>>16892261
There are several sects of Christianity which don't teach contrary to evolution. For instance, the Catholic churches (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, etc). Those all teach that the bible is not literally true as a single narrative.

The bible must be viewed as a complex collection of documents of varying intent. That is true even if you aren't religious, as biblical criticism (the secular field of history and literature re: the bible) understands it was written in bits by dozens of people, for dozens of reasons. Think of it like an anthology, not a police report. The older churches all understood this when they assembled it. It was only way, way later that certain protestants began imposing literal and uniform meaning on the thing.

Biblical literalism is an eccentric heresy, which teaches that the institutions which assembled the thing have no ability to interpret it.

I'm not necessarily a Christian, but I've always considered religious texts to be more metaphorical than literal.

If you want to put a label on it, this sort of situation would be known as cognitive dissonance.

>>16892261

most christians just internalize the difference.

many parts of the bible were proven wrong. do you ignore that? nah. the bible has been written, and rewritten and and then hand picked from a large variety, then handed off to whoever ruled at the time to make changes as they saw fit.

the fact that there are thousands of other religions, some not so different, some vastly so, is an indicator that the bible isn't infalliable.

believe in a higher power. no reason not to. but as far as christianity goes, use the bible as a personal tool to help define your relationship with the lord, not as a word of god law. most of the stories in there are not much different than fairy tales. they are meant to teach you lessons. whether or not they actually happened is largely irrelevant. and what it claims is open to large interpretation. they said god made the world ina day. science says no.

but there's that big cliche of 'what is a day to a god?' could god have spent billions of years creating the world, and that was a day to him? the bible has so many ins and outs, that evolution doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of what could be considered 'flaws' within the bible. but literally no one in america is living in any sort of accordance with the bible. its damn near impossible to.

so again, use it as a tool to help define your personal relationship with god. ask for wisdom and you might at the very least find rationalizations. and dont let the words of men in a book confuse you.

I'm just going to leave this here...

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm

i have the opposite. i want to believe in some sort of deity but logic and science wont let me. im just gonna rot when i die, theres no afterlife

>>16892304
Hi anon,

You may find religion implausible, and that's OK. But science isn't why. This is part of a large discussion called the Problem of Demarcation. Specifically, demarcating what is science, or not science, or pseudo-science.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/#KarPop

The prominent philosopher of science Karl Popper suggested that the definition of science is best established by falsification. Popper still enjoys significant support from both scientists and philosophers of science, albeit with some qualifications based on the work of later philosophers.

Short version is: If you can't prove it wrong, it's not science.

That doesn't mean an unfalsifiable claim is necessarily untrue. For instance, can you absolutely prove that torturing cute kittens is immoral? No, which means this isn't a scientific judgement. That doesn't necessarily mean that immorality is a fake concept. It just means that inductive empiricism (the means of doing science) is not the right tool to tackle the question.

I'd suggest that a creator is perfectly logical, although the premises are hard to establish.

Hi OP. You have just come across something that defines our current age. I came from a similar background as you do (christian), i consider myself well-read on the subject of this problem with christianity. Google "Nietzche" and read about his general views on the wikipedia article, you'll come across some real deep stuff. It will change you forever though, beware, but in your case i think it's too late anyway, might as well go all the way. The stuff you are about to learn about the world will either empower you or destroy all your will to live, good luck.

The exact meaning of Creation is bringing something into existence from nothing. Evolution is the development of life forms over time.

There are many forms of truth besides literal, historical truth. Perhaps the creation stories in Genesis contain these other levels of meaning.

>>16892261
You can still be a Christian and believe in evolution. You can't be a Biblical literalist, but this doesn't narrow your choice of sects down all THAT much. Even most fundamentalist sects are not literalist.

You can believe in Jesus, etc. while still acknowledging that the bible was written and edited by human hands over the centuries not simply as a collection of parables but as an ethical codex to be obeyed in ways that would maintain order, public health, and profitable habits subservient to the clergy and the upper class. If you really are Christian then acknowledging that some of the most vile and devious manipulators the world has every known have defiled the name and image of Christ to mislead the flock.

>>16892261
A) Evolution further proves that God is wise, for His creation can change amd adapt.
B) Were you there when the Bible was written? No? Then you'd be naive to take it as the actual word of God.

Lmao at that picture OP

Why exactly do you want to be a Christian, I mean why do you want the label despite your beliefs? If you can examine that you might find something. It must be uncomfortable having things you can't allow yourself to think about.

> Is the bible not entirely as correct as people may think?
The percentage of people who think this is extremely small. A quick wolfram alpha calc puts it at 0.00006310%.

I don't see any reason why you can't believe both.
I am religious, but not Christian, although some people in my faith are creationists as well.

"God gave us science". I believe God wants man to understand the world.