Evolution Isn’t About Darwin—It’s About Salvation Before You Die
This post is my Christmas gift to the community, as host of this series. While it was written with Christians in mind, its good news message applies equally to everyone.
Evolution isn’t just about Darwin, dinosaurs, and DNA. It’s about whether you and your loved ones are going to settle for a precarious promise of paradise after you die, or whether you’ll experience real heavenly joy in this life. It’s about whether you and those you care most deeply about are going to actually experience “the peace that passes all understanding,” for real, or be resigned to struggling with your “sinful nature” (and/or judging others for doing so) till the day you die.
It should not be a surprise that alcoholism, drug dependence, domestic violence, porn addiction, and both abortion and suicide rates are highest in religiously conservative parts of the U.S. (1), and that the least religious countries report the highest levels of personal and social wellbeing (2) & (3). Not only shouldn’t this be a surprise, it should be expected—given that the majority of religious conservatives are trying to navigate their lives by the Bible alone. Trying to live your life according to a woefully outdated map of reality, rather than what God has been revealing for centuries through scientific and historical evidence and cross-cultural experience, is like trying to drive from St. Louis to Portland with a GPS that has the Oregon Trail as its pre-programmed map. Good luck!
You can “turn it over to Jesus” a thousand times, you can read your Bible hours every day, you can fast regularly and pray unceasingly, but if you think that your troublesome thoughts, feelings, and “bad habits” are the result of your great, great, great, great… grandmother eating an apple, don’t be surprised if you feel robbed of joy again and again. A mythic view of God and the human condition is impotent, compared to a natural, factual understanding of Reality (God) and of our human foibles and inherited proclivities.
Only by having an evolutionary appreciation of the challenges of living with “mismatched instincts” in a world of “supernormal stimuli” can we even hope to begin finding some gratitude for our un-chosen nature—and gratitude is the essential first step for real, this-world salvation.
Consider: ten thousand years ago, our ancestors lived in environments free of alcohol, free of Vicodin, free of crack cocaine or methamphetamines. They were never tempted by obesity-engendering concentrations of sugar, salt, and fat: they had no cookies, French fries, grain-fed beef burgers—and certainly no ice cream. Indeed, because famines happened so often, the people who survived back then to become our ancestors (and who passed on their genes to help us do the same) were the ones exceptionally good at putting on fat after a successful hunt or harvest, and keeping it for as long as possible.
Prior to paper and photography, there was no realistic porn. Prior to the internet, there was no instantly accessible moving porn—and thus no epidemic of “sex addiction” and far fewer ruined lives.
You get the picture. Times have changed—enormously. The fact that so many of us fall to one form or another of unhealthy or degrading habit may not be our fault, but it is our responsibility! We set ourselves on the path of this-world redemption most assuredly by reaching for the sources of guidance aimed at the challenges in our times—not those of our sheep-herding religious forebears.
When we begin to see through this new lens of understanding, a kind of peace arrives almost at once. We realize this simple truth: If our ancestors had not been blessed with the very same instincts that seem like a curse to us—if they had not had a strong desire to eat whenever food could be found, if they had not craved sexual experience, if they had not had instincts to repeat any novel activity that felt good—then none of us would have been born. It’s really that simple.
More, by interpreting scriptural and traditional insights such as “The Fall of Adam and Eve” and “Original Sin” mythically, rather than literally, I now have a deeper appreciation of their practical wisdom than ever before.
So, yes, I am truly grateful for the instincts that challenge me most and that challenge those I love. I, and they, would never have known the joy of existence without them.
Might you, too, open to letting the solace of gratitude wash over you? Might you nurture a heart of genuine thanksgiving for the countless ancestors who struggled and survived to make your birth possible? Can you feel grateful for your religious ancestors who compiled written guidance thousands of years ago to assist in the human struggles that darkened their times? Can you imagine transforming judgment or guilt into acceptance of and gratitude for the mismatched instincts that cause you and your loved ones so much pain today?
If you can, then you, too, will begin to walk a path of this-world salvation. By shedding condemnation for yourself and the wayward ones in your life, you will experience a new clarity, a new calm, a new humility and lightness of being—a new hope. Surely, “abiding in Christ” cannot mean anything less (or less real) than this!
Here is what ultimately is available along this path: You will be able to love like Jesus—that is, you will be able to love that which may now seem utterly unlovable, while you calmly hold to firm boundaries for maintaining your own standards of goodness—indeed, safety—in the presence of others who continue to struggle.
