chapter, which is about a page. The emphasis is to set out right from the start God's position as creator and sustainer of the universe, not to describe how he built it. If you believe God created the universe, and you only have a page to write about it, for a society which doesn't really have any scientific knowledge or even know about science, you're kind of limited. It's be like trying to explain the internet in one page to someone who doesn't know what a computer is!

Quote:

Original post by d000hg Quote: Original post by slayemin 3. Science disagrees with biblical claims. 5. Just to be extra clear, there is no interpretation except the literal interpretation of Genesis. One "day" of creation is one earth day -- not some indeterminate amount of time which could have spanned billions of years. Sorry that's not true. Just because your English version says "day" doesn't mean it's a literal translation. I don't know Greek or Hebrew, or understand exactly why it's difficult, but translators say it is hard and sometimes impossible to get a direct English translation.

This is an argument of definition on what "day" is according to the bible. Using the King James Version of the bible, it really leaves no room to question the definition of a day.

Quote:

1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4: And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5: And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. 6: And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7: And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8: And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. 9: And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10: And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. 11: And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12: And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 13: And the evening and the morning were the third day. .....

You really have no choice but to conclude that we're talking about Earth days here. Was the meaning lost in translation? I doubt it...but if it was, then shouldn't every passage in the bible be scrutinized under a magnifying glass by translators to ensure there isn't a misunderstanding of meaning?

Does it really matter? Religion is, and always will be, a gigantic pot of personal interpretation so that each follower can bend their belief into something they are more comfortable with accepting. If adjusting their interpretation of the Genesis helps them both believe in a god as well as evolution, good for them. I don't see why anyone else should feel inclined to say they are incorrect.

Quote:

Original post by d000hg Also, as you you say, the creation of the universe is covered in one chapter, which is about a page. The emphasis is to set out right from the start God's position as creator and sustainer of the universe, not to describe how he built it. If you believe God created the universe, and you only have a page to write about it, for a society which doesn't really have any scientific knowledge or even know about science, you're kind of limited. It's be like trying to explain the internet in one page to someone who doesn't know what a computer is!

Yes but in order to "explain" something you have to understand it your self. Am I really going to believe an author I know nothing about, talking about his views about the creation of the universe (which are 2.000 years dated). And then say it's all metaphoric, so you can interpret it in any way you like (which has been done a lot trough the course of history). And on top of that it's a carefully selected group of authors (so God not only directly spoke to them, but then spoke to the Bible editors as well).
And what's the point of it anyway ? To take your comparison it would be like a person who I know nothing about (I don't even know if he knows what a PC is) tried to explain 90's version of the internet to me trough some metaphors which really can't be translated to anything usable, and therefore have no practical value.

Bible teaches a lot of morale/ethic rules which I agree with, but it places the wrong reasons behind them, and it puts it self literally in the position of a shepherd and you in to a sheep (also note this, isn't it interesting that the word shepherd returns 3 pictures with Biblical theme in the first search row, and the first picture ?). Negative sides of this approach should be obvious.
I've personally read only a few books in the bible, and it was one of the least stimulating reads ... IMO I'm far better off reading philosophy books, at least they get me thinking.

Quote:

Original post by slayemin 2. The bible is always believed to be 100% true by Christians since it's the revealed word of God, which, by the nature of God, can never be false.

I don't recall ever meeting a Christian who took the Bible 100% literally. I know I don't.

Quote:

Original post by benryves Quote: Original post by slayemin 2. The bible is always believed to be 100% true by Christians since it's the revealed word of God, which, by the nature of God, can never be false. I don't recall ever meeting a Christian who took the Bible 100% literally. I know I don't.

The rule that's followed by most theologians is to take the text as literal unless there is something in it to suggest otherwise. When you start picking and choosing what to take as literal and what to not take as literal you start injecting your personal opinion into scripture, which is not a good place to go.

Yes, there are some places in scripture where less-than-accurate translation of words happens. One of these could be "day" in Genesis. "And the evening and the morning were the < value > day." doesn't necessarily have to be a 24 hour period. Ultimately it doesn't matter though. What's important is WHO created and WHAT he created, not how long he took to do it. After all:

2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Don't quibble over minor details that don't really matter.

Quote:

Original post by benryves Quote: Original post by slayemin 2. The bible is always believed to be 100% true by Christians since it's the revealed word of God, which, by the nature of God, can never be false. I don't recall ever meeting a Christian who took the Bible 100% literally. I know I don't.

I've only met a handful who literally took everything in the bible to be true. Most of the Christians I've met focus more on the interpreted message behind the words rather than the literal text. There's more of a focus on the gospels and most of the Old Testament becomes sort of like flavour text (apart from important precepts like the Ten Commandments).

I always thought the Anglicans were one of the denominations that took a more liberal rather than literal view of the text, at least as far as Genesis goes. I didn't think they had any problem with evolution.

Quote:

Original post by slayemin 2. The bible is always believed to be 100% true by Christians since it's the revealed word of God, which, by the nature of God, can never be false.