And then, lo, you will find heaven on Earth. You will experience peace no matter what the challenges in your life.
Will you join me, and thousands of others on this path?
If so, I suggest you begin by watching this documentary about the evolutionary gospel I share with religious and non-religious audiences alike, and my “Evolutionize Your Life: Heaven Is Coming Home to Reality” program that inspired it. Then join the conversation here!
Co-evolutionary blessings,
~ Michael
PS. Beyond the above, an evidential view of reality interpreted meaningfully has also been salvific for me in these four ways:
1. It has given me an inspiring and trust-engendering way of understanding the role of death in the universe, including the inevitability of my own death and the death of loved ones. (Also see: “What Happens When We Die?“)
2. It has helped me appreciate how important (indeed, necessary) are chaos and breakdowns for catalyzing evolutionary emergence.
3. It has provided a realistically hopeful way of thinking about the future and humanity’s role in the larger body of life.
4. It has offered me a post-modern “personal relationship to God” that is far more comforting and empowering than the pre-modern, unnatural and otherworldly view of God I held when I was an idolator of the written word.
I’ll speak to each of these in my conversation that goes live on January 14.

Michael Dowd
Dear Michael,
I’ve been looking at your nonsense for weeks now and, while I am concerned for your soul and am praying for you, you have provided me with many a laughs.
Instead of the God of the Bible, the god that you worship is one that you have devised to serve you. You can ignore all the uncomfortable Truths of the Bible, but one day you face Him and realize just how absurd and ridiculous your “Evolutionary Christianity” is.
“And for this reason, God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.”
- 1 Thessalonians 2:11,12.
‘Praying you through,
In Christ,
Julie Haberle
Julie,
Thanks for caring enough and having the courage to tell me your truth! I’m curious, however, did you actually read this post?
In case you’re not aware of it, many of the world’s most popular and widely read “New Atheists” are promoting Bible reading precisely because of the “God of the Bible”. Millions of young people are turning their backs on Christianity because the God portrayed in scripture, when interpreted literally, is repulsive to so many of them. As I heard one young ex-Christian say, when asked why he left the church, “The God of the Old Testament and Book of Revelation is worse than Hitler, Pol Pot, and Stalin combined. I mean, methodically and brutally torturing billions of men, women, and children, not just for hours or months or years, but forever!? If that doesn’t qualify as evil, what possibly could?”
As PZ Myers (an atheist science blogger who is read by some 50,000-60,000 people a day): “There’s no surer way to make an atheist than to get them to actually read scripture.” He can say this with confidence because he has the evidence on his side. If you doubt this, listen to Parts 1 and 2 (Old Testament and New Testament) of Mike Earl’s disturbing audio series, available for free listening online, “Bible Stories Your Parents Never Taught You.”
I also invite you to read and pray about the following:
• Atheists Promote Bible Reading?!
• The Salvation of Religion: From Beliefs to Knowledge
• Evidence: The Decline of Christianity in America
• America’s Religious Decline and Secular Boom
I predict that most forms of Christianity that privilege ancient scripture over current evidence (when thinking about “God’s word”, “divine communication”, or divine guidance”) will be replaced by expressions of the Christian faith that fully embrace an evolutionary, ecological view of reality. I briefly discuss how and why I think this will occur rapidly, in a matter of just 2-3 generations, in my public debate with Dr. Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary:
• Biblical Christianity Is Bankrupt
In any event, thanks again for your courage and compassion.
Wishing you and your loved ones the fullness of the gospel’s promises in this life.
Sincerely,
~ Michael
I am sorry for you Julie. Even if your limited view of God and reality were the whole story, your hostility belies the compassion of Jesus. I think that Michael would respect your need for your belief at this time in your life, but I, possibly with him, would hope for you to experience the “More Than” that both challenges and gives peace.
The above comment was by me – Carol P., not another Carol
Dear Michael,
Thanks so much for an e-zine (if that’s the right word), such as this! I reckon it’s marvellous to have such a radical site such as this, in partcular to bring Christianity into the 21st century! For a number of years, now, after undergoing a “mini-crisis” (my words) in my faith, I have, for a number of years, thanks to, among other influences, my Dad, (and also one of your very panellists, Michael Morwood!!), and also since attending “Common Dereams 2 conference” in April of this year, in Melbourne, I’ve been passionate about Evolutionary/Proressive Christianity, and as a result am stronger in my faith than I’ve ever been!! Thanks for this, and I look forward to many insightful, provocative, and inspiriing articles to come!!
Phillip
Hi Michael,
Jim Sire has written much on worldview. I would appreciate your answering his seven worldview questions and perhaps asking some of your guests to answer one or more of them too.
1) What is the prime reality – the really real?
2) What is nature of external reality – that is, the world around us?
3) What is a human being?
4) What happens to a person at death?
5) Why is it possible to know anything at all?
6) How do we know what is right and wrong?
7) What is meaning of human history?
I have some other questions for your consideration.
1) Who was Jesus Christ – messiah, madman, ….what?
2) Did he really rise from dead?
3) Is there a “personal” God – one that has self-awareness and free will?
4) ID’ers, to my limited experience, are like you – they appeal to the evidence/lack of evidence to buttress their claims. What is the empirical basis for claiming human consciousness is an emergent property of matter? What is the empirical basis for claiming life evolved from non-life?
5) How, if at all, were hitler/stalin/mao wrong to kill millions, since their claimed motives were to be agents for the intentional evolution of a sustainable society?
6) If adherents of intentional evolution were to decide that billions of people had to die for earth to provide a sustainable home for believers in intentional evolution, would they be justified to kill to advance their goal? If not, why not?
Joe,
Your questions are about two decades outdated, brother! I was feeding on Jim Sire’s book in the 80s. Good stuff, up to a point, but he’s completely clueless of the fact that God’s been speaking for centuries through scientific and historical evidence and cross-cultural experience.
In response to your questions of me, I respectfully refer you to the very same resources I mention in my response to Julie, above.
Also see here: Evolution as Meaningful, Inspiring Fact
Co-evolutionary blessings,
~ Michael
With respect to your question about an evolutionary Christianity view of death and “the afterlife”, here’s my response (my guests in this series might have a different understanding):
What Happens When We Die?
Michael,
There’s alot to be said about the idea of death as generative and a blessing in disguise. In fact when I first read about this in TGFE I wondered if it could serve as a resolution to the perennial Problem of Evil – although I don’t think you ever put it in such terms.
At the same time, it’s not clear to me that the possibility of an afterlife would have to be repugnant as you put it. It’s a “state” we can’t even begin to conceive of, so I don’t see how or why it would have to be one of torment, boredom, or anything else bad. You might be referring to what traditional religious conceptions look/sound like. But who says we have to conceive of the afterlife along those lines? You’re judging the afterlife on the basis of our familiar spatial and temporal conditions, and it doesn’t seem likely that consciousness would have to be restricted by such boundaries in a disembodied state. If that seems too unnatural, even New Atheist Sam Harris himself stated in his book The End of Faith that we don’t know what happens to our consciousness after we die. If someone like him can be so agnostic about it, perhaps we can expect more.
Jim
Yes, Jim, I am referring to the traditional ways that heaven or “the afterlife” has been spoken about.
I’m a thoroughgoing mystic naturalist. If I “go” anywhere other than where all plants and animals and species throughout Earth’s history have “gone”, I’m gonna be pissed!
Hi Michael,
I do not find Sire’s framework for evaluating worldview outdated.
I accept you disagree as to how he answers the 7 questions for the reasons you stated, but I do not agree that makes the 7 questions themselves invalid or dated – only your opinion of his answers for himself, which he freely states are his answers, not the only possible valid ones – in fact he states there are other valid answers. He may disagree with them, as a Christian, but he disagrees as a matter of faith, not because he can disprove their answers.
I really do not think your directing me to lengthly bibliography answers my questions. I accept you have a lot of your plate and have to ration your time and attention. Me too.
I hope to obtain your book in next day or so and will make a point of reading carefully it to get a better understanding how you distinguish evolutionary Christianity from naturalism or monism.
Joe
PS – the NY TIMES published a book review of Sam Harris’ latest work, “the moral landscape – how science can determine human values’ 2 months ago
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/03/books/review/Appiah-t.html?_r=1&scp=5&sq=new+atheists&st=nyt
the review concludes:
“Yet such science is best appreciated with a sense of what we can and cannot expect from it, and a real contribution to the old project of a “naturalized ethics” would have required a fuller engagement with its contradictions and complications. Instead, the landscape that the book calls to mind is that of a city a few days after a snowstorm. A marvelously clear avenue stretches before us, but the looming banks to either side betray how much has been unceremoniously swept aside.”