What on Earth gives you that idea? A few of the more evangelical nutcases in the US might take it literally. But the vast majority of Christians certainly don't.

Quote:

5. Just to be extra clear, there is no interpretation except the literal interpretation of Genesis. One "day" of creation is one earth day -- not some indeterminate amount of time which could have spanned billions of years. (I hate when people try to change their interpretation in order to believe two contradictory beliefs. It's a dishonest way of dealing with cognitive dissonance and the dilemma it creates.)

No more dishonest than trying to tell others how they should or should not interpret the Bible, I'd say. How do you know that their interpretation isn't actually the correct one?

Quote:

I'm interested to know what the Angelican's think about premise #2 now that their church has accepted Darwins ideas of evolution and natural selection

They think the same they've done for centuries: That it's not true. Your "premise" is flawed, as evidenced by the vast majority of Christians, who *don't* believe the Bible to be 100% literally true.

Quote:

comparing it to the mistake they made in persecuting Galileo? If even one part of the bible are false, then that throws into doubt the truth of all parts of the bible.

Lots of things throw the truth of the Bible into doubt. What is one more?
Christians are used to that. They decide on an interpretation they believe to be true, and that's all there is to it. Some doubts are resolved one way (Darwin was right, the literal bible is wrong here), others are resolved the other way (God exists).

Quote:

The rule that's followed by most theologians is to take the text as literal unless there is something in it to suggest otherwise

Just curious about that one. What do you mean by "something in it"? There's nothing in the creation story in the Bible that suggests it's false, is there? There's something in the world outside which suggests that it's false, but nothing in the text itself. Is that what you meant, or are theologians really only interested if the text *itself* suggests that it shouldn't be taken literally?

I think, when a day is defined as a single rotation of the planet Earth about its axis, and you measure time by "days" before the planet Earth is created, and you are talking about a God who transcends time and space, having created the laws of physics themselves, then that is a pretty good indication that the word "day" shouldn't be taken literally.

Quote:

Original post by Machaira But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

James T. Kirk is God!!!


/Admiral, if we go "by the book" hours could seem like days...
//Paging John Hattan, founder of Shatnerology

Quote:

Original post by benryves I don't recall ever meeting a Christian who took the Bible 100% literally. I know I don't.

That's because you don't live in the American South. I've run into more than my fair share of people who believe every single passage of the Bible is the complete, unequivocal, and literal truth. How they reconcile the heaps of passages that directly contradict each other (not to mention observable reality) is anyone's guess.

Isn't the Daily Mail something of a joke? a gossip rag?

Given the schism in the Anglican church over gay bishops, they might as well go for broke now. There must be a long list of sins they can apologize for.

Quote:

Original post by Spoonbender Quote: The rule that's followed by most theologians is to take the text as literal unless there is something in it to suggest otherwise Just curious about that one. What do you mean by "something in it"? There's nothing in the creation story in the Bible that suggests it's false, is there? There's something in the world outside which suggests that it's false, but nothing in the text itself. Is that what you meant, or are theologians really only interested if the text *itself* suggests that it shouldn't be taken literally?

It's not whether something is false or not, it's whether something is to be taken literally or not. For example many of the Psalms say God has wings:

Psa 36:7 How excellent [is] thy lovingkindness, O God! therefore the children of men put their trust under the shadow of thy wings.

Are we to take this literally, that God has wings? Of course not. It's a literary device to show the protection of God.

Hermeneutics is what I'm talking about here.

Is there anything in the story of creation to suggest it's not to be taken literally? No.

Quote:

Original post by capn_midnight I think, when a day is defined as a single rotation of the planet Earth about its axis, and you measure time by "days" before the planet Earth is created, and you are talking about a God who transcends time and space, having created the laws of physics themselves, then that is a pretty good indication that the word "day" shouldn't be taken literally.

Although God, knowing that the rotation of the Earth would take a certain amount of time, could have created things in that period of time. This is quibbling over details that don't really matter though. Does it really matter if God took a millisecond or 1000 years to create something? No. What's important is WHO created and WHAT he created, not how long he took to do so. The argument over the time creation took is pointless. The argument about HOW he created has some merit, but nowhere in scripture does it lead us to think that man or anything else was created as part of an evolutionary process.

I find it strange that scientist (which is what alot of people here are) believe in the crap called religion.
Crap you say? well yes it is my opinion and I am entitled to it. God created man - O did he really, then why do we have a coccyx? Or was this Neanderthal man that died out? Did god (yes small 'g') also create the dinosaurs?
Whilst the church has told scientist that they are wrong, like Darwin and Galileo, and seeing that these same people "speak" to god, did this god not tell them
"Hey listen little man, you are talking out of your arse. Of course the Earth is not the centre of the Solar System and of course I did not create everything(or even anything)"?
You know there is just too much wrong about religion to even try and make it true, yet people still believe in it and the reason I see is that people can not accept death. This is not to say they people do not believe they are going to die, yet that after death there is nothing there is no heaven there is no hell and there is even no limbo; where the church used to say dead young children are send when they have not been baptised!