That is concern about what I read of evolutionary christianity – to answer some questions, it pushes others aside. But let me read your book and perhaps some other things, before i conclude that you are, at end of day, espousing a plan for human eugenics and those unfortunate/dim-witted/fundamentalistic/etc who do not embrace it must be eliminated for the good of intentional evolution.
Joe, see below for my reply to you. I posted it in the wrong place.
I am so very grateful for an evolutionary view of Christianity that has opened up a whole new world. Yes I too was once an idolator of the written word, for that is what the church teaches. It has been so refreshing to participate in a local Christian church that seems awakened to this much bigger notion of God, not the mythic (impotent) God of the past, when there was no notion of deep time and space. Even classic hymns take on a whole new meaning! This evolutionary view of God, and indeed the world, has given more meaning and depth to my worship and my daily walk as a Christian, realizing heaven on earth, not heaven after we die! That is what Jesus taught—that we must die to self in order to live. Thank you for your teachings!
You’re most welcome, Anna. Thanks for your wonderful comment!!
Joe, thanks for understanding. Yes, it’s true that I have a lot on my plate. But more than that, I don’t sense that you’ve really engaged with my thinking from a generous-hearted place yet. And until you engage any author or thinker from that stance, they are much less likely to interact with you in any meaningful way. (As would also be the case were someone communicated with you as you are with me.)
To my mind, expecting any author I’m challenging to interact with me (especially to respond to my critical inquiry or a list of skeptical questions) before truly engaging with their work, with at least a partially appreciative eye, is disrespectful at best.
And yes, book will give you my clearest answers to every single one of Sire’s questions that you asked me—and your questions too. The only exception is my blog post, “What Happens When We Die?“, which says more than what was in my book.
Most of your comment above, Joe, leads me toward you. Your last paragraph, however, leads me to want to write you off.
Please take time to read (or at least skim) these wide-ranging endorsements from religious leaders re the message I’m teaching and preaching.
How many of these folk do you honestly think would have gone on record as celebrating my book and my approach if what I was advocating led in the direction of your last paragraph?
I think your fear has perhaps blinded you.
Open your eyes, my friend. There’s a whole universe of grace available to those with eyes to see and ears to hear.
Hi Michael,
I just checked with amazon, your book should arrive in next day or so, I will make a priority of reading it, just as I have listening to the podcasts.
“truth has nothing to fear from truth,” I much appreciate your using your talents and skill in a calling that tries to ascertain and apply truth to our human condition.
But yes, I do have a skeptical, questioning attitude. I am not trying to be off-putting, the answer could be that my approach to empirical fact via tough questioning does not comport with the “truth” that must be operative for civilization to survive.
Just because I believe, at this point, that “truth” is a personal God exists, whose will I should consciously try to ascertain and advance via my thoughts, words and deeds, consistent with the “truth” that I am a creature, created, in part at least, for this purpose, does not make it so. “faith” is “faith” – not empirical fact. If the empirical facts demonstrate the falsity of a doctrine of faith, in my worldview, the faith must change, not the facts that disprove that claim of faith. And I should be appreciative for the people and circumstances that advanced my knowledge of truth.
If we received intelligible communication, via physical means, from outside planet earth, it would force me to to alter my worldview. If science demonstrated how consciousness can arise from inaminate material, it would force me to change my worldview, etc.
There are many other worldviews, all of which can claim some evidentiary basis, as Sire’s books (as many other books cited in his work and elsewhere detail.)
I openly question whether earth can support 7 billion people in a sustainable way. I appreciate your sharing “the evolution manifesto” with me, I think its title is not a coincidence, and the theology of communism, as one of its fruits, included much state sponsored killing of their own citizens, to advance its ideological ends.
the evidence is that we are the only conscious, physical, beings in the universe and that we are approaching any number of precipices to modern society. Just like obama will not take use of force off table aboun Iran, I do not perceive an intentional evolutionist being able to take euthanasia, eugenics, intentional population reduction, etc off the table to intentionally evolve humanity/human society to a sustainable place.
They could renounce it, like China has renounced the first use of nuclear weapons, but I did not see it explicitly renounced in the evolution manifesto. It could say something as “we may reach a point in which the choice is to intentionally reduce population in a short period of time by intentionally ending lives or collectively fail to attain a sustainable society, in such a circumstance, we will not intentionally reduce population.”
Tough calls have to be made, if humanity is to reach 2100 in a desirable fashion, that is my opinion. So where, if at all, in God’s will in it and how, if at all, can it be reliably ascertained?
Just as a theistic worldview begs question “who created God?,” any worldview posits axioms that must be accepted as true for logic to apply in using them to develop a body of “truth.” As worldview that claims to be based in science, has to presume the truth of unprovable axioms which underly the claim that science can produce objective truth.
I much appreciate the time and attention you have given my perceptions, Michael. That is truth as best I can say it. Thank you.
. I am not blowing your work off by asking tough questions, our world is in a tough place, as I see it, and Christianity is not giving answers, at present, that will get us to 2100 in a desirable civilization. Which is why alternatives merit serious consideration. But, as I see it, one has to eat the apple of the knowledge of good and evil, to become as God, judging right from wrong, to become an intentional evolutionist as described in “the evolutionary manifesto.”
Maybe I am seeing it wrong, or maybe the story of man’s fall has to be dismissed as an out of date myth for mankind to survive. I am not creating boundaries to preclude analysis. Kant had to give up certain things to develop his system of philosophy, that is how things seem to be – worldviews have competing claims of “truth,” science is the best tool we have to determine empircal, public, truth about what “is,” in comparing and evaluating those claims.
But when we move to realm of “what ought,” science may well demand significant depopulation of planet earth in a short time.
If you wish to make explicit markers about such things, perhaps similar to “a robot will never hurt a human,” then someone as I could make a more informed decision about evolutionary Christianity, cause faith is always involved in believing any worldview.
Joe, I really do appreciate your tone in what you just wrote.
I offer the following re my understanding of the trajectory of big history and sense of where cultural and technological evolution seems to going (i.e., “what God seems to be doing at this time in Earth’s history”), from an evidential perspective – rather than an perspective based on authority or tradition:
The Trajectory of Human History: Ever-Expanding Cooperation and Compassion (Last part of Chapter 16 in TGFE)
The Empathic Civilization & Age of Empathy
Evolution and the Revival of the Human Spirit (Chapter 3 in TGFE)
Three of My Best Sermons
Good and Bad Reasons for Believing – by Richard Dawkins (Appendix A in TGFE)
Doomsayers Beware, a Bright Future Beckons (I highly recommend Matt Ridley’s latest, The Rational Optimist)
The Symbiotic Man: A New Understanding of the Organization of Life and a Vision of the Future – by Joel DeRosnay (One of the top 10 books I’ve ever read)
Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny – by Robert Wright (Another one of the top 10 books I’ve ever read)
Michael,
I just read your blog regarding what happens when we die, and it seems that you are not considering the massive number of accounts from NDE’s which correspond closely to accounts of the afterlife from multiple cultures, potentially including the Old Testament ones. Likewise knowledge from Neurology suggests that under some circumstances, persons who are considered clinically sane distinguish between themselves and their bodies. Further, a careful consideration of both physics and psychiatry could suggest that all the myths of a two part afterlife, one part for the blessed/righteous and one for the unblessed/unrighteous make perfect sense. Especially if the concept that movement between the two realms, while difficult, is possible. This would render the afterlife a site of potentially continuing education, either reinforcing positive behavior or discouraging negative.
Oh Michael, how we need you and Connie in Australia! Ours is a landscape heavily steeped in biblical literalism to the point where I do not know of one single other soul within my city who has made the leap beyond belief.
Thank God for Evolution was a Christmas gift to self, and has been a riveting read. As has David Sloan Wilson’s book, Evolution for Everyone, which I got as a tip from yourself, and is just blowing me away! I can really feel the expansion of my intelligence, as well as my sense of awe and wonder, as a result of encountering your work.
THANK YOU! You have created another evolutionary evangelist, who will hopefully spread the good news in this barren land!
Thank you, Gary. Go for it!!
And I fully agree with you re David Sloan Wilson’s book, Evolution for Everyone. It’s fabulous!
You’ll enjoy the interview we did with David in his livingroom, last Spring, and also this one with big historian David Christian. They both rock!
I concur that D.S. Wilson’s book is awesome. In fact one of the most interesting features of the book is his treatment of religion. He puts forward the thesis that the ideal religion is one in which factual realism and practical realism are aligned with each other. Actually sounds like a perfect description of what Michael has achieved with his own book and overall work. The same could be said for the speakers of this teleseries. If nothing else, Wilson is living proof that you can be an atheist and still be sensible about religion.
I agree. IMHO, David Sloan Wilson and Loyal Rue (both friends of ours) have the most sophisticated and accurate views of religion out there. See Connie’s short YouTube introduction to Loyal’s book, Religion Is Not About God.
But the very best intro to Loyal Rue’s thinking is his short little volume, Everybody’s Story: Wising Up to the Epic of Evolution, which I consider to be modern-day scripture.
So the old-school theologian used to say, “I’m a miserable sinner and so are you.” And that didn’t get us anywhere but a sense of shame and brokenness. The Evolutionary Christian says, “We’re living in an animal’s body in a modern world, so let’s cut each other some slack.”
In the end, if the Evolutionary Christian gets to a place of patience, peace, kindness, and forgiveness, then giddyup, let’s go!
Just read your comment aloud to Connie and she said, “That’s awesome!” I like it too. Thanks, Peter!
Hi Michael,
I agree that scientific discovery has vastly expanded the ‘voice of God’ speaking to us from creation (Psalm 19). We really do live in a universe billions of years old and filled with evolutionary processes. However, as a zoologist who probably agrees with much of your interpretation of science, I have nevertheless ended up firmly believing in a personal God to whom I have to give an account for my decisions and actions. All I need to know in this regard was, I believe, revealed to us through Jesus Christ.
How can I, as a zoologist, possibly hold such ‘traditional’ views on Christianity? To understand this may I suggest going to my webpage http://www.factandfaith.co.za and read the free download ‘Personal journey of discovery’.
From this personal testimony the reader will, I hope, be able to understand how I have been able to write a 600 page book titled ‘God by Evolution’. A summary of this book is available as a free download from the same webpage.
Best regards,
Michael
Michael,
I’m thrilled that a zoologist like you holds such traditional views on Christianity!
The fact that you and I have different interpretations of our faith tradition (and different understandings that motivate us in a common direction) is, in my world, not a problem. Given an ecosystems view of memetic diversity, I see such differences as a healthy, necessary, thing. Indeed, I see them as a blessing.
I’ll check out your book.
Thank you for sharing your forward looking ideas about how God creates in time and space. As a Urantia Book student I have learned that God wants to partnership with us as we grow through the universe to perfection. Evolution is slow but certain. God has and does create in perfection, but he gives us a chance to become perfect in the finite as he is as Infinite. This growth can begin here and now and we can enjoy the process of learning more about our Heavenly Father day by day.
I appreciate your opening the door to another view point.
Michael,
Have you ever read the Bible? This is a Book, (or a collection of Books) written by God Himself. It starts with a perfect Creation, then a Fall, and basically the rest of the Book(s) are God’s plan and His accomplishment of the restoration of His Creation – especially us.
If you are going to call yourself a Christian, then you need to be teaching from the Book about Christ – the Bible – otherwise you need to give yourself another name.
I wouldn’t be pleased if someone took my book and reinterpreted to say what they wanted it to say. Be very careful how you handle God’s Word.
Bob
Bob, I’ve read the Bible three times. Twice through like a book (taking 6 months the first time and 6 weeks the second), and then once reading just a few chapters a day over the course of a year.
I highly recommend listening to Parts 1 and 2 (Old Testament and New Testament) of Mike Earl’s free online audio, “Bible Stories Your Parents Never Taught You.”
Be forewarned: It will be painful to listen to this. Even though mostly what he does is quote scripture directly, in context, Earl is most certainly not a Christian. But if you want to truly GET how dishonoring to God it is to see the Bible as God’s dictated words, it’s the best of the best. It will also help you see why some of the world’s most vocal atheists are promoting Bible reading.
What we have today is exactly what you call the Word of God. It is written and edited by humans, the canon of scripture. Humanity has sentimentalized all worship, created their own God they control handily, and for profit with tax exemption. All religions prey on people’s emotions. The principles in the Bible are common sense, nothing divine. Most of humanity suffers from monarchy.
The OT was verified with findings of Dead Sea Scrolls but nothing about the NT. The Bible is written using writing techniques of literature; hyperbole, simile, metapors,or anologies.
Most of the characters in the Bible suffered from mental illiness, schizophrenia, delusion, and manic depression. 6 thousand years ago, humanity didn’t have science of human behavior we have today.
Religions seems to offer a nice social interpersonal relationship for people of common belief to congegate.
All spiritual leaders, if you diagnois their behavior correctly create a mystical environment to gain acceptance and adherence.
This web site is using the words “science” and “evolution” as bait and then switching it on you to promote christianity.
Sorry folks, this isn’t a “whole new world”… it’s the same old christianity… which will always remain in complete opposition to science.
Nothing to see here than you haven’t heard before in church or from missionaries.
Brad, you betray your ignorance, my friend. You clearly have not listened to any of the dialogues. Start with Bruce Sanguin.
For my own views, I recommend you watch this documentary and read the other resources mentioned in that post, especially “Biblical Christianity Is Bankrupt“. If that sounds like “the same old message you’ve heard before in church or from missionaries”, then you and I live on different planets.
Michael,
Some additional thoughts on the afterlife. I’m not sure I’ll be able to express this properly, but here goes anyway.
In traditional religious conceptions, there is faith that there is an afterlife to look forward to. In religious naturalism, the idea is to shift that faith in a supernatural God to trusting Ultimate Reality, i.e. that the universe will somehow put everything right in the end. Yet “everything” should include a mode of existence that God/Ultimate Reality/the Universe sprang forth – i.e. that of human individual self-consciousness. Humans are the only species, as far as we can tell, that have to go on living with the (one can say) absurd predicament of being aware of their own eventual extinction, and that of their loved ones. Therefore, I’d suggest, perhaps faith or trust in God/Ultimate Reality/the Universe should include salvation for our individual consciousness, in whatever form or manner that might be.
I’m not saying this proves in any way that there is an afterlife; I’m just saying that trusting the universe to put everything right in the end could or should entail salvation for every mode of creation.
I think I’m coming from a very different place, Jim.
I dwell in heaven now. I have the peace that passes all understanding in this life. Truly! The key, in my experience, is having no secrets, no resentments, and no unfinished business—that is, living in deep integrity (i.e., in right relationship to reality)—and nurturing the habit of interpreting generously, or “making Life right” (i.e, having faith in God).
As I’ve only half humorously said elsewhere, if where I go is somewhere different from where all other animals and plants and bacteria have gone throughout Earth’s history, I’m gonna be pissed.
Knowing that my “self” is as large as the cosmos, pondering the fact that I come from nothing and return to nothing, or come from mystery and return to mystery, or come from God and return to God is all I need. Truthfully, I’m blissed out by knowing that I’ve got one life to live! Reminding myself that I am mortal not only doesn’t fill me with fear, it fills me with comfort and inspiration. I feel deep sadness for those who don’t know the joy and peace and gratitude and trust that such a mystic naturalist perspective affords.
Any so-called faith that doesn’t include trusting that whatever happens on the other side of death is just fine is no faith at all. Fear of a terrifying, hellish after-death scenario OR hope of a blissful, heavenly after-death scenario are just that—fear or hope—not faith, not trust.
I honestly don’t want or need anything beyond this view:
What Happens When We Die?
I wish the same for you and everyone reading this.
Michael,
I understand you’re coming from a very different place, and I’m not trying to oppose your positions but rather offering some insights that may complement yours. At the very least I’m just wondering how much room there may be for certain logical possibilities to follow from certain premises. In this case, I wondered if such a conception of the afterlife as I suggested could follow from your premises of a universe that can be trusted to put everything right in the end. You might say that I’m looking for evidence as “ground for belief” as opposed to evidence as “proof.”
I personally find much to embrace from Evolutionary Christianity, especially as you present it. But I think you’d agree that, in the final analysis, we all have to arrive at a synthesis of knowledge and beliefs that satisfies our own needs, temperament and experience. Even the differences between you and the speakers of this teleseries suggest that much. In the end, however, a core commonality unites us all.
Absolutely, Jim! If someone has a joyous life and is leaving a positive legacy and they imagine more for themselves when they die, that’s great! No argument from me at all. It’s those who are holding out hope for an unnatural paradise and clueless to the fact that the promises of religion are available in this life that I’m trying to reach.
This is interesting, you’re on target with all religions teaching about an afterlife, new life,or next life. I began in graduate school seeing early world cultures worshipping God and all seem similiar in their hope of an afterlife. This common hope of all cultures led me to suspect the teaching is false, I still believe this life is all there is. It is an unfortunate belief for me but realistic. I wouldn’t suggest other people not believe in an afterlife, especially if they value it greatly. Studying the life cycle of all species re-enforce my position and even the Bible says, life will return to dirt. No heaven has ever been verified with scientific evidence. Jesus that claimed to go to heaven and then return to earth spoke to the imaginary God and Satan. Jesus was suicidial and delusional.
Michael,
How come your God does not seem like the God of the Holy Bible that I know? I think you need to be re-introduced to the Lord Jesus Christ, this short poem will do that…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNJ5oi1cw2I
In Christ,
Linda
Linda, as should be clear if you read my response to the understandably cynical question you posed on my “Why Evangelize Evolution?” post, I have a much more intimate relationship to God and Jesus now than I did when I was a biblical literalist.
Michael,
With your quote “Millions of young people are turning their backs on Christianity because the God portrayed in scripture, when interpreted literally, is repulsive to so many of them,” it seems that you’re attempting to simply change what scripture says in order to fit your beliefs that run counter to much of scripture. Additionally, with the deepening and widening flaws (scientifically and evidentially) found in the belief system of evolution, your approach comes across as a convenient way to save it.
Interested in your response.
Mark
Mark, thanks for your question/challenge. My quickie response is simply to point you to the evidence and trust the Holy Spirit to speak to your heart. For example, it’s not just difficult, It’s impossible to understanding the meaning and magnitude of the gospel today if someone is stuck in 2,000 year old ways of thinking about it, and/or if they are clueless (as most evangelicals currently are) about what God has revealed (through scientific and historical evidence) over the last 200 years about human nature, death, and the flow of big history.) I also invite you to see and prayerfully consider the following…
The Decline of Christianity in America
America’s Religious Decline and Secular Boom
Evidence: The Decline of Christianity in America
Evolution as Inspiring, Meaningful Fact
What’s Real? What’s Important?—Evidence as Divine Guidance
God’s richest blessings,
~ Michael
HI Michael,
I appreciate your work and the great attitude you take toward life, the issues, others, and your purpose. Yet, I think you are missing something.
I have been, and am, on a journey in my understanding. (We all are, or should be.) And I sympathize with where you have come to. I do believe the weight of evidence for an old world, and old life are beyond doubt. But, I also am at the place where I cannot doubt there is a being out there who I have to identify to be an entity apart from the universe etc. God in a more traditional sense. I actually think you are being a little manipulative and deceptive to utilize the word “God” when you really mean the Universe or the like. Yes, you explain it, but perhaps its more suitable to use the real terms instead of giving the impression one is trying to look like something else. eg “Christian” or “Gospel”. Words that have a longstanding use in quite different contexts.
As you can see on this link below. I think that the view that evolution deletes the possibility of there being a God/god is a myth. As one person questioned above re deism – if there were a “distant landlord” type God, could he/she or it not step in at some point. Absolutely. How dare I have the audacity and arrogance to think that my being is the greatest there is or could be?
http://www.avoidglasses.com/the-evolution-deletes-god-myth/
I have experienced too many things in my life to accept that there is NOT someone out there. How, or Who, or When that being or beings came to be I don’t know, but having no answer for that is no more difficult than having no answer how the universe, or a million of them, could come to be – and nobody has an answer for that.
You suggest Christianity is on the decline. Yes, I agree, and unless Christianity comes to grips with an evolutionary process, it will continue. It will do so, and hopefully can synthesize a view of the universe and God that if nothing else captures the essence of the positive values that Christianity has provided society. (yes – its also done some great harm, but usually aberrations of the above)
As I note in a link on the above page, there is ample evidence that the values of Christianity provide happier, healthier, and more generous people than does an atheistic one.
My point. An evolutionary process yes, but your conviction about God being the universe, rather than individual being denies a core reality of our humanity that have evolved to reflect an external reality. Where you find worship, you find God – not a universe!
Anyway, appreciate you input. There are many unanswered questions. I don’t think atheists or fundamentalists will find the answers. Truth is seldom found at the extreme ends of a spectrum.
Cheers
“How can Bible God expect any rational human being to accept His existence based on a book written by men?”
From the moment the first (hu)Man could look at her and say “I am”, “You are”, “let’s Dance”, and she could say “I’d love to” :
There has also been worship. Was that dawning of intelligence pure, random chance or tinkered with? Who knows, but every religious tradition, every sacred writing, every faith, has grown out of a response to something. What? If it is not some external reality or being beyond us, what is it?
You will probably only find the answer to that by personal experience, but you will be following the footsteps of a million generations who would would swear they were not alone in, or with, the universe. Worship is a beautiful and necessary human response. Don’t kill it, or deny it. Find the recipient of it!
cheers